Scrum and Kanban are Means to an End, but not the End!

Scrum is indeed being challenged by Kanban (or Kanban Software Development)!

The Lean Software and Systems Consortium and the Limited WIP Society are not so much aggressively confronting the Scrum Alliance but more so aggressively moving beyond.

As noted, this is not about trashing Scrum but more so about reflecting reality.

Generally:

Scrum is designed at the practice level to eliminate a lot of external variability that affects the performance of most development teams. As such, this recipe of practices, or prescription will have a quick positive effect on performance, but without a true focus on organization level continuous improvement and cultural change, it will fail to generate further improvements.

The next notable observation regarding Scrum:

While the leaders in the Scrum community like to promote the concept of a culture of continuous improvement, Scrum does not appear to have enough depth in its guidance, literature, training and coaching to get teams there.

It’s only recently that, as a community, we’ve started to have an open debate about absolute performance of agile teams and look at what truly affects performance. What’s driving this is enterprise scale adoption.

And the next notable observation regarding the Scrum community:

My observation from the outside is that the Scrum community reflects the antithesis of our agile values. It is run from the top. The message is strictly controlled. Dissent is not permitted. It resembles a cult of personality and appears to be the very definition of command’n'control in its execution.

While many teams and organizations are now asking “Agile is Failing! Is Lean Next?” and “Is ‘Kanban’ the ‘New Scrum’ or the ‘New Lean’?”, we must respectfully remind ourselves that Scrum and Kanban are Means to an End, but not the End! The end is Transformation — Sustainable Culture/DNA Change of an Enterprise at every Scale.

If Scrum was not Enough, is Kanban really Enough?

Mutual Authentic & Appreciative Engagement

Note: This blog entry was initially titled “Why does Lean/Kanban/Agile/Scrum or ‘Whatever’ Work (versus Lean/Kanban/Agile/Scrum or ‘Whatever-Else’)?”, however, due to extensive feedback and numerous suggestions, it has been retitled to better reflect its contents.

In the context of any Organization (Business and Technology as well as Management and Teams), rather than consider “what is” or “how to”, consider “why”! Why does it work? The Organization? The People? The Coach!

Most people with Lean, Kanban, Agile, or Scrum leanings will answer: People!

While many Lean folks will initially approach the question by discuss Value, Value Streams, Flow & Pull, and Pursing Perfection, they ultimately emphasize Teams/Development and “respecting people”, but don’t readily acknowledge Management/Business and “respecting” all people. When confronted with this, the common reply is that its Management/Business who is doing the disrespecting!

While many Scrum folks will initially approach the question by discuss Transparency and Inspecting & Adapting, they ultimately emphasize the Scrum (development) Team role and “protecting the Scrum Team”, but don’t readily acknowledge the Product (business) Owner role and “protecting” all people. When confronted with this, the common reply is that it’s the Scrum (development) Team who needs protecting!

While many Kanban folks will initially approach the question by discussing Lean, they ultimately emphasize Transparency with a Kanban System as well as Kaizen. The emphasis on Transparency focuses on the process and work. The emphasis on a Kanban System focuses on limiting work-in-process with pull-flow and balancing demand-against-throughput. And the emphasis on Kaizen Workshops/Events/Culture focuses on continuous improvement. However Transparency, a Kanban “synchronization/integration” System, and Kaizen (as continuous improvement has been around practically “forever” under many names including, CMMI, Six-Sigma, etc.) don’t necessitate success! When confronted with this, they commonly fallback on Lean’s “respecting people”!

What about Agility? Consider: Agility is not the Point and Why Agility doesn’t Sell!

Undoubtedly, people are essential to any human endeavor, but the “simple” answer (“people”) to the question (“why does ‘whatever’ work versus ‘whatever-else’?”) is not representative of the richness of the answer and thus not fulfilling! The answer is far richer than the mere “word” that tries to express/represent it!

Why does “whatever” work versus “whatever-else”? Engagement! Engagement involves purposeful participation and creation. Each individual purposely (passionately) participates and contributes.

Why does “whatever” work versus “whatever-else”? Not merely Engagement, but Mutual Engagement! Mutuality involves reciprocity. Everyone co-participates and co-creates. Each individual contributes and confirms other individual’s contributions.

Why does “whatever” work versus “whatever-else”? Not merely Mutual Engagement, but Mutual Authentic Engagement! Authenticity involves genuineness. Everyone participates genuinely. Each individual’s contributions and confirmations genuinely represent them and who they are, their identity. Authenticity is commonly labeled Transparency and Trust.

Why does “whatever” work versus “whatever-else”? Not merely Mutual Authentic Engagement, but Mutual Authentic & Appreciative Engagement! Appreciation involves valuing. Everyone is valued for their participation. Each individual’s contributions and confirmations are genuinely valued, their identity is valued. Appreciation is commonly labeled Respect.

And if we are truly and sincerely authentic & appreciative, we will be shaped by one another as much as we will shape each other, which fosters a culture of mutual authentic & appreciative engagement. This is not merely Servant Leadership (or as discussed here) where Managers are servants to Teams, but more so, Managers and Teams may be servants to each other’s needs at different times and Managers and Teams being servants to their shared purpose. See here for a critique of Servant Leadership. Ultimately, this is the nature of “real transformation” or win-win, not a focus on who is right-or-wrong or what is worst-or-best but a focus on what is worse-or-better in any given situation and context. I only believe in win-win, every win-lose is ultimately a lose-lose!

Mere Engagement does not work! Mere Mutual Engagement does not work! Mere Mutual Authentic Engagement or Mutual Appreciative Engagement do not work!

Why does “whatever” work versus “whatever-else”? Mutual Authentic & Appreciative Engagement (in any purposeful human endeavor involving multiple people), independent of Lean, Kanban, Agile, Scrum or “whatever”. That is, co-participation and co-creation that is genuine and valued! This is not easy but requires discipline, endurance, etc. Likeiwse, Lean, Kanban, Agile, Scrum or “whatever” are (respectfully) merely adornments and “tools”.

Consider any “successful” or “less-than successful” endeavor around Lean/Kanban/Agile/Scrum or “whatever”. Was there Engagement? Was it Mutual? Was is Authentic? Was it Appreciative?

Note:  Respectfully, Lean, Kanban, Agile, or Scrum are mere adornments to “whatever”!

The Generation M Manifesto: Movement & Meaningful Stuff that Matters the Most

Beyond “The Smart Growth Manifesto”, Umair Haque explicates “The Generation M Manifesto” and further engages the community with “Your Thoughts About Generation M”.

The Generation M Manifesto

He emphasizes four Ms: Movement, Meaningful, Matters, and Most.

He explains that it is about Passion, Responsibility, Authenticity, and Challenging yesterday’s way of Everything.

He stresses that the crisis (“a widening gap in how you and we understand the world”) isn’t going away but growing and is “in our institutions: the rules by which our economy is organized”.

He concludes that “every generation has a challenge” and this is Gen M’s: to create an “authentically, sustainably, shared prosperity”.

Your Thoughts about Generation M

He explains that the Manifesto is addressed to the leaders of the G8 and that challenges (“a broken economy, aging populations with inadequate support, failing governance, an eviscerated financial sector — all these and more are the challenges of the 21st century”) have been caused by an “epic failure of leadership“.

He emphasizes that “M” can be best understood as a “new set of values” “powering a new set of organizations that are rising to today’s challenges, by doing radically meaningful stuff”.

Generation M and the Purposeful Enterprise

Perhaps, Umair is describing the notion of the Purposeful Enterprise!

Scrum for Product Management & Product Development and Project Management

Scrum is a simple team-based “inspect and adapt” framework to organize work around “complex” systems and products.

Scrum embodies problem-solving and the scientific-method.

Scrum has been applied to product management and product development as well as project management.

Scrum for Product Management & Product Development

(click figure to enlarge)

Scrum for Project Management

(click figure to enlarge)

Lean and Kanban: Stretched to the Breaking Point?

Are Lean and Kanban being stretched to the breaking point?

Some may claim so!

What about Scrum!

With all due respect, please notice that I am not making a statement, but asking a question.

Lean and Kanban

Lean is an optimization (efficiency and effectiveness) paradigm. With roots in manufacturing, its proliferation is due to the universality of its principles, which involve:

• Value
• Eliminating Waste (Value Stream)
• Limiting Work-In-Process (Continuous Flow and Level Pull)
• Continuous Improvement (Pursue Perfection)

A Kanban is a “signal”. A Kanban system:

• Integrate/Synchronize: Is a “signaling device” or “specific tool for controlling and regulating” the conveyance (pull-flow) of “material and information” in a value stream (composed of processes/activities/actions/steps);
• Visualize: Is a “physical schedule [that is, visible] tool that tightly links and synchronizes production activity between upstream and downstream processes”;
• Limit WIP: “Combines control over movement of material with respect to both time and quantity [that is, limits work-in-process/progress] dependant upon signals from the downstream process”.

See “Lean Lexicon”, “Creating Continuous Flow”, and “Creating Level Pull” for more information.

Essentially, Kanban is a tool that:

• Mechanizes a value stream, fostering continuous flow and level pull;
• Controls and regulates scheduling and synchronization for a collection of processes;
• Helps operationalize Collaboration (the ultimate root cause of many challenges for organizations, teams, and individuals) relative to people integration and coordination.

However mechanized and operationlized, the root causes of why Collaboration is a challenge remain!

The Heart of Lean?

With all due respect…

If “thinking for yourself in your context” is the heart of Lean, then Lean is Everything and Everything is Lean as most people would claim that they “think for themselves in their context”. As Albert Einstein once said: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

Respect People, Self Organization and Continuous Improvement?

With all due respect…

However, we should not forget the human factors, as they are inherently part of the Lean Thinking from which Kanban directly descends.

Human factors are inherently part of any successful human endeavor. As a colleague recently commented: “If you need Lean to tell you to ‘respect people’, you have more fundamental problems than you think!”

A Kanban System should respect people by allowing them to take ownership of process decisions.

How does a Kanban System “respect people”? “Should” is a key word! People respect people.

By allowing the team to take ownership of all the process decisions described above, a Kanban System automatically empowers them to self organize and continuously improve all the elements of the process.

How does a Kanban System “automatically empower”? How does “allowing the team to take ownership” “automatically empower”? “Allowing” and “automatically empower” are key words! People allow/confer ownership, people take ownership, and people empower people.

The primary mechanism for enabling this self organisation and continuous improvement is making the work visible.

As a tool, a Kanban System supports making the work visible. However, visibility may be necessary, but is it sufficient for self organization and continuous improvement? As the Introduction of The Art of War explicates: “However profound our individual wisdom, it will not survive in the world unless it is joined with some kind of power.”

Are Lean and Kanban being stretched to the breaking point?

Lean is an optimization (efficiency and effectiveness) paradigm, a Kanban is a “signal”, and a Kanban system is a tool. Kanban/Kanban-System is a Means not an End!

With all due respect, please notice that I am not making a statement, but asking a question.

Brief Reply to Comments on the Agile Maturity Model (AMM)

This is a brief reply to Scott Sehlhorst’s / Tyner Blain’s comments on the Agile Maturity Model (AMM).

The article proposed the following as an agile maturity model:

More “observed” than “proposed” as indicated by emphasizing the notion of “grounded in reality”.

I didn’t find it to be a particularly useful model. Although descriptive, it won’t help your organization improve.

By being descriptive of “evolutionary stages”, it offers insight around “what next” in the journey. The model does not prescribe “how” to improve (or make the journey). How to improve involves adoption, which is outside the scope of the model.

For a maturity model to be useful, you have to be able to do two things.

1. You must be able to determine where your organization is in the model.
2. You must be able to identify actions you can take to “improve” your organization relative to the model.

If you can’t measure maturity, and the model does not provide guidance about how to improve, it’s useless. One challenge with maturity models is that they risk becoming contextually narrow in their application. The more concrete a measurement or suggestion becomes, the less extensible it is likely to be. Ideally, your model would be broadly applicable to many organizations.

Reality is messy and models are mere abstractions of reality, while models inform, they cannot be considered in isolation. Notice that it is “You” who is judging “where your organization is in the model” and “You” who is to “identify actions you can take to ‘improve’ your organization”. Thus, a model ought to be “grounded in reality” and is context-aware but not context-sensitive (that is, “guidance” without “becoming contextually narrow” but remaining ” broadly applicable”).

With an agile manifesto that emphasizes people over process, it is ironic to consider applying a metric that measures your agile process. So – goal #1 is immediately undermined. Goal #2 – improving your organization, is, however, very valuable.

The AMM does not suggest “a metric that measures your agile process”. To measure your Agility, measure your Responsiveness (people and business system, that is, structure and processes, etc.). Agility also pre dates the manifesto by far (see the blog for more).

One powerful use of a maturity model is highlighting the next-biggest hurdle you have to overcome. Unfortunately, most communication about maturity models is “look which hurdle we just overcame” – but the focus should be on “what’s next?”

Indeed, this is what is expressed by “evolutionary” as used in “evolution stages”, it offers insight around “what next”.

Its “adoption” (as the author says “agile agile adoption”) that focuses on how to achieve the “what next”.

That’s how you should use a maturity model – as guidance about “what’s next?”

AMM meets this (in the proper hands) but nothing can be used in isolation.

The author offers an “agile hierarchy of needs” (that he has “presented” “in the past”), which includes:

Staffing the engineering team correctly.

Assuring Quality is in your team’s DNA.

Reducing overhead in the release process.

Feeding the beast.

Managing stakeholder expectations.

Continuously learning from your markets.

If one examines the description carefully, you will see that:

• Steps 1, 2, and 3 generally relate to the AMM’s Speed stage as “efficiency” and “efficiently” are mentioned in the article.
• Steps 4 and 5 generally relate to the AMM’s Reactive stage as “make sure your management team is happy and engaged and knows that to expect”.
• Step 6 generally relates to the AMM’s Responsive stage as “business agility”.

Without further commenting on the steps (as there are many aspects on which to comment, both positive and negative), this further proves the common pattern expressed by the AMM (via observation and grounding in reality).