Is Kanban just Waterfall with Small Batches?
Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.Join For Free
Learn more about how DevOps teams must adopt a more agile development process, working in parallel instead of waiting on other teams to finish their components or for resources to become available, brought to you in partnership with CA Technologies.
I haven't been in a situation where I could actually try this approach at any kind of scale, but my gut tells me that you would get better performance. You'd increase the rate at which the organization created value, you'd decrease the amount time spent doing up front planning, and you'd decrease the number of in-flight dependencies you're managing at any one time. Decreasing the batch size would make it easier to change direction when business conditions changed.
My guess is that's why some folks are so excited about Kanban... you get better overall performance, without having to change anything about how the organization is currently structured. You get incremental improvement without the transformation and change issues that come along with a Scrum adoption. In addition, you'd now have a way to explicitly visualize the work, manage the flow of value, and drive conversation that incrementally improves how the overall system behaves.
So... what do you think? Is this the preferred way of working? Do we abandon teams and transformation? Is adopting Kanban as simple as working on smaller batches, value stream mapping, and setting work in process limits to create flow? If we took this approach, what would be our tradeoffs? Would we be leaving anything out by not transforming?
BTW - It is worth marking the occasion... this is my 300th post on Leading Agile. That's kind of a cool milestone.
Published at DZone with permission of Mike Cottmeyer, DZone MVB. See the original article here.
Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.