Hubbry Logo
Follow-the-sunFollow-the-sunMain
Open search
Follow-the-sun
Community hub
Follow-the-sun
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Follow-the-sun
Follow-the-sun
Follow-the-sun
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
World map showing part of it in the day and part at night; follow-the-sun workflow allows for continuous software work.

Follow-the-sun (FTS), a sub-field of globally distributed software engineering (GDSE), is a type of global knowledge workflow designed in order to reduce the time to market, in which the knowledge product is owned and advanced by a production site in one time zone and handed off at the end of their work day to the next production site that is several time zones west to continue that work.[1][2] Ideally, the work days in these time zones overlap such that when one site ends their day, the next one starts.

FTS has the potential to significantly increase the total development time per day (as viewed from the perspective of a single time zone): with two sites the development time can increase to up to 16 hours, or up to 24 hours if there are three sites, reducing the development duration by as much as 67%.

It is not commonly practiced in industry and has few documented cases where it is applied successfully.[3] This is likely because of its uncommon requirements, leading to a lack of knowledge on how to successfully apply FTS in practice. One developer who is known for successfully implementing FTS, however, is Larian Studios who have offices in Malaysia, Québec and Europe allowing them to work in multiple time zones.[4]

History

[edit]

Follow-the-sun can be traced back to the mid-1990s where IBM had the first global software team which was specifically set up to take advantages of FTS.[5] The team was spread out across five sites around the globe. Unfortunately, in this case FTS was unsuccessful because it was uncommon to hand off the software artifacts daily.

Two other cases of FTS at IBM have been documented by Treinen and Miller-Frost.[3] The first team was spread out across a site in the United States and a site in Australia. FTS was successful for this team. The second team was spread out across a site in the United States and a site in India. In this case FTS was unsuccessful because of miscommunication, time zone issues and cultural differences.

Principles

[edit]

FTS is based on four principles:

  1. The main objective is the reduction of development duration / time to market.
  2. Production sites are many time zones apart.
  3. There is always one and only one site that owns and works on the project.
  4. Handoffs are conducted daily at the end of each shift. The next production site is several time zones west.

Common misconceptions

[edit]

An important step in defining FTS is to disambiguate it from other globally distributed configurations to clearly state what FTS is not. These types of similar globally distributed configurations are not FTS:[2]

  • Global knowledge work is defined as geographically dispersed knowledge workers working collaboratively from multiple locations.[6] This is not FTS because there are no handoffs.
  • 24/7 service. In this configuration work is distributed to workers who are available at that time. It is focused on availability and the workers have little dependency, whereas FTS is focused on duration reductions and requires dependencies between the different sites in order to perform the daily handoffs.
  • 24-hour manufacturing. This configuration focuses on making shifts fully optimize expensive resources that could not produce more by increasing the number of employees per shift. However, this driver of reducing the resource cost is not the driver of FTS.
  • Collocated multi shifts. In contrast to FTS this configuration chooses one location where labor is cheap and runs multiple eight-hour shifts concurrently.

Difficulties

[edit]

FTS's largest strength, spreading the development over multiple time zones, is simultaneously its largest weakness. Its distributed workflow is more complex to implement due to cultural and technical differences as well as the differences in time making coordination and communication challenging.

The main reason why FTS is difficult to implement is because the handoffs are an essential element that is hard to get right. The largest factor causing this difficulty is poor communication.[3]

There are few documented cases of companies successfully applying FTS.[3] Some companies have claimed to successfully implement FTS but these companies did not practice the daily handoffs.[3][7] However, a limited amount of successful applications of FTS that did include daily handoffs of artefacts, using a distributed-concurrent model,[2] were found by Cameron.[8]

Recent studies on FTS have moved to mathematical modeling of FTS.[9][10][11][12][13] The research is focused on the issue of speed and the issues around the handoffs.

Methods

[edit]

As FTS is a sub-field of GDSE,[5] the same agile software development methodologies that are found to work well in GDSE work well with FTS.[2] In particular, Carmel et al. (2009) argue that agile software development methodologies assist the FTS principles because they:[1]

  1. Support daily handoffs: the continuous integration and automated integration of source code allows each site to work in their own code bases during their work day, while the integration maintains updated, testable code to be used by the next site.
  2. Deal with communication: agile methodologies emphasize communication. They specifically emphasize face-to-face communication, which can be done within one site. Since FTS aims to reduce inter-site communication, the face-to-face aspect is not a large hindrance to the overall application of agile development methodologies.
  3. Elicit cooperation and collaboration: as FTS requires more collaboration and cooperation, this emphasis is especially useful.

Challenges

[edit]

Kroll et al. (2013) have researched papers published between 1990 and 2012 and found 36 best practices and 17 challenges for FTS.[14] The challenges were grouped in three categories: coordination, communication and culture. These challenges should be overcome to implement FTS successfully.

Coordination

[edit]
  • Time zone differences reduce opportunities for real-time collaboration. Team members have to be flexible to achieve overlap with remote colleagues. The limited overlap and the delay in responses have a negative impact on the coordination.
  • Daily handoff cycles or handing off work-in-progress are a requirement of FTS because without it the time to market cannot be decreased.
  • Geographical dispersion
  • Cost estimation
  • Loss of teamness
  • Number of sites
  • Coordination breakdown
  • Managerial difficulties
  • Technical platforms

Communication

[edit]
  • Loss of communication richness / face-to-face communication
  • Social cultural diversity difficulties
  • Synchronous communication
  • Language difference
  • Technical difficulties
  • Manage religious or national holidays.

Culture

[edit]
  • Cultural differences
  • Different technical backgrounds

Best practices

[edit]

It is of great importance to select and adapt a methodology for the daily handoffs[1][14] e.g. using agile software development or the waterfall model.

Identified best practices are the use of agile methods and using technologies to develop FTS activities. Agile supports daily handoffs which is a critical challenge in FTS.[1] Management tools can be used to estimate and plan schedules, manage sprints and track progress. Additionally, technologies like conference video, emails and telephone calls are easy to implement and allow companies to perform synchronous and asynchronous communication between teams and works well in an agile environment.

Follow-the-moon

[edit]

A related concept is follow-the-moon, which is scheduling work to be performed specifically during local night-time hours for reasons such as saving on datacenter costs by using cheaper night-time electricity[15] or spare processing power.

Other terms

[edit]
  • 24-hour development
  • round-the-clock-development

See also

[edit]

Notes and references

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Follow-the-sun

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Follow-the-sun is a global operational strategy employed by organizations to provide continuous delivery or accelerate project timelines by handing off tasks between geographically dispersed teams located in successive time zones, mimicking the sun's path across the from east to west. This model, also known as "follow-the-sun" (FTS), enables seamless workflow continuity without requiring employees to work extended hours, primarily in sectors such as (IT), , and . The approach originated in large multinational corporations seeking to optimize global resources and reduce time-to-market, with early applications in the by companies like for distributed software teams. It gained prominence during the rise of offshore and agile methodologies, allowing teams in locations like the , , , and to collaborate sequentially on tasks such as bug fixes, development sprints, or support tickets. For instance, in , a query raised in during the day can be addressed by a team in overnight and finalized by colleagues in the following morning. Key benefits of the follow-the-sun model include enhanced responsiveness, with potential reductions in project cycle times by up to 30-60% in ideal conditions, and improved through round-the-clock availability regardless of location. In , it supports agile practices like Scrum by enabling daily handoffs via shared repositories, as seen in case studies from companies like and WDSGlobal. A 2013 demonstrated that the model could shorten project durations from six to five and a half weeks. However, real-world implementations often face challenges, including coordination overhead from time zone differences, communication barriers leading to rework, and increased costs, which can extend durations by 37% compared to single-site operations. To mitigate these issues, successful adoption requires robust tools for asynchronous communication, detailed documentation of workflows, and staggered shift schedules, as seen in companies like and , which achieved near-24/7 coverage using platforms like for handoffs. The model's effectiveness is particularly pronounced in modular tasks with low interdependencies, such as support operations, but diminishes for highly engineering due to the need for synchronous clarification. Overall, follow-the-sun exemplifies how and can transform traditional work structures, though it demands strong managerial oversight to balance efficiency gains against operational complexities.

Introduction

Definition and Purpose

Follow-the-sun (FTS) is a global operational , particularly prominent as a sub-field of globally distributed (GDSE), that involves handing off tasks between geographically dispersed teams operating in different time zones to enable continuous service or development. This approach, applicable in areas such as , IT operations, and , simulates continuous operations by passing unfinished work from one site to another at the end of each team's workday, typically leveraging a shared repository for . The core handoff model follows the sun's path—progressing eastward or westward across time zones—with only one site "owning" the project and actively advancing it during its local active hours, ensuring sequential rather than parallel execution to maintain integrity. The primary purpose of FTS is to shorten overall project timelines or provide 24/7 service availability and accelerate time-to-market for products and services by exploiting differences to extend productive work hours beyond a single location's constraints. This model facilitates near-24-hour cycles, where multiple sites contribute consecutively, theoretically compressing time without requiring extended workdays. For instance, with three optimally spaced sites, development or operational duration can be reduced by approximately 67% through daily handoffs, as each site covers an 8-hour shift to achieve full daily coverage. FTS presupposes a foundational understanding of iterative processes and the coordination challenges inherent in global teams, positioning it as a strategic extension of practices like agile methodologies, which emphasize frequent iterations and adaptability. By focusing on proactive process redesign rather than reactive acceleration, FTS addresses the need for rapid delivery in competitive markets where product obsolescence cycles are short.

Benefits and Limitations

The follow-the-sun (FTS) model offers significant benefits in accelerating time to market or enhancing service responsiveness by enabling near-continuous work across global time zones, allowing teams to hand off tasks daily and simulate a 24-hour cycle. This approach theoretically reduces project duration by 50% with two sites and up to 67% with three optimally spaced sites, as the overlap of working hours maximizes calendar efficiency. Additionally, it improves resource utilization across geographies by distributing workloads to teams during their local daylight hours, preventing idle time and balancing demands without requiring overtime. In agile environments, FTS supports faster iteration through daily handoffs that align with practices like , potentially shortening cycles by at least 12.5% while fostering incremental progress. Modern implementations further enhance these advantages via integration with , where shared platforms and automated tools enable seamless handoffs across distributed teams, reducing friction in hybrid workflows. For instance, cloud-based repositories and deployment models facilitate real-time synchronization, allowing global teams to maintain momentum without geographical barriers. Despite these advantages, FTS is rarely implemented successfully due to its inherent high complexity, with research indicating few documented long-term successes beyond isolated case studies. The model introduces substantial overhead from frequent handoffs, which can exacerbate coordination challenges and increase vulnerability to miscommunication or rework. Time zone-based handoffs, while central to the approach, often lead to bottlenecks if teams introduce inconsistencies or require extensive documentation to bridge gaps. FTS is not suitable for all project types, particularly those demanding deep contextual continuity, as the asynchronous nature disrupts nuanced understanding and can result in only modest real-world gains, such as a 10% duration reduction in controlled experiments versus theoretical ideals. Limited communication opportunities across disproportionate teams further heighten risks of delays, making it less viable for tasks reliant on synchronous collaboration. Overall, the scarcity of sustained industry adoptions underscores its challenges in scaling beyond specific phases like testing.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Adoption

The follow-the-sun (FTS) approach emerged in the mid-1990s as a strategic response within global software engineering to the accelerating pace of globalization and intensifying market competition. This period marked a pivotal shift toward distributed development practices, where organizations sought to shorten software delivery timelines by leveraging geographic dispersion across multiple time zones. The concept built on the broader rise of global software development (GSD), which gained traction in the early 1990s as companies expanded operations internationally to access talent pools, reduce costs, and accelerate innovation. Early adoption of FTS involved initial experiments by multinational corporations aiming to capitalize on time zone differentials for near-continuous work cycles, effectively extending productive hours beyond traditional 8- or 12-hour shifts. These efforts were facilitated by the contemporaneous proliferation of internet-enabled collaboration tools, such as early systems and basic file-sharing protocols, which enabled daily handoffs of unfinished tasks between development sites. While promising in theory for compressing project durations, these pioneering implementations highlighted the logistical complexities of coordinating across distances, setting the stage for refined methodologies in subsequent years. Prior to the , documented applications of FTS-like workflows in were scarce, though analogous practices may have existed in sectors such as —where assembly lines spanned shifts—or , involving round-the-clock . However, FTS as a formalized strategy crystallized distinctly within the software domain during this decade, aligning with the explosive growth of and the demand for rapid product iteration.

Key Case Studies and Evolution

One of the earliest documented implementations of the follow-the-sun (FTS) approach occurred at in the mid-1990s, involving teams across five global development sites aimed at achieving continuous 24-hour progress through daily handoffs. This initiative, however, proved unsuccessful primarily due to coordination failures, including inefficient daily transfers of software artifacts that disrupted normal workflows and required excessive effort, ultimately leading to reduced collaboration and the abandonment of the FTS model. In two specific IBM case studies detailed around the same period—one pairing U.S. and Australian sites—the effort similarly faltered from the loss of informal communication channels, eroded trust among distributed team members, and challenges stemming from , preventing the anticipated acceleration in development cycles. Subsequent field studies highlighted varying outcomes in FTS adoption. A successful U.S.- software project pairing demonstrated the model's potential by leveraging differences for near-continuous work, resulting in reduced time-to-market under conditions of effective handoff protocols and aligned coordination. In contrast, U.S.- efforts often encountered significant hurdles, with cultural mismatches—such as differing work practices, language barriers, and varying interpretations of task priorities—exacerbating coordination delays and issues, leading to suboptimal productivity despite access to skilled labor pools. These cases, drawn from exploratory comparative analyses, underscored that FTS efficacy hinges on robust cross-site mechanisms to mitigate temporal and socio-cultural divides. Following the 1990s experiments, FTS evolved with greater integration into agile methodologies, which facilitate daily handoffs through practices like and iterative sprints, enabling more granular and structured workflows across sites. A 2013 systematic identified recurring patterns in FTS adoption, cataloging 36 best practices—predominantly in agile methods for sharing and technology use—and 17 challenges, with coordination (e.g., managing overlaps and handoff cycles) and communication barriers appearing most frequently across studies. The influenced the broader adoption of remote FTS models by enabling distributed work without physical offices. In pipelines, FTS has supported 24/7 deployment cycles by sequencing tasks across time zones, enhancing release velocity without on-call burnout. Emerging AI-assisted handoffs, such as automated context summarization tools, further address gaps in these setups, preserving continuity in follow-the-sun transitions for 2025-era projects.

Core Principles

Fundamental Concepts

The follow-the-sun (FTS) model is a distributed strategy that leverages geographical differences to enable continuous operational progress across global teams. Central to this approach is the selection of work sites separated by significant time differences, typically 8 hours or more, such as teams in , , and regions, to maximize non-overlapping work hours and simulate a perpetual workday. In practice, FTS operates through structured daily handoffs, where the "owning" team in one completes its shift and transfers responsibility to the next site as its local day begins, often progressing westward to align with the sun's path. This rotation of project ownership ensures that work advances without requiring simultaneous overlap among teams, allowing each group to focus during standard while maintaining overall momentum. The model emphasizes asynchronous through durable artifacts, such as code commits, shared , or updated task trackers, to facilitate seamless progression and minimize disruptions during transitions. Unlike traditional 24/7 models that demand round-the-clock availability from individuals, FTS harnesses natural day-night cycles to distribute workload equitably, reducing fatigue while achieving near-continuous output. Recent advancements as of 2025 have integrated hybrid remote setups into FTS frameworks, enhancing site flexibility by allowing distributed teams to operate from varied locations within time zones, further optimizing global coordination without fixed physical offices.

Common Misconceptions

One common misconception is that follow-the-sun (FTS) is equivalent to general global knowledge work, where geographically dispersed teams across locations without structured daily handoffs; in reality, FTS specifically requires sequential daily transitions between sites separated by significant time zones to accelerate project duration, distinguishing it from broader distributed collaboration models that prioritize overlap or modular task division. Another frequent misunderstanding equates FTS with desks, such as call centers, which focus on continuous support operations rather than interdependent tasks; FTS, by contrast, centers on creative and integrative processes that demand high coordination during handoffs, not reactive incident resolution. FTS is also often confused with 24-hour manufacturing workflows, which involve physical production lines optimized for continuous output; however, FTS is inherently software-centric, relying on digital artifacts and knowledge transfer that are more susceptible to misinterpretation across cultural and temporal boundaries, unlike the standardized processes in manufacturing. Additionally, some view FTS as merely an extension of collocated multi-shift arrangements to a global scale, but this overlooks the deliberate design for temporal separation, where work ownership shifts daily to a single site per task, rather than maintaining parallel or overlapping efforts within the same . A key clarification is that FTS demands intentional daily handoffs with formal documentation and overlap periods, not perpetual real-time collaboration, which can lead to coordination overhead that offsets potential speed gains. Full 24-hour coverage in FTS is rare due to inevitable gaps during handoffs, often resulting in only partial daily extensions—empirical studies show actual duration reductions of 10-20% rather than the theoretical 50% for two sites—caused by rework, delays, and communication challenges. FTS is frequently conflated with offshore , which emphasizes cost arbitrage without leveraging time zones for acceleration; in practice, true FTS remains uncommon even among offshore providers, as it requires specialized coordination beyond typical models. These distinctions, as outlined in foundational analyses, highlight FTS as a niche subtype of global (GDSE), not a generic distributed practice.

Implementation Methods

Strategies and Techniques

One key strategy in follow-the-sun (FTS) workflows is based on geographic time zones to maximize overlap-free progression, with common configurations placing teams in the (e.g., East Coast at UTC-5), (UTC+1), and Asia-Pacific (UTC+9) for approximately 8-hour separations that enable 24-hour coverage without excessive overlap. Agile methodologies support iterative handoffs by structuring work into short sprints, allowing teams to complete discrete increments daily and transfer ownership via prioritized backlogs and progress summaries. Integration with / (CI/CD) pipelines automates code merging and testing prior to handoffs, ensuring build stability and reducing integration conflicts across sites. Practical techniques emphasize asynchronous daily stand-ups conducted through tools like shared video updates or collaborative platforms to align teams without requiring synchronous meetings across time zones. Modular task breakdown divides projects into self-contained components, enabling incoming teams to pick up independent units without needing extensive context from predecessors, thus streamlining transitions. The 2013 framework by Kroll et al. identifies 36 practices for FTS, including rigorous use of systems such as for maintaining shared repositories that track changes and facilitate conflict-free merges during handoffs. As of 2025, emerging techniques incorporate AI-driven for handoffs, where tools analyze commits in real-time to flag issues and provide standardized feedback, accelerating validation in distributed settings while preserving context across time zones. Cloud-based collaboration platforms further enhance these workflows by offering centralized access to repositories, issue trackers, and , supporting automated notifications and version syncing for global teams.

Best Practices

To implement follow-the-sun (FTS) effectively, organizations should adopt agile methods tailored to constraints, such as Scrum stand-up meetings conducted during overlap hours and recorded retrospectives to accommodate asynchronous participation across global teams. These adaptations, drawn from empirical studies, promote collaboration while minimizing disruptions from temporal differences. Task management tools like Jira are recommended for real-time tracking of progress, dependencies, and handoffs, ensuring visibility and accountability in distributed environments. Complementary technologies, including video conferencing for brief synchronous overlaps (e.g., one-hour windows between sites), for out-of-hours updates, and shared wikis or online forums for persistent knowledge sharing, facilitate efficient and reduce knowledge silos. Cultural awareness training is essential to address differences in communication styles and work norms, fostering trust and reducing conflicts in multicultural teams. Clear handoff protocols, such as predefined calendars for daily 30-minute sessions and low-granularity tasks sequenced by dependency, prevent bottlenecks and ensure smooth transitions between development sites. Success in FTS adoption should be evaluated through metrics like reduced cycle times and overall project durations, which shows can accelerate delivery by leveraging 24-hour workflows without compromising quality. As of 2020, integrations with scaled agile frameworks, such as , support global —relevant to FTS—by incorporating Program Increment (PI) planning to synchronize distributed teams and mitigate temporal risks via Agile Release Trains and high-bandwidth communication.

Challenges and Difficulties

Coordination and Handoff Issues

In follow-the-sun (FTS) , coordination issues arise primarily from the need for complex daily handoffs between distributed sites, which often result in knowledge loss and project delays as teams transfer unfinished tasks across time zones. A systematic identified 17 key challenges in FTS, with daily handoff cycles and across sites ranking among the most frequent, occurring in nine out of the analyzed studies and complicating task progression. These handoffs demand effective task modularization to enable seamless transfer, yet challenges in breaking down workflows into independent units frequently lead to interdependencies that hinder efficiency and increase overhead during transitions. Handoff specifics exacerbate these problems, particularly during non-overlapping working hours caused by time zone differences, creating gaps where progress stalls and unresolved issues accumulate. Teams often rely on artifacts such as documentation and status reports for continuity, but these can be incomplete or outdated, leading to misunderstandings and rework upon resumption. Mathematical modeling of handoff processes, such as stochastic models using stochastic activity networks (SAN), has been employed to evaluate FTS performance, demonstrating that handoff duration and efficiency directly impact overall workflow velocity by quantifying delays from cross-site transfers. Post-2020, the rise of hybrid remote and in-office teams has introduced additional coordination gaps in FTS setups, where asynchronous handoffs across geolocations amplify scheduling burdens and reduce the of continuous workflows. In large-scale analyses of distributed collaboration, cross-time-zone meetings—essential for handoff alignment—often fall outside core hours, with uneven distribution of responsibilities leading to and inconsistent task in hybrid environments.

Communication and Cultural Barriers

In follow-the-sun (FTS) environments, communication barriers primarily stem from time zone misalignments, which often result in delayed responses and fragmented interactions across global teams. For instance, developers in one region may complete their shift without immediate feedback from counterparts in overlapping or subsequent time zones, leading to stalled progress and increased resolution times for issues. Reliance on asynchronous tools, such as and shared platforms, further exacerbates these issues by reducing the richness of exchanges and fostering misunderstandings, as nuances in intent or technical details can be lost without real-time clarification. A notable example occurs in US-India FTS collaborations, such as projects at organizations like , resulting in misinterpreted requirements and extended debugging cycles. These communication challenges are compounded during handoffs, where incomplete information transfer amplifies errors in task continuity. Cultural barriers in FTS setups arise from divergent work styles, observance of region-specific holidays, and hierarchical structures that influence decision-making and feedback loops. For example, teams from high-context cultures, such as , often rely on implicit cues and relational harmony, contrasting with the explicit, direct approaches in low-context cultures like the , which can lead to overlooked assumptions or delayed . Additionally, varying holidays—such as in versus Independence Day in the —disrupt schedules and create uneven workloads, while steeper hierarchies in some cultures may inhibit open dialogue among junior and senior members. A 2013 systematic by Kroll et al. highlights the persistent difficulty in building trust across cultures in FTS projects, attributing it to socio-cultural diversity and limited face-to-face interactions that hinder rapport formation. The shift to post-2020 has amplified these barriers in FTS environments, intensifying feelings of isolation and reducing informal interactions that once mitigated cultural gaps. Emerging AI-powered translation and context-aware tools, such as real-time multilingual platforms, are showing promise as mitigators by 2025, enabling more accurate conveyance of cultural nuances and reducing language-induced misunderstandings in global collaborations.

Follow-the-moon

Follow-the-moon is a cost-optimization in data center operations that involves scheduling non-urgent workloads, such as batch processing tasks, to run during local nighttime hours when electricity rates are lower. This approach exploits diurnal variations in energy pricing and availability across geographically distributed facilities, shifting computational loads to regions where it is off-peak to minimize expenses. Originating from research on global data center efficiency, it enables companies to route requests dynamically based on real-time energy costs without compromising overall system performance for time-sensitive applications. Unlike models focused on continuous operational coverage, follow-the-moon prioritizes and financial savings over speed or uninterrupted handoffs, targeting deferrable jobs that can tolerate delays of several hours. For instance, in environments, providers shift batch jobs like data analytics or large-scale simulations to data centers in lower-cost, off-peak zones, potentially reducing bills by 13% to 30% for multinational operators with multiple sites. This method is not designed for real-time task delegation but for opportunistic load balancing that aligns with utility rate structures, making it particularly suitable for high-volume, non-interactive . In sustainable contexts as of 2025, follow-the-moon has gained traction for reducing both costs and carbon emissions by migrating workloads to facilities with access to cheaper, cleaner nighttime sources. For example, geo-distributed platforms employ dynamic scheduling to run energy-intensive batch processes during low-demand periods, leveraging strategies that integrate carbon intensity metrics alongside pricing to optimize for environmental impact. This variant addresses growing demands in AI workflows, where non-urgent model development phases—such as hyperparameter tuning or dataset preprocessing—can be deferred to off-peak windows in regions with favorable availability, thereby lowering operational costs while supporting greener infrastructure. By focusing on these low-cost temporal slots, organizations achieve substantial gains without the need for immediate global coordination.

Alternative Terminology

Alternative terminology for follow-the-sun (FTS) encompasses phrases that describe similar continuous workflows in global , though they often vary in emphasis and precision. "24-hour development" refers to a model where tasks are passed between sites across time zones to enable nonstop progress, highlighting the cycle's continuity without always specifying structured daily handoffs. "Round-the-clock development" similarly stresses uninterrupted advancement through distributed teams, appearing in analyses of global practices. These terms frequently occur in global literature, such as Carmel et al. (2010), but typically lack FTS's explicit focus on daily rotations following progressions. Broader subtypes of global distributed (GDSE) include global models without daily handoffs, which emphasize and over continuity. An emerging term, "geo-distributed agile development," describes agile methods in teams spread across geographies, sometimes integrating FTS elements for sustained knowledge sharing.

References

  1. https://www.zendesk.com/blog/improve-remote-support-follow-sun-model/
  2. https://www.lucidchart.com/blog/follow-the-sun-model
  3. https://follow-the-sun.github.io/
  4. https://users.ece.utexas.edu/~perry/education/382v-s08/papers/espinosa.pdf
  5. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2022/12/05/follow-the-sun-model-how-to-overcome-challenges-and-discover-new-opportunities/
  6. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1333&context=sysc_fac&type=additional
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224372991_Follow_The_Sun_Software_Development_New_Perspectives_Conceptual_Foundation_and_Exploratory_Field_Study
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220591515_Follow_the_Sun_Workflow_in_Global_Software_Development
  9. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270102
  10. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.08743
  11. https://www.omg.org/cloud/deliverables/CSCC-Practical-Guide-to-Cloud-Computing.pdf
  12. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4755341
  13. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5386646
  14. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:830987/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  15. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1147/sj.454.0773
  16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25699610
  17. https://repositorio.pucrs.br/dspace/bitstream/10923/14190/2/A_Systematic_Literature_Review_of_Best_Practices_and_Challenges_in_Follow_the_Sun_Software_Development.pdf
  18. https://www.andela.com/blog-posts/these-ai-tools-just-unlocked-24-7-devops
  19. https://www.augmentcode.com/guides/how-ai-solves-context-loss-for-remote-development-teams
  20. https://leaddev.com/management/how-follow-sun-model-drives-speed-innovation
  21. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Large-Scale-Characteristics-of-Synchronous-Collaboration-Across-Time-Zones-CHI-2023.pdf
  22. https://www.gladly.ai/blog/the-follow-the-sun-model-guiding-principles-for-24-7-customer-support/
  23. https://www.keeping.com/content/follow-the-sun-model/
  24. https://yaama.tech/blog/5-key-benefits-of-hiring-remote-tech-teams-in-2025/
  25. https://swifteq.com/post/follow-the-sun-support-model
  26. https://www.wednesday.is/writing-articles/devops-excellence-with-indian-teams-building-cicd-pipelines-for-accelerated-software-delivery
  27. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/time-zone-management-hacks-remote-teams-sourcebae-vvlxf
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261094152_A_Systematic_Literature_Review_of_Best_Practices_and_Challenges_in_Follow-the-Sun_Software_Development
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121220302181
  30. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5
  31. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11227-018-2699-5
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287171025_A_feasibility_study_of_follow-the-sun_software_development_for_GSD_projects
  33. https://selleo.com/blog/the-importance-of-cultural-differences-in-software-development-outsourcing
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221016127_Researching_into_Follow-the-Sun_Software_Development_Challenges_and_Opportunities
  35. https://www.lingualinx.com/blog/how-ai-driven-translations-are-closing-the-global-language-gap
  36. https://www.networkworld.com/article/774429/lan-wan-follow-the-moon-and-save-millions.html
  37. https://intranet.icar.cnr.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/RT-ICAR-CS-16-03.pdf
  38. https://nms.lcs.mit.edu/papers/sigcomm372-aqureshi.pdf
  39. http://www.eco4cloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/E4C-Inter-Cloud-WP.pdf
  40. https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-center-software/software-defined-power-the-path-to-ultimate-reliability
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317321991_Carbon-Aware_Electricity_Cost_Minimization_for_Sustainable_Data_Centers
  42. https://d-nb.info/1371988862/34
  43. https://hal.science/tel-04936934v1/file/Modeling__evaluating_and_orchestrating_heterogeneous_leverages_for_large_scale_cloud_data_centers_management.pdf
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4112211_Assigning_tasks_in_a_24-hour_software_development_model
  45. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270102
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.