Commitments and Energies in a Kanban System - Lessons from LKBE 2011 That Still Matter

A common misunderstanding is that Kanban means “no dates, no commitments, no accountability.”

That was wrong in 2011 and it is wrong now.

What changes in flow systems is not whether we commit, but how we commit:

• internal team commitments based on capacity and flow signals
• service-level expectations by work type
• explicit handling for fixed-date and fixed-scope work
• frequent re-planning based on evidence, not hope

In other words: commitment becomes an ongoing management activity, not a one-time planning ritual.

One message from that talk was “never commit early unless you know why.”

That is real options thinking. Keep your options open until the economics justify narrowing them.

When fixed-date work enters your system (regulatory, market windows, contractual events), do not pretend everything is the same. Use explicit classes of treatment and make tradeoffs visible:

• what gets expedited
• what gets protected
• what gets delayed
• what gets descoped

This improves both delivery confidence and decision quality.

The “energies” part of the talk focused on something teams still struggle with: without clear constraints, work expands to fill available space.

Testing, polishing, and integration can easily become “whatever time is left,” especially under pressure.

Some practical countermeasures:

• create small, clear scope containers
• define context-specific done criteria
• use soft time containers to trigger re-evaluation
• visualize aging work so late items get attention instead of neglect

This is not about rigid timeboxing everything. It is about creating enough productive tension to keep work moving.

Not all work should follow the same route.

When bottlenecks are congested, forcing every item through identical steps increases cycle time variance and weakens predictability. Intelligent routing means adapting the path based on risk, urgency, and feedback needs.

This is where classes of treatment, preemption policies, and alternate routes become strategic tools rather than process trivia.

At the portfolio level, this same principle shows up as differentiated investment pathways and explicit governance policies.

A static board snapshot is useful, but insufficient. In the original talk, I emphasized signals that show motion and risk:

• blocked work
• aging work items
• zombie cycle times
• buildup before constraints

Those signals are still some of the best early-warning mechanisms we have. They help teams swarm in time instead of post-mortem too late.

If this resonates, you will probably like my more recent writing on active flow management and portfolio metrics:

• Actively Managing Portfolio Flow
• Improving Portfolio Flow Using Flow Metrics
• Improving your SAFe Implementation with some additional Flow metrics

In 2011, most of this conversation was framed at team and program levels.

Today, the bigger opportunity is to connect these same flow disciplines to portfolio decision systems and strategic traction:

• flow metrics as decision inputs, not reporting artifacts
• explicit portfolio WIP policy
• outcome-oriented classes of service
• regular right-to-left portfolio reviews

That is how you move from “faster delivery theater” to measurable business progress.

I wrote more about that bridge here: Improving strategic traction through an OKR Kanban System

Start simple:

1. Split incoming work by class of treatment (instead of one default lane).
2. Add a visible aging policy for in-flight work.
3. Review flow right-to-left once a week and log concrete decisions.
4. Track throughput, cycle time, and aging for at least a month before changing everything.

You do not need a perfect framework. You need clear policies, visible flow, and disciplined decisions.

The original deck is still on Prezi for historical context: Commitments and Energies in a Kanban System (Prezi)

If you want help improving commitment reliability without sacrificing flow, explore portfolio agility work or reach out.