One of the modes of the XP PlanningGame.

----

Some folk in the UK (at least I'm sure I read this in the last few years in a UK trade rag, I think coming from a big name consultancy) have done studies on how successful projects were judged after the event by users in terms of timeliness, scope and cost. These were then plotted against what was considered "fixed" at the planning stage. Fixing the time (TimeBoxing) led to all three factors coming out better for users than any other way. This confirmed all my own worst prejudices so much that I didn't clip the article. Note that although theoretically orthogonal to the size of delivery step(s) in practice timeboxing tends to reduce time increments. Anyone know of even more convincing statistical evidence on this than my completely unbiased random access memory? -- RichardDrake