Balancing Timebox vs Continuous Delivery Needs

?? Over the last 15 years, I have observed teams and organizations navigating this challenge. While there's no single “right” way, here's a common progression I've seen.

Starting Point: A Single Release at the End of the Timebox

Teams often begin with development phases surrounded by ceremonies, leading to a single release at the end of a timebox (e.g., a sprint)

?? Even though the scrum guide explicitly states that a sprint review should never be a gate for releasing the value, this tension still exists.. (There are scenarios where it's impossible to go production at-will, but let's stay on the course of the general, not the exceptional cases.)

Metrics disconnected from real impact (e.g., committed vs. delivered) or rigid role boundaries frequently prevent teams from recalibrating their plans effectively

Intermediate Form: Multiple Releases Within the Timebox

When a team evolves from this, they often start releasing value more frequently during the timebox.

?? However, many teams struggle to reach this step due to various reasons including red tapes, regulations or resource constraints, which effectively chokes any possible continuous improvement activity.

Reaching this level unlocks faster production feedback loops and reduced time-to-market and puts natural pressure on planning, often leading more frequent planning adjustments.

Advanced Form: Decoupling Planning from Development

This form happens when planning is decoupled from the development such that it's revised continuously in parallel (without a regular large ceremony), driven by customer impact and other emergent conditions in the business.

Teams hold short (10-15 min) updates with few relevant stakeholders rather than full-team ceremonies. Choosing analytical, customer and business impact oriented prioritization approaches augment the effect of continuous planning. Releases shift to a just-in-time cadence.

Do we still need a timebox ?

?? At this stage, the timebox seems naturally fading away because the team evolved to a state where a flow-driven-approach is established with parallel planning, development and releases happening in cadence. If ensuring timebox adds an administrative overhead, it can disappear now.

Timeboxes might still add value in specific scenarios. It's about assessing their concrete benefit to decide wisely.

origin: https://ulsoy.org/balancing-timebox-with-continuous-delivery-needs/