Israeli Culture and the Evolutionary Revolution

Revolution outside Evolution inside may be just what the doctor ordered for the impatient Israeli change leader.

Yesterday I was listening to David Anderson on Joe Dagger’s Business 901 Podcast. One of the interesting points were about the differences in Cultures driving to different attitude towards the Kanban Method between the US and Europe. Basically what David and Joe were saying is that there seems to be more traction for Lean and evolutionary change in Europe. The speculation is that Continuous Evolutionary approaches are more aligned with corporate and national European cultures. Europeans think they are more patient than Americans. Americans look for fast results and are more revolutionary. Go hear the discussion – it’s around 03:30-05:00 in the podcast.

This has got me thinking about Israel. Our national and corporate culture is said to in general be quite similar to America. I found this “Doing Business in Israel” article from CommunicAid which enumerates Individualism, Directness, Impatience and Polychronic as Key Concepts and Values. In general, this seems discouraging for alignment with Agile approaches – which encourage collaboration and collective ownership over individualism, focusing and finishing things over the multi-tasking hinted by PolyChronic. At least PolyChronic also means we are easy on the trigger of re-prioritizing, which explains why business agility is quite valuable to us…

Last but not least, we are impatient. And while there is nothing in general agile thinking that contradicts that, once you go to Lean, Continuous Improvement, and using something like the Kanban Method where you need to Agree to pursue incremental, evolutionary change, it becomes a bit more difficult. My experience in the field seems to align with the lack of patience for Continuous Improvement. Most Managers and Executives I see like the Agile concept a lot, think that delivering iteratively is a good idea, but the Continuous Improvement bit gets less traction, no matter how much we try. There are of course exceptions and bright spots shining through, but I cannot ignore the overall trend.

This explains why Kanban as a system is getting lots of interest and adoption in Israel, but not necessarily the evolutionary aspects of the Kanban Method. Disclaimer – my perspective is quite subjective, and related to the kinds of clients that approach AgileSparks. I’m interested in what other practitioners and consultants in Israel think.

With this starting point, you would expect head-strong revolutionary agile implementations. And we are seeing many of those. But the Impatience and PolyChronic traits also lead to losing interest and pace even while doing the revolution. Our attention span is short, and after the initial excitement, we often see organizations not focused on the change long enough to recover from a deep change and addressing all of it’s repercussions. It’s also quite typical to see organizations signing on for the revolution, but even when starting, they start making amends to the reality of the revolution being too much for them. We see feature teams which are not really feature teams. Doing agile, but continuing to work on many many projects because deciding to freeze some of them is a hard decision. Impediments actually requiring some tangible investment or management staff spending time agreeing on something and changing policies, linger.

What I started to think about was a way to learn faster what is the real change pace that the organization can sustain, before diving too deep into the j-curve. Maybe by front-loading tough decisions and seeing if they are made. Maybe by simulating real life scenarios in more depth and making the reality they will face later into the change more tangible for leaders. Maybe by starting with the tough aspects of limiting the work in progress and pull mode at the management level, before going to the teams level. If all of this doesn’t phase the organization and it’s management staff, then they have the right attitude and timing for a revolution. If they get cold feet, a more evolutionary approach can be adopted.

I’m thinking though that there isn’t much value in positioning the approach as evolutionary, at least not to those organizations. If they want an Agile Revolution, we will give them an Agile Revolution, maybe doing it in an evolutionary way.

There are other organizations which ARE dis-enchanted by revolutions, are mature enough to look for methods that are based on evolutionary continuous improvement. They might start with continuous improvement, but sometimes will consider a Revolution of sorts at some point.

I think we should develop more and more ways to recognize what is the best fit for the organization, ideally give the organization the system that helps it understand their own ability to pull change at a sustainable pace. This relates to my short Pecha Kucha talk from LKCE11 about Implementation/Policy Kanbans.

Change Program Stall Avoidance 101 & Policies Kanban

View more presentations from Yuval Yeret

I will continue to think about this topic. Lucky for me I’m seeing many examples of Israeli corporate culture in action, so will have a chance to examine this theory. Help me out by sharing your experience from Israeli or other impatient cultures!

Lean/Kanban approach to Teams

To Team or not to Team?

If you look at the definition of Kanban or Lean, you wouldn’t find teams anywhere there.

If you look at the Agile Manifesto, you can find “The best architectures, requirements, and designs
emerge from self-organizing teams”

Scrum is quite clear about the topic (Quoting the Scrum Guide 2011)

"Scrum Teams are self-organizing and cross-functional. Self-organizing teams choose how best to 
accomplish their work, rather than being directed by others outside the team. Cross-functional 
teams have all competencies needed to accomplish the work without depending on others not 
part of the team. The team model in Scrum is designed to optimize flexibility, creativity, and 
productivity."

So, if you are a manager of an organization on the Kanban train of evolutionary improvement, what does it mean for team structure? Should you keep the current structure? Adopt the Scrum Feature Teams concept? Do something else altogether? How should you organize your people to be as effective as possible in delivering value for the stakeholders?

Teams as an emerging property?

I personally believe that even if kanban the tool doesn’t talk about teams (obviously since it’s just a visualization and process-driving tool), despite the fact that the Kanban Method for evolutionary change doesn’t talk about teams (obviously since it starts from where you are, respecting your current structure, letting changes be pulled from actual need), more effective patterns for team formation will emerge when Kanban is really used.

At their core, Teams affect communication bandwidth. They partition the organization to enable increased communication bandwidth among people in a team, while counting on the fact that communication bandwidth to people outside the teams is not that important. Since we are talking about people, not network nodes, teams also allow the communication bandwidth to increase, the longer the team is working together, due to the team formation model. I recently read “The Talent Code” where the behaviour of our brain around learning new skills using myelin to wrap neurons to increase bandwidth reminded me of how teams behave.

So it seems like teams can really increase our effectiveness, and everyone in a reasonably sized organization cannot even bear to think about getting rid of the partitioning, right?

Well some of the Kanban thinking says that since Kanban massively reduces coordination costs via hyper-visualization and the pull system, the size of teams can increase significantly. Since we advocate using classes of service to allocate capacity to demand, thereby maintaining flexibility, we shouldn’t allocate people to demand.

The main reason not to go to teams is that teams might be local optimization. If our workload/demand was certain, and the uncertainty as to what effort/speciality is needed to deliver it was low, we could build the teams that optimize our performance. If that workload/demand didn’t vary over time, we could maintain the same teams and still have optimal effectiveness. But since in most environments we are facing a complex system with uncertainty/variability in the workload/demand, as well as the implementation effort/speciality required, it seems like sustaining stable teams will cost us in some optimization.

Team Modes

In my recent conference talks (GOTOCPH, LKBE11, LKCE11) I provided my view on this question of team formation and Kanban. I described the following progression:

  1. Functional/Component Teams based on specialization
  2. Teams On-Demand – whenever pulling a new Feature for work, associate the relevant people with it. They will deliver that feature, and after a few weeks return to their home teams. This approach provides lots of flexibility, but typically has relatively high coordination costs. It also doesn’t really benefit from the improved communication bandwidth among the team members that you get from persistent teams. This is very similar to the Feature Driven Development team mode by the way.
  3. Project/Initiative Teams – whenever pulling a new Project/Initiative for work, associate the relevant people with it. They will work together as a virtual team for the duration of that project/initiative, and after a few months, return to their home teams. The benefits of this approach is lower coordination costs as the teams don’t change that often. In addition the people working towards the same business goal are working together. The communication bandwidth increases as well over time, as well as the feeling of purpose and alignment. On the other hand, flexibility goes down. It is harder to shift people into projects/initiatives. It is harder to shift people out. If there is significant variability in the specialization required along the life-cycle of the project, selecting the right team becomes hard. If you work on versatility of your people, or already have a great group of generalizing specialists, this will be less of a problem. It can also be addressed by keeping a slack of several people working outside of project/initiative teams, that can be easily shifted in and out of activities on demand. It makes even more sense if those people are your experts/heroes. I’m seeing this mode in action in several organizations.
  4. Teams pull work – The next mode is where you create stable work cells that are able to handle almost everything you throw at them. These work cells stay together as the main organizational unit, and pull work based on the next business option the organization wants to exercise, regardless whether it is to accelerate an existing initiative or start something new. Here the communication bandwidth grows stronger and stronger. The flexibility and agility to shift business priorities and help swarm to work in process remains quite high, but the internal team flexibility remains an issue. The same slack of people not associated to teams can help here as well. I’ve seen this specific mode in action in several organization, and it works great, assuming you are ready for the change.
  5. On demand teams – Wait, didn’t I mention this one? Yes, I did. The difference here is that assuming you somehow have a tightly knit group which already managed to create lots of communication bandwidths among the WHOLE group, you can have a win-win. Total flexibility and global optimization. This should be the holy grail of any manager of about 20-40 people I would imagine. A force to reckon with…

Mixing it up

You don’t have to decide on one model. Not all work is created equal, so not all teams should follow the same structure. Some interesting examples:

  1. 80% on-demand, 20% focused on an initiative
  2. 80% on-demand, 20% cross-functional work cell (A-Team)
  3. 80% project teams, 20% on-demand able to swarm to a team in distress and help, or join a team to teach them some new skill as appropriate.

Evolutionary Change

Some organizations will jump in, create work cell teams, and start working. I’ve seen it in action, and when you REALLY have enough energy in the organization to make this maneuver, by all means go for it.

Other cases you will not have enough energy. Or you will THINK you have enough energy, but reality will hit you in the face when all the middle managers / team leads that led you to believe they are on-board are not that supportive once it is time for action and for supporting the actual new structure.

So think hard about what is your case. And if you want to go for a more evolutionary change mode, consider the following:

  • Start with on-demand teams
  • Pilot one initiative/project team – especially useful when you have a risky initiative with a lot of uncertainty and dependencies, that is mission critical. Assign the success of this team structure to one of your best and most trusted people, if not yourself. Whether he is the Coach, the actual Lead, or something else is secondary. The important thing is that he will be in charge of making the team structure work, and together with the team make the learning from that available to the rest of the organization
  • Move to more and more initiative teams as necessary
  • When a project/initiative finishes consider turning the team to a work cell to pull more features in that area, or more features in general
  • Ideally, teams will have the capabilities to take almost all work on. If not, use a talent matrix showing what teams can do what and gaps to invest in. As well as talent matrix inside a team that will help teams grow some internal versatility (note not everyone on a team needs to know everything at the same level)

Cautionary Notes:

When creating teams be careful not to spread yourself too thin. If you have too many small teams it might be an indication you are not managing flow effectively at the Initiatives/activities level. I love teams of 4-5 people by the way.

If you find many people need to be on many teams, you have a real problem. It is ok for a minority of the people, especially specialists, to be needed by many teams. Maybe they should stay as auxiliary on-demand, while spending some of their capacity offloading knowledge to the teams. But if it’s not a minority, then you really need to work on versatility, or the on-demand might be a better fit. The whole point of the teams is to create the communication bandwidth. Without that, they’re just overhead.

Conclusion

I presented a couple of team modes here, as well as one way you can use them. This is really context-specific stuff, so I cannot tell what will work for your case. But I hope the modes help you relate the Lean/Kanban effectiveness principles to the options of team formation. In upcoming posts I will try to relate this to a couple of thinking frameworks I grew fond of lately (RightShifting? Cynefin?)

Scrum Sprint Commitment Rant

Going on a Rant

If there’s one thing that makes me mad whenever I see it is teams abusing the commitment concept in scrum. I’ve been on a rampage against dysfunctional sprint commitments for a while now, but lately my thoughts have crystalized a bit, especially when I had a chance to discuss this with Jim benson, Alan Shalloway, Chris Hefley and Jon Terry last week at Lean Kanban Benelux 2011.

Background

So what is the problem? Well quite often you see scrum teams that finish sprints out of breath, out of quality, out of joy. You also teams that start the sprint full of numbing fear, set a low bar and that low bar becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Add to that Product Owners, Scrum Masters and managers all spending precious time worrying about whether we are able to make accurate sprint commitment, instead of working to improve the actual capability of the team.

It’s quite sad actually. Surely that’s not what scrum should look like and indeed other teams have energized focused sprints where they deliver what they can, stretch their abilities just the right amount and finish a sprint with just the right energy and mindset to joyfully go into the next one.

So what’s causing this?

Well, let’s start with the out of breath teams. It typically starts with unrealistic commitments they make in the sprint planning. They make those commitments either because they’re pushed to do it explicitly or implicitly. Yes, scrum says the team should pull according to their capability. But something about the way this all works de-emphasizes actual capability of the team and motivates them to try to take on more than they can handle.
With this in play, they start and since there is a lot in their sprint backlog they have the green light to start many things in parallel. A few days later, in the last mile of the sprint, it’s still many items in progress and it’s either an unsustainable effort to reach the finish line, cutting corners or having a very disappointing sprint result. In our #LKBE11 discussion we referred to those as mini-death-marches…

With teams living in fear it is a different but related story. It starts with the message/spirit conveyed to them by their Product Owner, managers or previous life management culture. When they hear commitment they hear “miss that and you’re in trouble”. And if the ecosystem is such that meeting the sprint commitment is more important than the overarching purpose of the project/release/feature they will be driven to satisfy what they perceive as important – being predictable at the sprint level. So they make a safe commitment. Usually this is achieved by taking safety in the estimates. And so starts a self-fulfilling prophecy, as described by Parkinson’s law and Donald Reinertsen’s principle of the expanding work.

It doesn’t help that the team thinks that if they are able to deliver more, there is no turning back – from that point on they will be asked to deliver more on a consistent basis.

Lets pause here for a second – Isn’t it a reasonable expectation? Shouldn’t the team commit and deliver more in the future if they’re able to? The problem is that even during a short 1-4 weeks sprint, there’s still a lot of unavoidable uncertainty and variability. In exactly what we need to accomplish (requirement space), in how to do it (problem space) and also in how much time will we have for it (capacity). A lot of teams try to eliminate this variability and spend a lot of effort on it. Planning meetings grow longer, people’s capacity is planned at the micro-level…

Many teams will oscillate between over-commitment and under-commitment exactly because of this variability of course. They and their management will be frustrated if they’re measure for effectiveness is meeting the commitment. The only way to consistently meet a commitment is either unsustainable pace, or making a really safe commitment.

Lets eliminate commitment

Well, just as an exercise for now, to see why it’s there in the first place…

Without a sprint commitment, how will the sprint look like? Probably we will see people taking on work from all over the place. They will start at the top priority, but their nature will lead them to start many other backlog items since there is no focusing force urging them to stop starting and start finishing. So we need commitment, or something else, to encourage a team to focus on a few things and finish them first. An alternative to commitment at the stories level is to say we are focusing on a single feature so let’s finish it before moving on to anything else.

Commitment as a Focusing mechanism

Wait – this is the Scrum Sprint Goal – Teams are supposed to agree on a Sprint Goal they will focus on. The detailed story level commitment is an elaboration on that anyhow. If our product backlog is very fragmented and not feature oriented we will have a tough time using an effective sprint goal though. This is something to wonder about in and of itself… but if it’s indeed the business reality that we are doing many small things, we need another focusing guidance. That guidance can be “we think we can finish at least 8 stories, hopefully 4 more, so lets start with 8, get a good feeling we can finish them, and ONLY THEN move on to the 4 others”. Here, the team is still using the sprint commitment, but they’re using it for themselves as a focusing / work in process limiting mechanism.

Containers

Another problem we might have without commitment is that the work will expand uncontrollably. There is no finish line so there is no container. One thing that might help is very energizing purpose of where we need to get at the end of the Feature/Project/Release and why it needs to be at a certain point in time. Seeing our progress towards that goal (or lack of progress…) will help energize our efforts and reduce the expansion of work.

Commit to Capabilities Improvement

Another thing that might help is to start looking at our capability as a team and make a commitment not to exactly what we deliver but in general to improve our capabilities. The capability we care about is velocity as well as ability to turn out the top priority items in the backlog as soon as possible since they are the highest priority. So let’s monitor our capabilities over time and try to make them more predictable first and improve them as a next step. Specifically, measuring Velocity can be done without making any sprint commitment. Just track the velocity for each sprint, preferably on a control chart so you can start to understand the variability in your capabilities.

How can we make promises without commitment?

This is a point I love. On one hand Agile diehards say there is no commitment in agile – “we will just work sprint to sprint and avoid any clear external commitment the business can count on”. On the other hand if you start a discussion about losing the sprint commitment they and others start talking about “how can it even work without the team making a clear commitment and sticking to it?”. Bottom line, the sprint commitment doesn’t help you one bit in making external commitments and meeting them. It’s simply orthogonal to it. You make external commitments based on size estimations and historical/estimated capabilities. You meet external commitments by monitoring where you are towards them and adjusting scope, resources, pace sprint by sprint. If you use the sprint commitment as you should, it gives you nothing towards that goal. Accuracy in sprint commitments is micro-predictability. The business cares about mezzo/macro predictability. Same like a long-term stock investor doesn’t care about the fluctuations within a day or a week, they care about the stock performance over a quarter or a year. The team should care about reducing variability in its capabilities eg. have a lower variability in Velocity, so more aggressive mezzo/macro commitments can be taken on while still allowing safe and sustainable delivery.

How can other teams count on us if we don’t have a clear commitment for the sprint content?

What if we are in an environment where other teams in the group/portfolio count on deliveries from us on a sprint by sprint basis? If we don’t have any commitment how will they know when to expect the delivery from us? If they intend to work in parallel to us, how will they know whether to plan for this or not?

There are a couple of ways to look at this. If 80% of the work is consumed by other teams then we should probably consider the organizational design. Maybe it would be better to work as a single team. Maybe it is a case of us providing a service that is consumed by many other teams, and then it might be better to move towards a pull system – where there is less reliance on dates and rather an agreement on priority, an understanding of the capability in the form of typical lead time from requesting a service from us to the time we deliver it, and then the consumers using that service whenever it is ready, either at their next sprint, or even better as soon as its ready. If you’re thinking this will make planning sprints more complicated and prone to changes you are right. The solution can be to move to full pull mode at the team level, or reduce the batch size you plan for, meaning shorten the sprint length.

If it’s just sporadic work that others depend on, make sure that is what you start with and make a commitment to deliver it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the term Class of Service comes to mind at this point…

What will be the engine of continuous improvement if we don’t have a target commitment to strive for?

Scrum is about Continuous Improvement, right? What drives this? Isn’t it the need to meet commitments? to be better about commitments?

Well, not exactly. The thing that is driving Continuous Improvement is the fact that there is a container, composed of a certain scope to focus on, a certain time to do it in, and the people/capacity to do it with. Think of circling the team with a rope telling them now move together towards the target. This will cause a lot of pain. Some people are faster, others are slowing the team down. Some impediments come up and cause problems. But the rope keeping the team together is forcing them to deal with the problems rather than defer them by making progress on things outside the container just to maintain the comfortable feeling of progress.

So in order to maintain this improvement-inducing container we need the time, the team, and a certain scope to focus on. We can do that with the Sprint Forecast mentioned before.

One important concept in Continuous Improvement is to have a vision / target condition to strive for. What is that target condition in a Scrum environment? As mentioned above, this typically is to improve capabilities.

Improving throughput/velocity requires more scope in each container.

How do we translate improving business agility to the container? The ability to define a shorter time frame that the team can still deliver in. The shorter the time frame the more opportunities to change direction without causing waste. Problem is that there is a limit to this. Work takes time, and there’s a limit to how small we can slice it to still be able to use a container of this structure. That is why, at some level, in order to improve business agility even further, we need to move to another form of container, one which limits the amount of things we are working on as a team at each point in time.

(Clarifying note – If you’re reading this to mean get to a certain level with Scrum then move to Kanban, that’s not what I mean. You indeed will benefit from Kanban at this level, but you can start your journey with Kanban in the first place, or move to it regardless of where you are on the way)

So can we get rid of the Sprint Commitment or not?

Well, my personal opinion is that we can live without a Sprint Commitment as currently practiced by the majority of Scrum Teams out there. It seems the creators of Scrum think along similar lines, as they replaced Sprint Commitment with Sprint Forecast in the latest Scrum Guide

I personally think commitment is important, it’s only a question what you commit to. I prefer to focus on the following types of commitments:

  • Commit to learn about your capabilities, care about them and continuously improve them, by using a focusing mechanism challenging the team as a whole.
  • Commit to deliver the class of service that the business and other teams expect, which means delivering on time when it matters, delivering the most throughput when it matters more, etc.

 

Some more ideas to try at home…

Before we conclude this long post – Some related experiments you might want to try at home…

  • If you feel you are over stretching, For a few sprints try setting a very low forecast and meeting it and see how it looks like. Talk about it. Learn from it.
  • Try limiting the amount of Features/Goals in one sprint. Talk about what it changes in the energies and focus of the team. If you cannot set a limit, that’s an interesting discussion in and of its own, that you should have.
  • Use the Sprint Goal and Sprint Stretch more aggressively. Set a lower goal, and commit to deliver the goal first, and as much of the stretch as possible. Goal should be something you can consistently deliver 95% of the time. (Mike Cohn recommends basing that goal on the mean of the 3 worst sprints out of last 8, another way is to use 2 standard deviations below the mean if you want to take a more statistics oriented approach). whether 95%, 85% or lower is your call. But the expectation should be that if there is a difficulty meeting even this commitment, it’s not forbidden to pick up the pace a bit in order to meet a commitment. Learn from it at the end of the sprint and plan more effectively next time.
  • Read about the XP Planning Game and try it… Seems the idea that iterations can be effective without a commitment is not a new one 🙂

Extra Reading

Conclusion

Scrum has some good things going for it. The Scrum-style Planning Game and Sprint Commitment as currently understood and practiced by most teams and organizations is not one of them. I hope this post will help at least some of those improve their results as well as their happiness.

Patterns for getting to a lower WIP level in a system – The Freeze, No New Work, Limit Later, and some Mashups…

Some of us have the luxury of designing processes for greenfield systems meaning there is no history/legacy to deal with.

Typically though, we are dealing with Brownfield/Legacy systems – This usually means there is some work in the system already, there are outstanding commitments, and some existing queues between steps in our processes.

I’m working with several clients that decided to start using a Kanban system to manage their work, and believe Limited Work in Process is key to improving their performance.

But a challenge most of them share is how to deal with is something along the lines of:

  • We already have a commitment to deliver V10 with 20 features by end of October.
  • Our testing department is backlogged – its still dealing with the previous release V9 while development are already working on those 20 features for V10.
  • V10 is critical to the business.

We then discuss various ways to get from here to there.

The Freeze

Essentially prioritize all work. Anything that is in process but above the WIP limit, goes to the freezer – a new temporary lane/area where work is put on freeze until there is room for it.

The immediate effect would be acceleration of all work inside the WIP limit, and significant risk to the commitment made about the frozen work. Yes, you say that the original commitment took all the work into account so why is there a risk just due to changes in parallelism? Well, because we focus on the higher priority work, reality is that we might spend more effort on it, to deliver it with reasonable quality (not necessarily an attribute of previous releases…), we might spend more time investing in Versatility in order to sustain a lower more focused work in process limit. So, it would be prudent to negotiate the commitment level on a couple of lower priority features from the release… and give the business a heads up this might happen.

This is one of the fastest ways to achieve a new inventory/WIP level in the system. If we are looking to show quick results and are able to negotiate a temporary change in service levels with the business, this can be a great approach.

This strategy is elaborated in depth in the Theory of Constraints body of knowledge.

No New Work

This is a more evolutionary version – don’t freeze current work, but deny new work until we reach the desired work in process levels. This means anyone finishing work on something will look how he can help someone else, instead of starting something new. There will still be effects on the release commitment, but milder ones.

The price we pay here is that it will take more time to reach the new inventory/WIP level. It’s easier to negotiate with the business, but the results will show more slowly…

Here is a short clip of how it looks like:

Visualize now, Limit Later

This is even a more evolutionary version. You start with Kanban principle #1 – Visualize work. You don’t put any WIP limits for now. You see how work looks like, you try to manage WIP, but don’t limit it. Perhaps when negotiating commitments to the next release V11 you take into account a period of cleaning the system/queues and the implications of lowering the WIP, and at that point you go into a Freeze/No New Work period, with a bit more confidence in how this will look like, based on a few weeks/months of visualizing your work.

This clearly is the risk-averse approach. Just be careful of running out of improvement energies and forgetting that just Visualizing Work is not enough…

 

Differentiated Service

A tweak on all of the approaches above can be to treat different work types differently. This is what we call Classes of Service in Kanban.

For example, Normal work above the WIP limit will be frozen. Fixed date work will hopefully be inside the WIP limit and be allowed to finish. New Fixed date work can be allowed to start, with the condition that a Normal work will be frozen in exchange for introducing it. If all work currently in the system is Fixed Date, we can decide whether to allow the new Fixed date to start (should be a comfort zone for most organizations 😉 or to have a serious discussion with the business on the risks it introduces and how we want to address them.

We can also say we visualize all work, but limit specific types of work.

Feedback

What do you think about those approaches?

Which of the above did you find useful in real life?

Do you have other strategies for starting up in the real world?

 

Speaking in Lean Kanban Conferences in Europe Oct 2011

I was invited to speak in two Lean Kanban conferences taking place in Europe this fall.

I'm speaking at lean kanban Central Europe in Munich, Germany

I’m very excited about both those conferences. The speakers list is still not closed, but is very interesting on both of them, and it will also be an opportunity to hear case studies from the local region and meet practitioners. The topics for my talks are not finalized yet, I’ll update more as we close those details.

Looking forward to meeting European readers of the blog as well as twitter pals!