Timeboxing a Release When the Fixed Date Is Non-Negotiable
A retailer must launch a returns portal before a regulatory deadline in 12 weeks. The DSDM/AgilePM team has estimated 140 story points of Must-have scope across four two-week timeboxes of development, plus Foundations and Deployment. Velocity from a comparable previous project was 18 points per timebox, but that team had two extra developers. This team has 5 developers and no dedicated tester until timebox 2. The Business Sponsor has said 'the date is fixed, the scope is fixed, so work smarter'. The Project Manager is preparing the first timebox plan and is being pressured to commit to all 140 points.
1. Using AgilePM planning concepts, explain why committing to 140 points is unsound and what should flex.
Read the worked answer
AgilePM fixes time and cost (date and team) at the plan level and flexes features at the detailed level. Here date and team are both effectively fixed, so the only honest variable is scope.
Capacity check: 4 development timeboxes × 18 points = 72 points at the comparison velocity, and that velocity came from a larger team. With 5 developers and no tester until timebox 2, realistic velocity is lower - say 12–15 points - giving roughly 48–60 points of development capacity, before any contingency. 140 points is not achievable; committing to it guarantees a missed date or a quality collapse.
Correct action: MoSCoW re-prioritisation with the Business Visionary and Ambassador, protecting a genuinely minimal Must set sized to capacity, pushing the rest to Should/Could, and agreeing that Should/Could items are the flex. The date stays fixed; the content of the release is what is negotiated.
2. The sponsor says 'work smarter'. Describe how you would structure the first timebox to protect the deadline and what evidence you would give the sponsor at the end of it.
Read the worked answer
Structure the first timebox as a foundation-and-prove timebox: include the highest-risk Must items, the architectural spike for the returns integration, and the test approach so the missing tester is resolved early (either recruit or make testing a shared team responsibility with the Technical Coordinator). Do not fill timebox 1 with easy low-risk items - that hides risk until too late.
Run the timebox with a daily stand-up, a mid-timebox checkpoint against the plan, and a timebox review demonstrating working, tested increments to the business roles. At the end, present: (a) demonstrated increments, (b) measured velocity, (c) a re-forecast of remaining Must scope against remaining timeboxes, and (d) any Must items now shown to be at risk with options. That converts 'work smarter' into a data-based conversation about scope, which is the only lever the sponsor actually controls.