Ruby on Rails Planet

Estimating versus Timeboxing, part 1 »

Created at: 11.06.2009 02:29, source: Robby on Rails, tagged: Business d3 PLANET ARGON agile timeboxing timebox planning Projects clients estimates process

As if delivering projects wasn’t hard enough. Delivering projects on time is even harder. As practitioners, we’re all responsible for measuring up the obstacles in front of us and are accountable to those measurements. At least, we should be.

One of those measurements is time. Time is a funny thing. People have a lot of interesting things to say about time. Some say that it’s one of the most valuable things that we have… but I’ll avoid diving into a philosophical discussion for now.

What I wanted to talk about was project estimation. Specifically, estimates for deliverables. For the past several years, our team has put a lot of effort into becoming more accurate in our time estimating skills. Despite analyzing how often we over and/or underestimate the time each of us believes it’ll take to complete a task, we find ourselves coming back to the drawing board.

A few things that we’ve learned.

Tasks that we believe will take a few days/week/more to complete are often underestimated
Tasks that we believe will take less than a few hours are often more accurate or overestimated
Too many tasks were completed with a bigger budget than was necessary (lower ROI)
A lot of time was spent working on requirements refining to get better estimates

When we began to step back from this and look for patterns, we found that several of the tasks that we would budget hours for (versus estimate hours for) were proving to be more accurate. This approach is most commonly known as timeboxing. With timeboxing, we can place a dollar value on a specific task and work within that constraint. For example, with our clients, both parties can come to the conclusion that, “we believe that it’s worth up to $800 to implement this new functionality.” With that, we’re able take that dollar amount and figure out how many hours to box ourselves within.

The underlying question to our client with each change/feature request is, “How valuable is this to your business at this point in time?” Whereas, with a typical approach to time estimates, a client comes to you with a list of changes/features and you provide them with time estimates. “We estimate that it’ll take 6 hours at $200/hour for feature X and we’d do it like this…” The client will have to evaluate your estimate and figure out if it’s worth $1200 and make a decision. They can respond with, “no, that’s too expensive, can we do it for less?” The following steps would entail your team trying to find ways to reduce your estimate.

While these two paths might seem very similar, it’s been my experience that the standard approach to estimating takes more time for negotiating the terms of the agreement.

However, with timeboxing, you are asking your client to provide you with an initial budget. This will completely change how you respond to the feature request. When you have a timebox, from the moment that you begin to evaluate the request, your brain will add the necessary constraints to keep things within scope.

Through this process, we’ve revamped our estimating process so that as we’re building our iteration costs for clients. For each deliverable, we break down a series of objectives/tasks and apply timeboxes to each of those while knowing what the budget is for the deliverable as a whole. Usually, the deliverable is directly related to the request that came from our client with a budget. The process is completely transparent and our team is responsible for working within those constraints.

..and as we’ve learned from Ruby on Rails, constraints can be extremely beneficial.

While I don’t have all the answers yet, my goal is to share some of my experiences and lessons on the topic. I’d love to hear about how you’re adopting timeboxing in your project planning and estimating process.

Anyhow, just some thoughts that I wanted to share. More to come…

Read Related Articles

Hello, HeyBrainstormr.com »

Created at: 04.06.2009 02:28, source: Robby on Rails, tagged: Ruby on Rails PLANET ARGON heybrainstormr brainstormr launch brainstorming agile design development planetargon

If you follow me on twitter, you might have heard that we launched a little project that we’ve been cooking up at Planet Argon. (news post)

HeyBrainstormr is a lightweight web application that we created so that we could start a brainstorm on a specific topic and solicit ideas from each other. That’s all it does. Nothing more. Nothing less.

We know that having an open brainstorming session requires there to be zero criticism and opted to keep the process anonymous so that even the quiet people could share their ideas. :-)

what can i do right now? : Brainstorming for the rest of us. : HeyBrainstormr

We’ll be posting more details about it on our blog in the near future, but wanted to invite all of my readers to give it a whirl.

Start a brainstorm now!

I have a few topics that I started (and tweeted about). Feel free to share your ideas on them. :-)

We hope that you find it as fun as we have.

82,520 minutes on Phusion Passenger »

Created at: 10.04.2009 13:10, source: Robby on Rails, tagged: Ruby on Rails ruby programming PLANET ARGON passenger mongrel development osx rubyonrails rails railsboxcar hosting deployment

It’s been over 83,520 minutes since I made the switch from using mongrel as my development environment web server to Phusion Passenger. I’ve been extremely impressed with it. Our team has all switched over and haven’t really hit any obstacles in the transition.

Since some people asked me to let them know how this trial period worked out, I felt it was my duty to encourage you all to try it. You can check out my previous post, Switch to Passenger (mod_rails) in development on OSX in less than 7 minutes or your money back! to get rolling.

Additionally, if you’re looking for a streamlined Ruby on Rails deployment environment that includes Passenger, check out Rails Boxcar.

Building a prototype? Bring some rope. »

Created at: 09.04.2009 23:57, source: Robby on Rails, tagged: programming PLANET ARGON programming agile prototypes books quote development

While scanning through Allison’s copy of Designing for the Digital Age: How to Create Human-Centered Products and Services, I came across this nugget.

The problem with software prototypes
It seems to be widely understood that industrial design and mechanical engineering prototypes—from paperclips and tape to polished appearance models—are disposable learning tools. Prototyping is clearly distinct from manufacturing, so it would be ludicrous to think that even a late-stage prototype could be reused as part of the final product. In software, however, the tools used for anything other than paper prototyping are generally the same tools used for “manufacturing” (i.e., writing production code). For this reason, many stakeholders can’t see why a detailed prototype that appears functional is still many months away from completion.

It immediately reminded me of a few posts that I had written about three years ago on the topic of developing prototypes and NOT keeping them.

The author continues with…

It’s important to educate stakeholders that prototype code is kind of like the illusion of automatic doors on Star Trek—it looks like it’s working, but it’s really a guy standing behind the wall pulling a rope.

I completely agree that education is the most important aspect to managing client expectations. With regard to the amount of work that you put into a prototype, we need to be careful on how much time and energy is put into them. If we can get away with a guy (or some quick Javascript hacks) to demonstrate possible functionality, make sure we aren’t using much more than rope. Rope is cheap. Prototypes should be too.

Planet Argon - new site »

Created at: 03.02.2009 05:41, source: Robby on Rails, tagged: PLANET ARGON planetargon

We’ll be posting some more updates on the Planet Argon blog in near future, but I wanted to invite you all to check out our new site at http://planetargon.com/. The last site was launched over three years ago.. we thought it was time for a refresh. :-)