The document discusses different iterative approaches to software development including mini-waterfalls, Scrum sprints, Kanban, and Scrumban. Mini-waterfalls still resemble a traditional waterfall model within each iteration with uneven workloads and feedback late in the cycle. Scrum sprints aim for even flow within iterations but require very small stories. Kanban provides real even flow without timeboxes but lacks timeboxing. Scrumban combines the real even flow of Kanban with the timeboxed iterations of Scrum for the most sustainable and pragmatic approach.

1. Iterative Approach Mini-Waterfalls
Working Tested
• Within each Iteration – Still looks like Software
Increment
a mini-waterfall (with uneven work
load, feedback towards end of cycle,
etc. )
• Improves Feedback
• Painful to execute by teams – that
ST Cycle
Design
strive for longer and longer iterations
SST
Fixing
• Ineffective
Coding
• Reasonable stepping stone
sometimes

2. Scrum Sprints
Working Tested
• Real Even flow within each iteration Software
Increment
• Even earlier feedback
• Better chance for having Working
Tested Software each Sprint
• More sustainable since even flow
across people
• Requires very small stories –
Investment in Planning
• Very hard to really achieve

3. Real Flow - Kanban
Working Tested
• Real Even Flow w/o timeboxes Software
Increment
• Iterate just at the level of the
work items
• Even more sustainable – Less
stress/idle cycles.
• Small stories preferred but can
live better with exceptions
• Lack of timebox has pros and
cons, depending on the context.

4. Real Flow - ScrumBan
Working Tested
• Real Even Flow. Iterations just Software
review/delivery checkpoints that do Increment
energize the people without over-
stressing them
• Even more sustainable – Less stress/idle
cycles.
• Small stories preferred but can live better
with exceptions
• More pragmatic
• Preferred choice of many organizations
today – Evolution of Scrum using Kanban