Key Note - SEPG 2013 - Kanban and the End of Methodology

946 views
724 views

Published on

This presentation looks at Alistair Cockburn's claim that software development methodologies are losing mind share to adaptive frameworks of which he considers the Kanban Method to be one. It also introduces an analysis of Bruce Lee's journey developing his own style of Chinese martial arts training and compares it with the journey David J. Anderson has taken developing the Kanban Method

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
946
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Alistair Cockburn has declared - the end of methodology! What has replaced it are - Reflective Improvement FrameworksThe Kanban Method is an example of a “reflective improvement framework.”http://alistair.cockburn.us/The+end+of+methodologyCockburn’s suggested name for this new class of methods
  • A software engineering methodology is a description of techniques - what to do and how to do it - strung together in sequences or workflows - when to do it - and wrapped with a definition of roles and responsibilities - who does what.A methodology tells us who does what, when and how it should be done.Ideally, a methodology should tell us why and give us a context to define its appropriateness
  • Many styles of software development/engineering emerged - some just personal prefences in style (e.g. PSP versus XP), but others for specific contexts or risk profiles (e.g. the many risk profiles captured in a 2-dimensional grid in Cockburn's Crystal methods).Some styles came in schools or movements - such as the Agile movement - while others came as large frameworks such as Rational Unified Process designed to be tailored to a context**CMMI ML3 includes specific practices for process definition & tailoring
  • The Kanban Method was born out of frustration with these many styles of software engineering and the challenge of installing them effectively in an organization.The question wasn't whether a methodology worked or not, or whether appropriateness of context had been assessed correctly or not, the problem was organizations were being seduced into pursuing changes that were too large and too ambitious and beyond their capability and maturity to manage such changes.
  • CMMI has a blind spot - while it is all about improvement - there is no process area(s) for change management. IMO a flaw in the model that inhibits success. It's chicken and egg - a causality dilemma! In order to improve capability and maturity, you have to be able to manage change. In order to manage change, you have to first improve capability and maturity.I came to the conclusion (circa 2002) that the important issue in knowledge work wasn't the selection of the write methodology but the bigger challenge was how to manage change in the organization.
  • Traditional change is an A to B process. A is where you are now. B is a destination. B is either defined (from a methodology definition) or designed (by tailoring a framework).To get from A to B, a change agency* will guide a transition initiative to install destination B into the organization.*either an internal SEPG or external consultants
  • However, change initiatives fail more often than projects fail!Change initiatives often fail (aborted) or produce lack luster results, and fail to institutionalize resulting in regression back to old behavior (and maturity levels).
  • The reason is people resist change. The traditional change model would work perfectly well with silicon-based life forms because the benefits could be argued and agreed with logical. But carbon-based life forms resist change because they don't process it logically but with their sensory perception, their emotional intelligence, the older brain function Daniel Kahneman calls "system 1".
  • New roles (defined in the methodology) attack their identityNew responsibilities using new techniques & practices attack their self-esteem and put their social status at riskStatistically, most people resist most change because individually they have more to lose than to gain. Probabilistically, it is safer to be conservative and stick to current practices and avoid shaking up the current social hierarchy. Only the brave or the reckless will pursue grand changes.
  • The Kanban Method rejects the traditional change management method and rejects the installation of a new style of working - a new methodology. It does this because it is better to avoid resistance than to push harder against it.The Kanban Method introduces an evolutionary approach to change that is humane. It is designed to work with carbon-based life forms processing change with system 1. The Kanban Method catalyzes improvement through the use of kanban systems and visual boards (also known as "kanban" in Chinese and in Japanese when written with Chinese characters). It is from the use of kanban that the method takes its name, but it is just a name. Anyone who thinks Kanban is just about kanban (boards & systems) is truly mistaken. The Kanban Method is an example of a new approach to improvement. It is a method without methodology.
  • The Kanban Method rejects the traditional change management method and rejects the installation of a new style of working - a new methodology. It does this because it is better to avoid resistance than to push harder against it.The Kanban Method introduces an evolutionary approach to change that is humane. It is designed to work with carbon-based life forms processing change with system 1. The Kanban Method catalyzes improvement through the use of kanban systems and visual boards (also known as "kanban" in Chinese and in Japanese when written with Chinese characters). It is from the use of kanban that the method takes its name, but it is just a name. Anyone who thinks Kanban is just about kanban (boards & systems) is truly mistaken. The Kanban Method is an example of a new approach to improvement. It is a method without methodology.
  • There are some parallels in the story of Bruce Lee and the emergence of his approach to Kung Fu.Lee rejected the idea of following a particular style of Chinese Martial Arts.
  • Lee rejected these for various reasons, mainly that they gave the practitioners a false sense of ability and put them at risk in real combat situations. He was against Kata (learning patterns without an opponent) and described them in derogatory terms such as "dry land swimming."
  • Instead he sought to break the art down into a set of basic principles:The four ranges of combatKickingPunchingTrappinggrapplingand the Five* Ways of Attack***Single Direct Attack (SDA)Attack By Combination (ABC)Progressive Indirect Attack (PIA)(Hand) Immobilization Attack (HIA)Attack by Drawing (ABD)Single Angle Attack (SAA)*Apparently still called the Five Ways, there are actually now six **with the later inclusion of SAA**The fact that The Five Ways has six elements is evidence of evolution in action***Incorporated core ideas such as "center line" and single fluid motion from Wing Chun and parrying from Epee Fencing********Not a Chinese Martial Art and hence evidence of "no limitation as limitation"
  • He named his approach JeetKune Do - the way of the intercepting fist - after one of the principles taught in his method. He was quick to point out that it was just a name, a way of communicating a set of ideas. He was passionate that practitioners shouldn't get hung up on the name or the inclusion of any one move or action.
  • The JeetKune Do emblem incorporates the words..."having no way as way." There would be no specific style or school to his approach. It is not fixed or patterned but guided by a set of principles. An individual would adapt their own style that worked best for them by learning the principles and practicing different types of kicking, punching, trapping and grappling."having no limitation as limitation." In other words, Lee would be prepared to pull ideas from any source if it made the (martial) art better and made the individual a better practitioner. His concern was the logical improvement of the method rather than loyalty to any one tradition or tribe. He was happy to borrow ideas from Western traditions as much as Eastern.
  • While JeetKune Do is often described as a framework from which an individual can pick and choose to develop their own style, it is also an evolutionary approach. Lee referred to "absorb what is useful" and discard the remainder. And this was at the personal level for an individual developing their own style. If they chose to discard "intercepting fist" this would be acceptable. They were following the philosophy faithfully and the inclusion of any one maneuver or set of maneuvers was not critical.
  • In JeetKune Do training is always with an opponent. This provides the core feedback loop and learning opportunity that allows a practitioner to select that which "is useful" and discard that which is not.Lee pursued ever more elaborate approaches to protected real combat training to enable the closed loop learning that was core to the evolutionary nature of JKD. In comparison patterned styles of martial arts taught with "kata" were open loop and not adaptive.
  • Bruce Lee was a philosopher. He majored in philosophy at the University of Washington, Seattle. His own personal philosophy was heavily influenced by Taoism and Buddhism. He brought this philosophy to his interpretation of Kung Fu and the heart of JeetKune Do.One of his key teachings was "to be like water". Water flows around the rock. The rock represents resistance - in fighting, the resistance is from the opponent.
  • In change management, resistance is from the people involved and it is always emotional.To flow around the rock, we must learn how to avoid emotional resistance.
  • The Kanban Method evolved with this principle in mind. That we must discover a way that enabled change while avoiding invoking sources of resistance - even better if we could motivate the people involved to advocate for the changes required. With Kanban you start with what you do now, and "kanbanize" it, catalyzing the evolutionary process into action. Changes to processes in use will occur and evaluating whether a change is truly an improvement can be done using fitness criteria that evaluate the external outcome.
  • Fitness criteria are metrics that measure things customer or other external stakeholders value such as delivery time, quality, predictability, conformance to regulatory requirements or metrics that value actual outcomes such as customer satisfaction or employee satisfaction
  • Kanban closes the learning loop using 3 feedback mechanisms:the standup meeting in front of the kanban boardthe manager to subordinate meetings (both 1-1 and 1-team)the operations review meetingIronically, these have come to known as the Kanban Kata. Ironic because Lee was opposed to Kata as they normally represent an open loop system without learning.
  • Kanban installs an adaptive capability in the organization and the style of working - the methodology - emerges and evolves, adapting gracefully to changes in business conditions, risks and uncertainty.Such an adaptive capability makes the organization robust and resilient and enables the possibility of continued sustainable long term competitiveness.
  • Kanban, like JKD, _is_ based on simple principles. As already described, these are: service-orientation service delivery involves workflowand work flows through a series of information discovery activitiesThese principles give us a lens through which to view knowledge work activities and some clues as to the applicability of Kanban. Kanban would be less applicable if a service-orientated view of work were difficult to conceive or the work was without a definable workflow.
  • There are some differences between JKD and Kanban. It is dangerous to draw too close an analogy.JKD contains a martial art framework. It contains a core set of principles based on an underlying theory of fighting and vulnerability of the human body: concepts such as "center line" from Wing Chun, for example.Kanban is really a management method. It directly addresses change management. It also creates a mechanism for framing operational decisions through its core concepts such as use of pull systems and the consequent concept of deferred commitment.Kanban does not contain a framework of concepts for doing any specific types of work. There are no techniques for developing software or performing any other type of creative knowledge work.
  • For specific domains, Kanban cannot guide you or tell you what to do, there must be knowledge of that domain, such as software engineering, and within those domains, different schools of thought will still exist. Kanban is, therefore, not an equivalent of JKD for software engineering.Kanban is not a framework for evolving a personal style of software engineering, in the way that JKD is a framework for evolving a personal style of combat.Kanban is a complete method for installing evolutionary capability in an organization. It is domain agnostic.
  • So does the arrival of Kanban represent the end of methodologies?Alistair Cockburn argues it doesn't! There is still a need to know what to do, how to do it, when to do it and who should perform specific activities. There is, in his opinion, still a need for a definition of who, what, when, where and how.
  • However, perhaps JKD and the philosophy of Bruce Lee gives us some clues that methodologies can and indeed should be dead!Do we need to define roles and force people to fit their definitions? Is it better to let an individual's identity evolve and emerge in the context of a given organization?
  • Perhaps it is enough for us to teach a catalog of techniques from programming languages to architecture, analysis and design patterns that teach known good practices? Modern approaches to software architecture, design, programming and deployment all encourage fast feedback and short cycle times to encourage learning. Perhaps we need to be focusing on giving permission for personal and organizational styles of software engineering to emerge naturally rather than promoting methodology and adoption of defined methods?
  • The future of methodology should be inspired by Bruce Lee and JKD - train with live opponents, no kata, no "dry land swimming". Rather than define roles, responsibilities and procedures, we should teach beginners how to set up safe to fail, learning environments at the individual, team and project level - validate assumptions early and quickly, deploy fake, prototype or real code to gain knowledge of what works and what doesn't. This begins to sound a lot like many modern technical practices, framed inside something like Lean Startup.
  • The Agile Software Development movement has taken us some way down this path already. Perhaps now it is finally time to let go of methodology and embrace a whole new way of teaching and performing software engineering? Getting _Beyond_Agile_ should see us embrace an "end to methodology!"
  • And what does this mean for the CMMI?CMMI is methodology agnostic. A CMMI appraisal could be performed on an organization utilizing Lean Startup ideas and using its own evolved style of software engineering.Some changes to the model may be required, though!
  • Do we still expect a defined process? If so why? Is this just bureaucratic overhead? Bruce Lee would have viewed a defined process as a patterned style - dead, without learning or evolutionary capability. Would it be better to modify the model to look for safe-to-fail learning environments within the organization rather than defined processes?
  • Key Note - SEPG 2013 - Kanban and the End of Methodology

    1. 1. Kanban and the End of Methodology Presenter: David J. Anderson SEPG North America Pittsburgh October 2013 Release 1.0 dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo Lessons we can learn from Bruce Lee’s journey in martial arts
    2. 2. The End of Methodology dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    3. 3. Is Kanban heralding in a new era? It’s the end of methodology!* Reflective Improvement Frameworks** are the future! Alistair Cockburn Kanban is such a Reflective Improvement Framework * http://alistair.cockburn.us/The+end+of+methodology ** Cockburn’s suggested name for this new class of methods dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    4. 4. A methodology defines behavior • A software engineering methodology is a description of techniques – what to do – how to do it – When to do it - sequences or workflows – Who does what - definition of roles and responsibilities • Ideally, a methodology should tell us why and give us a context to define its appropriateness dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    5. 5. Many styles of software engineering emerged over several decades • Some just personal preferences in style (e.g. PSP versus XP), but others for specific contexts or risk profiles (e.g. the many risk profiles captured in a 2dimensional grid in Cockburn's Crystal methods). • Some styles came in schools or movements - such as the Agile movement • While others came as large frameworks such as Rational Unified Process designed to be tailored to a context* *CMMI ML3 includes specific practices for process definition & tailoring dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    6. 6. The Kanban Method was born out of frustration with these many styles In 2002, I was questioning whether the specific methodology really made that much difference The question wasn't whether a methodology worked or not, or whether appropriateness of context had been assessed correctly or not, the problem was organizations were being seduced into pursuing changes that were too large and too ambitious. These change initiatives were beyond their capability and maturity to manage them dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    7. 7. CMMI has a bl nd sp t! • While CMMI is all about improvement - there is no process area(s) for change management • IMO a flaw in the model that inhibits success dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    8. 8. Change to mature or mature to change? It's chicken and egg - a causality dilemma! In order to improve capability and maturity, you have to be able to manage change. In order to manage change, you have to first improve capability and maturity dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    9. 9. Managing change has greater leverage than picking the right methodology I came to the conclusion (circa 2002) that the important issue in creative knowledge work wasn't the selection of the right methodology Instead the bigger challenge with the greater leverage on outcome was learning to manage change in the organization dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    10. 10. Traditional Change is an A to B process Designed Current Process Defined transition Future Process • A is where you are now. B is a destination. – B is either defined (from a methodology definition) – or designed (by tailoring a framework) • To get from A to B, a change agency* will guide a transition initiative to install destination B into the organization *either an internal SEPG or external consultants dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    11. 11. Change initiatives fail (even) more often than projects Change initiatives often fail (aborted) or produce lack luster results They fail to institutionalize resulting in regression back to old behavior (and lower maturity levels) dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    12. 12. How we process change… I logically evaluate change using System 2 I feel change emotionally using System 1 Silicon-based life form Carbon-based life form Daniel Kahneman dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    13. 13. Methodologies challenge people psychology & sociologically • New roles (defined in a methodology) attack their identity • New responsibilities using new techniques & practices threaten their self-esteem and put their social status at risk • Most people resist most change because individually they have more to lose than to gain • It is safer to be conservative and stick to current practices and avoid shaking up the current social hierarchy • Only the brave, the reckless or the desperate will pursue grand changes dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    14. 14. The Kanban Method… • Rejects the traditional approach to change • Believes, it is better to avoid resistance than to push harder against it – Don’t install a new methodology • Is designed for carbonbased life forms Evolutionary change that is humane dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    15. 15. The Kanban Method… • Catalyzes improvement through use of kanban systems and visual boards* • Takes its name from the use of kanban but it is just a name • Anyone who thinks Kanban is just about kanban (boards & systems) is truly mistaken *also known as "kanban" in Chinese and in Japanese when written with Chinese characters dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    16. 16. The Kanban Method is a new approach to improvement Kanban is a method without methodology dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    17. 17. Bruce Lee’s Journey in Martial Arts dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    18. 18. Bruce Lee rejected traditional teaching and styles of Chinese martial arts • There are some parallels in the story of Bruce Lee and the emergence of his approach to Kung Fu • Lee rejected the idea of following a particular style of Chinese Martial Arts dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    19. 19. Kung Fu Panda simplified the art to only four styles Mantis Python Tiger Monkey dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    20. 20. There are in fact very many styles… dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    21. 21. “Dry land swimming” provides a false sense of capability • The only way to learn is to train with a live opponent • Lee rejected the many styles of martial arts for various reasons, mainly that they gave the practitioners a false sense of capability, putting them at risk in real combat situations • He was against Kata (learning patterns without an opponent) and described them in derogatory terms such as "dry land swimming.“ dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    22. 22. Lee wanted to start from first principles and core concepts Four ranges of combat • • • • Kicking Punching Trapping Grappling Five* Ways of Attack*** • Single Direct Attack (SDA) • Attack By Combination (ABC) • Progressive Indirect Attack (PIA) • (Hand) Immobilization Attack (HIA) • Attack by Drawing (ABD) • Single Angle Attack (SAA) *Apparently still called the Five Ways, there are actually now six **with the later inclusion of SAA **The fact that The Five Ways has six elements is evidence of evolution in action ***Incorporated core ideas such as "center line" and single fluid motion from Wing Chun and parrying from Epee Fencing**** ****Not a Chinese Martial Art and hence evidence of "no limitation as limitation" dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    23. 23. Lee’s approach still needed a name • He named his approach Jeet Kune Do - the way of the intercepting fist - after one of the principles taught in his method. He was quick to point out that it was just a name, a way of communicating a set of ideas. He was passionate that practitioners shouldn't get hung up on the name or the inclusion of any one move or action. dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    24. 24. Jeet Kune Do Having no limitation as limitation dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo Using no way as way
    25. 25. Jeet Kune Do encourages development of a uniquely personal style "absorb that which is useful“ discard the remainder dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo • a framework from which to pick & develop a personal style • an evolutionary approach where adoption of maneuvers is learned & reinforced by training with an opponent • Nothing was sacred
    26. 26. Training with an opponent provides the core feedback loop to drive adaptation Lee pursued ever more elaborate approaches to protected real combat training to enable the closed loop learning that was core to the evolutionary nature of JKD dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    27. 27. Kata are not adaptive In comparison with JKD, patterned styles of martial arts taught with "kata" were open loop and not adaptive. There is no learning from practicing kata dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    28. 28. Water flows around the rock “be like water” the rock represents resistance dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    29. 29. The Kanban Method dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    30. 30. Kanban should be like water* In change management, resistance is from the people involved and it is always emotional To flow around the rock, we must learn how to avoid emotional resistance * http://joecampbell.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/be-like-water/ dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    31. 31. Start with what you do now • The Kanban Method evolved with the principle that it “should be like water” - enable change while avoiding sources of resistance • With Kanban you start with what you do now, and "kanbanize" it, catalyzing the evolutionary process into action. Changes to processes in use will occur • Evaluating whether a change is truly an improvement is done using fitness criteria that evaluate an external outcome dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    32. 32. Fitness criteria are metrics that measure observable external outcomes • Fitness criteria are metrics that measure things customers or other external stakeholders value – – – – delivery time Quality Predictability conformance to regulatory requirements • or metrics that value actual outcomes such as – customer satisfaction – employee satisfaction dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    33. 33. Institutionalize feedback systems to enable evolutionary change Operations Review System Capability Review manager to subordinate(s) (both 1-1 and 1-team) dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo Standup Meeting
    34. 34. Adaptive capability enables sustainable competitiveness • Kanban installs an adaptive capability in the organization – the style of working - the methodology - emerges and evolves, adapting gracefully to changes in business conditions, risks and uncertainties • Such an adaptive capability makes the organization robust and resilient and enables the possibility of continued sustainable long term competitiveness dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    35. 35. Kanban’s Core Enabling Concepts Kanban is based on some simple concepts for managing work • service-orientation • service delivery involves workflow • and work flows through a series of information discovery activities Kanban would be less applicable if a serviceorientated view of work were difficult to conceive or the work was without a definable workflow dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    36. 36. 6 Practices Enable Process Evolution The Kanban Method Visualize Limit Work-in-progress Manage Flow Make Policies Explicit Implement Feedback Loops Improve Collaboratively, Evolve Experimentally (using models & the scientific method) dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    37. 37. So, are we at the “end of methodology?” dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    38. 38. So does the arrival of Kanban represent the end of methodologies? No! We still need methodologies There is still a need to know what to do, how to do it, when to do it and who should perform specific activities. Alistair Cockburn dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    39. 39. Perhaps methodologies should be dead? • Do we need to define roles and force people to fit their definitions? Is it better to let an individual's identity evolve and emerge in the context of a given organization? • Transitioning methodologies is I don’t want to change. not compatible with humans I do want to grow dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    40. 40. Give Permission for personal & organizational styles to emerge • Give permission for • Modern approaches to personal and organizational software styles of software architecture, design, program engineering to emerge ming and deployment all naturally rather than encourage fast feedback and promoting methodology short cycle times to and adoption of defined encourage learning. methods • Trends with communities of • Promote known good technical practice seem to practices coupled with fast indicate growing feedback mechanisms to disillusionment with encourage learning & methodologies adaptation dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    41. 41. The future of creative knowledge work should be inspired by Bruce Lee & JKD • Our opponents are uncertainty & risk. Engage directly. Validate speculation quickly • Teach beginners to set up safeto-fail, learning environments at the individual, team and project level • Validate assumptions early and Train with live opponents quickly, deploy fake, prototype or real code to gain knowledge No kata of what works and what doesn't No "drymodern technical practices land swimming“ • Use inside an evolutionary framework dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    42. 42. To get beyond Agile we must embrace the “end of methodology” • Perhaps now it is finally time to let go of methodology and embrace a whole new way of teaching and performing software engineering? • The Agile Software Development movement has taken us some way down this path already. It encouraged the use of feedback loops and emergence of modern technical practices. Now we must complete the job and let go of Agile methodologies altogether! dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    43. 43. Implications for CMMI dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    44. 44. What does this mean for the CMMI? • CMMI is methodology agnostic. A CMMI appraisal could be performed on an organization with a uniquely evolved software engineering method, utilizing evolutionary frameworks such as Lean Startup & Kanban • There are implications for the CMMI model, though… dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    45. 45. CMMI Model requires a defined process • Do we still expect a defined process? Do we expect it to be “tailored” to a context? If so why? Is this just bureaucratic overhead? • Bruce Lee would have viewed a defined process as a patterned style - dead, without learning or evolutionary capability • Intelligent design or evolution which do you trust more? • Would it be better to modify the model to look for safe-to-fail learning environments and evidence of process evolution rather than defined processes? dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    46. 46. The “end of methodology” may represent a punctuation point in the evolution of management • Evolution progresses through a series of punctuated equilibriums • The “end of methodology” is an opportunity for an explosion of new management thinking in creative knowledge worker industries • And an opportunity to give the CMMI new relevance! dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    47. 47. Will the "end of methodology" trigger a new wave of innovation in the CMMI? • Will the model evolve to reflect recent understanding in complexity science and the need for reflective, adaptive organizations that are robust & resilient in the presence of uncertain, changing external conditions? dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    48. 48. Thank you! dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    49. 49. About David Anderson is a thought leader in managing effective software teams. He leads a consulting, training, publishing and event planning business dedicated to developing, promoting and implementing sustainable evolutionary approaches for management of knowledge workers. He has 30 years experience in the high technology industry starting with computer games in the early 1980’s. He has led software teams delivering superior productivity and quality using innovative methods at large companies such as Sprint and Motorola. David was a co-author of the SEI Technical Note, “Agile & CMMI: Why not embrace both!” He is the pioneer of the Kanban Method an evolutionary approach to change and improved business agility. His latest book is, Lessons in Agile Management – On the Road to Kanban. David is a founder of the Lean Kanban University, a trade association dedicated to assuring quality of Kanban training through a network for member companies throughout the world. dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    50. 50. Acknowledgements Joe Campbell first blogged about the similarity in philosophy between the Kanban Method and the teachings of Bruce Lee. He coined the phrase “Kanban should be like water”. “Safe-to-fail Experiment” is a term used by Dave Snowden in his Cynefin framework for comprehending complexity and managing in complex domain problems. This presentation was inspired by Alistair Cockburn’s blog post “The End of Methodology” and a quote from Peter Senge, “People do not resist change, they resist being changed!” dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
    51. 51. dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo

    ×