4 ms·

So in terms of SW development would that mean we have slips saying "Only 5 Tasks left, come up with new ones"?

pdpi 2y ago
Only 10% disk space left. Peak memory usage at 90% available RAM. $CRITICAL_PACKAGE version update has been available for 2 months. Once you see the pattern, it can be used all over the place: Pre-programmed proactive reminders for all sorts of upkeep chores that you don't want to spend mental bandwidth on.
- galaxyLogic 2y ago
  Right, if we see the future we should tell others about it. One we see the milk will be stinky soon, tell someone about it. :-)
anymouse123456 2y ago
The central idea is that traditional manufacturing (and software) environments attempt to PUSH work through the system. This leads to tons of unintended consequences that ultimately sacrifices quality and throughput. Not only defeating the purpose of applying the pressure, but also (sometimes) destroying the reputation of the organizations that do it. The observation of the Toyota Production System, was that we should make quality non-negotiable and then observe the system that emerges. We let the system PULL work through it, rather than attempting to PUSH. In this way, we can make observations and improvements without applying negative pressure (that results in waste) on any given work center. Raw materials are only released into the process when the previous batch has nearly been consumed, regardless of some manager's desires. The insight of early Agile practices, was that we might be able to use Stories as a metaphor for Raw Materials and the system we're working within converts those raw materials into something valuable to the customers and/or business. There are a number of good reasons this metaphor doesn't fit perfectly, but one of the biggest ones is that while both manufacturing and software development can be creative processes, software development represents a much higher percentage of creative work than operating a cell in a generally well-defined production process. The Kanban boards in Software Workflows were originally intended to make visible the actual throughput of a team, and help us resist releasing new stories into production if the team hasn't yet digested the previous set. I've definitely seen environments that use these tools with little to no comprehension as to where (or why) they came from and I suspect that has become more of the norm as I've withdrawn into my own little corner of the universe. If any of this sounds interesting, I highly recommend the book, "The Goal"
- jimnotgym 2y ago
  Definitely recommend "The Goal", it is fascinating to see its influence on "The Phoenix Project". I would also offer a recommendation for any jaded hacker. Go and work for a manufacturing company. Seeing real world problems solved by lean experts and process engineers is fascinating. See Kaizen (Continuos incremental improvement) in action in critical systems, systems where a mistake can't be reverted easily and the consequences are huge. See them manage complexity. It is a real education.
  - flail 2y ago
    "The Phoenix Project" is basically "The Goal" rewritten in the context of software projects so that people would pick up the ideas easier instead of dismissing them as the "unrelated context." The authors never hid their intentions on this one. BTW: both are great reading. Also, the grand idea described in Goldratt's The Goal is the Theory of Constraints (ToC). While Kanban (as a method) draws from it with the limiting WIP practice, these two don't overlap that heavily.
    - galaxyLogic 2y ago
      Makes sense to me that everybody should be aware of all POSSIBLY ANTICIPATED features/stories as soon as they exist, because you can then avoid doing work that later stories would contradict. I'm not sure if I can see a negative consequence for having more stories "on the board". Physically of course the board might get full, but we use computers these days. That doesn't mean spend all your time planning and none implementing, but if you realize we will most like need a given feature in the end we should not hide that realization from the team. An error (or oversight) in specifications is much more costly than an error in design or implementation, is the old Waterfall mantra, which I think is true. But Agile of course might not agree with that. Maybe it would make sense to carry some kind of "Plan for the Future" throughout the process. Be aware of the anticipated features even though they are not fixed into the "plan" yet.
      - flail 2y ago

pdpi 2y ago

Only 10% disk space left. Peak memory usage at 90% available RAM. $CRITICAL_PACKAGE version update has been available for 2 months. Once you see the pattern, it can be used all over the place: Pre-programmed proactive reminders for all sorts of upkeep chores that you don't want to spend mental bandwidth on.

galaxyLogic 2y ago
Right, if we see the future we should tell others about it. One we see the milk will be stinky soon, tell someone about it. :-)

anymouse123456 2y ago

The central idea is that traditional manufacturing (and software) environments attempt to PUSH work through the system. This leads to tons of unintended consequences that ultimately sacrifices quality and throughput. Not only defeating the purpose of applying the pressure, but also (sometimes) destroying the reputation of the organizations that do it. The observation of the Toyota Production System, was that we should make quality non-negotiable and then observe the system that emerges. We let the system PULL work through it, rather than attempting to PUSH. In this way, we can make observations and improvements without applying negative pressure (that results in waste) on any given work center. Raw materials are only released into the process when the previous batch has nearly been consumed, regardless of some manager's desires. The insight of early Agile practices, was that we might be able to use Stories as a metaphor for Raw Materials and the system we're working within converts those raw materials into something valuable to the customers and/or business. There are a number of good reasons this metaphor doesn't fit perfectly, but one of the biggest ones is that while both manufacturing and software development can be creative processes, software development represents a much higher percentage of creative work than operating a cell in a generally well-defined production process. The Kanban boards in Software Workflows were originally intended to make visible the actual throughput of a team, and help us resist releasing new stories into production if the team hasn't yet digested the previous set. I've definitely seen environments that use these tools with little to no comprehension as to where (or why) they came from and I suspect that has become more of the norm as I've withdrawn into my own little corner of the universe. If any of this sounds interesting, I highly recommend the book, "The Goal"

jimnotgym 2y ago
Definitely recommend "The Goal", it is fascinating to see its influence on "The Phoenix Project". I would also offer a recommendation for any jaded hacker. Go and work for a manufacturing company. Seeing real world problems solved by lean experts and process engineers is fascinating. See Kaizen (Continuos incremental improvement) in action in critical systems, systems where a mistake can't be reverted easily and the consequences are huge. See them manage complexity. It is a real education.
- flail 2y ago
  "The Phoenix Project" is basically "The Goal" rewritten in the context of software projects so that people would pick up the ideas easier instead of dismissing them as the "unrelated context." The authors never hid their intentions on this one. BTW: both are great reading. Also, the grand idea described in Goldratt's The Goal is the Theory of Constraints (ToC). While Kanban (as a method) draws from it with the limiting WIP practice, these two don't overlap that heavily.
  - galaxyLogic 2y ago
    Makes sense to me that everybody should be aware of all POSSIBLY ANTICIPATED features/stories as soon as they exist, because you can then avoid doing work that later stories would contradict. I'm not sure if I can see a negative consequence for having more stories "on the board". Physically of course the board might get full, but we use computers these days. That doesn't mean spend all your time planning and none implementing, but if you realize we will most like need a given feature in the end we should not hide that realization from the team. An error (or oversight) in specifications is much more costly than an error in design or implementation, is the old Waterfall mantra, which I think is true. But Agile of course might not agree with that. Maybe it would make sense to carry some kind of "Plan for the Future" throughout the process. Be aware of the anticipated features even though they are not fixed into the "plan" yet.
    - flail 2y ago