Skip to main content

Time-Boxing

Time-boxing is a technique that helps us direct energy on our priorities. When working on a tight schedule towards a goal, we often face tough choices about how to allocate our time. With time-boxing, we set time limits for performing tasks and stick to those limits by eliminating "fluff". Eliminating "fluff" requires constantly assessing whether each step we are taking to complete our tasks is absolutely necessary.

Let's say you're cleaning the floors of your home before guests come over. You want to mop the hardwood floors and then apply a no-odor finish. Your guests will arrive in a half hour. You decide to time-box the cleaning of your floors to 20 minutes, because you still have some other preparations you want to complete before the guests arrive. You then allocate 10 minutes to mopping and 10 minutes to applying finish.

As you start mopping, you realize you won't be able to mop thoroughly within the 10 minute time-box. What do you do?

By time-boxing your tasks, you have forced yourself to face a tough decision. You have to decide whether to do a less-than-thorough job mopping and applying finish, eliminate from your plan the applying of finish, or re-examine your assumptions even more radically. In the end, you might decide to do a thorough mopping of the most visible areas of the floor, followed by applying finish to that same area. If you're able to complete these tasks sooner than expected, you might consider cleaning and finishing the remainder of the floor. No matter what you decide, time-boxing has enabled you to recognize, and adjust for, your scheduling mistakes before the possibility of achieving your goal has evaporated.

Time-boxing works particularly well in conjunction with iterative processes.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Spreadsheets Suck for Prioritizing

The Goal As a company executive, you want confidence that your product team (which includes all the people, from all departments, responsible for product success) has a sound basis for deciding which items are on the product roadmap. You also want confidence the team is prioritizing the items in a smart way. What Should We Prioritize? The items the team prioritizes could be features, user stories, epics, market problems, themes, or experiments. Melissa Perri  makes an excellent case for a " problem roadmap ", and, in general, I recommend focusing on the latter types of items. However, the topic of what types of items you should prioritize - and in what situations - is interesting and important but beyond the scope of this blog entry. A Sad but Familiar Story If there is significant controversy about priorities, then almost inevitably, a product manager or other member of the team decides to put together The Spreadsheet. I've done it. Some of the mos

Use Case as a Black Box

Consider the following use case: Purchase Items Actor: Purchaser Precondition: Purchaser types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40. Postcondition: For the average Purchaser acting at full efficiency, the number of seconds elapsed is no more than 30 + 20 * n, where n is the number of items purchased. The name of the use case represents a functional requirement. What does the product do, or enable the user to do? Purchase items. What are we to make of the preconditions and postconditions? What relationship do they have to the requirements for the product? Answer: the preconditions and postconditions are the nonfunctional requirements attached to the functional requirement . Another way of expressing the nonfunctional requirement would be as an attribute and associated constraint: Usability: For a Purchaser who types at least thirty words per minute and has a web navigation efficiency rating of at least 40, it shall take no

Henry Ford's "Faster Horse" Quote

You may have heard the ( apocryphal ) Henry Ford quote: If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they would have said "a faster horse". Over at the On Product Management blog , Saeed gives his take on this infamous quote. He "hates" it, and gives some compelling reasons. Saeed is spot on in his explanations. Personally, I think the quote is great, but it's a matter of interpretation. The valid point of the quote is not that it's a bad idea to facilitate a conversation with your market to better understand it. The valid points are: You must ask the right questions to get valuable answers. You must interpret the answers thoughtfully - often outside their direct meaning - to glean reliable information. Asking questions is not always the best way to "listen" to your market. (E.g., sometimes pure observational studies are more reliable.) Nonetheless, I find the quote is helpful to combat "armchair product management" in the