Vassilis C. Gerogiannis, Pandelis G. Ipsilandis


In iterative/incremental software development, software deliverables are built in iterations - each iteration providing parts of the required software functionality. To better manage and monitor resources, plan and deliverables, iterations are usually performed during specific time periods, so called “time boxes”. Each time box is further divided into a sequence of stages and a dedicated development team is assigned to each stage. Iterations can be performed in parallel to reduce the project completion time by exploiting a “pipelining” concept, that is, when a team completes the tasks of a stage, it hands over the intermediate deliverables to the team executing the next stage and then starts executing the same stage in the next iteration. In this paper, we address the problem of optimizing the schedule of a software project that follows an iterative, timeboxing process model. A multi objective linear programming technique is introduced to consider multiple parameters, such as the project duration, the work discontinuities of development teams in successive iterations and the release (delivery) time of software deliverables. The proposed model can be used to generate alternative project plans based on the relative importance of these parameters.


  1. Barcus, A., Montibeller, G., 2006. Supporting the Allocation of Software Development Work in Distributed Teams with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Omega International Journal of Management Science, to be published in 2007, available at:
  2. Ebert, C., De Neve, P., 2001. Surviving Global Software Development. IEEE Software, 18(2), 62-69.
  3. Gerogiannis, V.C., Kakarontzas, G., Stamelos, I., 2006. A Unified Approach for Software Process Representation and Analysis. In Proceedings of the 1st ICSOFT International Conference on Software and Data Technologies, 127-132.
  4. Hanakawa, N., Morisaki, S. & Matsumoto, K., 1998. A Learning Curve Based Simulation Model for Software Development. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, 350-359.
  5. Hanakawa, N., Matsumoto, K., Torii, K., 2002. A Knowledge-Based Software Process Simulation Model. Annals of Software Engineering, 14(1-4), 383- 406.
  6. Hassanein, A., Moselhi, O., 2005. Accelerating Linear Projects. Construction Management and Economics, 23(4), 377-385.
  7. Hennesy, J.L., Patterson, D.A., 2004. Computer Organization and Design: the Hardware/Software Interface. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 3rd edition.
  8. Hunt, J., 2003. Incremental Software. In Guide to the Unified Process Featuring UML, Java and Design Patterns, Springer Prof. Comp., 2nd edition, 383-394, available at:
  9. Hyari, K., El-Rayes, K., 2006. Optimal Planning and Scheduling for Repetitive Construction Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22(1), 11-19.
  10. Ipsilandis, P.G., 2007. A Multi Objective Linear Programming Model for Scheduling Linear Repetitive Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, to be published in June 2007.
  11. Jalote, P., Palit, A., Kurien, P., Peethamber, V.T., 2004. Timeboxing: a Process Model for Iterative Software Development. Journal of Systems and Software, 70(1- 2), 117-127.
  12. Kallantzis, A., Lambropoulos, S., 2004. Critical Path Determination by Incorporation of Minimum and Maximum Time and Distance Constraints into Linear Scheduling. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 11(3), 211-222.
  13. Lai, V.S., Wong, B.K., Cheung. W., 2002. Group Decision Making in a Multiple Criteria Environment: a Case Using the AHP in Software Selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 137 (1), 134-144.
  14. Larman, C., 2003. Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager's Guide. Addison-Wesley, 1st edition.
  15. Mattila, K.G., Abraham, D.M., 1998. Linear Scheduling: Past Efforts and Future Directions. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(3), 294-303.
  16. Rosenberg, D., Stephens, M., Collins-Cope, M., 2005. Agile Development with ICONIX Process: People, Process, and Pragmatism. A-Press.
  17. Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A., Pfahl, D., 2003. Trade-off Analysis for Requirements Selection. International Journal on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 13(4), 345-366.
  18. Santhanam, R., Kyparisis, J., 1995. A Multiple Criteria Decision Model for Information System Project Selection. Computers and Operations Research, 22(8), 807-818.
  19. Stamelos, I., Tsoukias, A., 2003. Software Evaluation Problem Situations. European Journal of Operational Research, 145 (2), 273-286.
  20. Stapleton, J., 2003. DSDM: Business Focused Development. Addison-Wesley, 2nd edition.
  21. Wang, J., Lin, Y-I., 2003. A Fuzzy Multicriteria Group Decision Making Approach to Select Configuration Items for Software Development. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134(3), 343-363.
  22. XP, 2006. Extreme Programming: a Gentle Introduction. Available at:
  23. Yang, I. T., Ioannou, P.G., 2004. Scheduling with Focus on Practical Concerns in Repetitive Projects. Construction Management and Economics, 22(6), 619- 630.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

C. Gerogiannis V. and G. Ipsilandis P. (2007). MULTI OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS FOR TIMEBOXING MODELS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT . In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 3: ICSOFT, ISBN 978-989-8111-07-4, pages 145-153. DOI: 10.5220/0001341501450153

in Bibtex Style

author={Vassilis C. Gerogiannis and Pandelis G. Ipsilandis},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 3: ICSOFT,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software and Data Technologies - Volume 3: ICSOFT,
SN - 978-989-8111-07-4
AU - C. Gerogiannis V.
AU - G. Ipsilandis P.
PY - 2007
SP - 145
EP - 153
DO - 10.5220/0001341501450153