To speed up development, parallelism between the different iterations can be employed. That is, a new iteration commences before the system produced by the current iteration is released, and hence development of a new release happens in parallel with the development of the current release. By starting an iteration before the previous iteration has completed, it is possible to reduce the average delivery time for iterations. However, to support parallel execution, each iteration has to be structured properly and teams have to be organized suitably.
In the timeboxing model, the basic unit of development is a time box, which is of fixed duration. Since the duration is fixed, a key factor in selecting the requirements or features to be built in a time box is what can be fit into the time box. This is in contrast to regular iterative approaches where the functionality is selected and then the time to deliver is determined. Timeboxing changes the perspective of development and makes the schedule a nonnegotiable and a high-priority commitment.
Each time box is divided into a sequence of stages, like in the waterfall model. Each stage performs some clearly defined task for the iteration and produces a clearly defined output. The model also requires that the duration of each stage, that is, the time it takes to complete the task of that stage, is approximately the same. Furthermore, the model requires that there be a dedicated team for each stage. That is, the team for a stage performs only tasks of that stage—tasks for other stages are performed by their respective teams. This is quite different from other iterative models where the implicit assumption is that the same team performs all the different tasks of the project or the iteration.
Having time-boxed iterations with stages of equal duration and having dedicated teams renders itself to pipelining of different iterations. (Pipelining is a concept from hardware in which different instructions are executed in parallel, with the execution of a new instruction starting once the first stage of the previous instruction is finished.)
To illustrate the use of this model, consider a time box consisting of three stages: requirement specification, build, and deployment. The requirement stage is executed by its team of analysts and ends with a prioritized list of requirements to be built in this iteration along with a high-level design. The build team develops the code for implementing the requirements, and performs the testing. The tested code is then handed over to the deployment team, which performs predeployment tests, and then installs the system for production use.
These three stages are such that they can be done in approximately equal time in an iteration.
With a time box of three stages, the project proceeds as follows. When the requirements team has finished requirements for timebox-1, the requirements are given to the build team for building the software. The requirements team then goes on and starts preparing the requirements for timebox-2. When the build for timebox-1 is completed, the code is handed over to the deployment team, and the build team moves on to build code for requirements for timebox- 2, and the requirements team moves on to doing requirements for timebox-3.
This pipelined execution of the timeboxing process is shown in Figure.
With a three-stage time box, at most three iterations can be concurrently in progress. If the time box is of size T days, then the first software delivery will occur after T days. The subsequent deliveries, however, will take place after every T/3 days. For example, if the time box duration T is 9 weeks (and each stage duration is 3 weeks), the first delivery is made 9 weeks after the start of the project. The second delivery is made after 12 weeks, the third after 15 weeks, and so on. Contrast this with a linear execution of iterations, in which the first delivery will be made after 9 weeks, the second after 18 weeks, the third after 27 weeks, and so on.
There are three teams working on the project—the requirements team, the build team, and the deployment team. The teamwise activity for the 3-stage pipeline discussed above is shown in Figure
The total work done in a time box and the effort spent in it also remains the same—the same amount of software is delivered at the end of each iteration as the time box undergoes the same stages. If the effort and time spent in each iteration also remains the same, then what is the cost of reducing the delivery time? The real cost of this reduced time is in the resources used in this model.
With timeboxing, there are dedicated teams for different stages and the total team size for the project is the sum of teams of different stages. This is the main difference from the situation where there is a single team which performs all the stages and the entire team works on the same iteration.
Hence, the timeboxing provides an approach for utilizing additional manpower to reduce the delivery time. It is well known that with standard methods of executing projects, we cannot compress the cycle time of a project substantially by adding more manpower. However, through the timeboxing model, we can use more manpower in a manner such that by parallel execution of different stages we are able to deliver software quicker. In other words, it provides a way of shortening delivery times through the use of additional manpower.
Timeboxing is well suited for projects that require a large number of features to be developed in a short time around a stable architecture using stable technologies. These features should be such that there is some flexibility in grouping them for building a meaningful system in an iteration that provides value to the users. The main cost of this model is the increased complexity of project management (and managing the products being developed) as multiple developments are concurrently active. Also, the impact of unusual situations in an iteration can be quite disruptive.