Pawel Brodzinski on Leadership in Technology

Whatever it takes to lead a team, build a product, and run a business

Tag: portfolio kanban

Portfolio Kanban Board

One thing that I learned quickly when I started experimenting with Portfolio Kanban is that a classic, flow-driven board design isn’t particularly good in vast majority of cases.

Board Designs

Long story short, I ended up redesigning the board structure completely and it worked much better. In fact, it worked so well that I started proposing such a design as a starting point whenever working with portfolio Kanban.

Interestingly enough, as Kanban adoption of portfolio level progressed I started seeing completely different approaches to visualization. Not that they were worse. They just focused on different aspects of work.

One that popped up early was two-tier board that addresses different granularity of tasks at the same board. We can track the roots of this design to David Anderson’s time at Corbis. Since then it was picked up to manage portfolios.

Another example came from Zsolt Fabok, who was inspired by Chris Matts. What he proposed was a board that stresses expected delivery dates and how an organization is doing against these dates. Again the board design is completely different from the ones we’ve seen so far.

Another interesting example that I like is a portfolio board that visualized non-homogenous flow of work. This still is one of the most unusual board designs I’ve seen and yet it makes a perfect sense given the context.

By that time it was perfectly clear that there is no such thing as a standard design of Portfolio Kanban board. Each of these designs was fairly optimal if we considered the context. At the same time each of the boards was designed to stress a different aspect of work.

The design I ended up with in my Portfolio Kanban story revolved around available capabilities and commitments. The two-tiered board design focused on flow of coarse-grained items and breaking work down to fine grained items. The deadline driven board based on an assumption that the most critical aspect of work are delivery dates and monitoring delays. Finally, non-homogenous flow board design addressed the issue of different flows of work in each of the projects.

Which design is most useful then? It depends. To address that question we first need to answer which aspect of our work is the most important to track on a regular basis. To get that answer we need to discuss risks.

Risk Management

Obviously, risk management is a multi-dimensional issue. Some dimensions would be more interesting than others. The word “interesting” typically translates to the fact that we are more vulnerable to a specific class of risks or that we are doing especially badly against managing that class of risks.

A typical example in the context of portfolio management would be overburdening. We commit to more projects or products than we can chew. We end up having our teams juggling all the concurrent endeavors. As a result we see a lot multitasking, context switching, and huge inefficiencies.

In such a case the most interesting dimension of risks would be one related to managing available capabilities and ongoing commitments. And that would exactly be information that we’d like to focus on most when designing Portfolio Kanban board.

That’s by the way almost exactly the process I went through when I proposed capability-focused board design. Of course, back then the thought process wasn’t that structured and it was more trial and error.

There are some additional aspects of the story, like the huge variability of size of the projects that we typically see. This would affect the details of the board design as well. In this case relative size is visualized as well.

The most important bit is that we start with the most important risk dimension. This should define the whole structure of Portfolio Kanban board.

Coming back to different visualizations I mentioned we can easily figure out what was the key class of risks in each design.

In two-tiered board the biggest concern was smooth flow of coarse-grained items (feature sets). We can also figure out that variability in size of feature sets wasn’t that much of a problem. Given that we’re talking about product development organization and that they are in full control of how they define feature sets, it does make a lot of sense.

Delivery date driven board stressed how important risks related deadlines and timeliness of delivery were. We may also notice that there isn’t much stress on flow of work and not that much focus on addressing potential overburdening either.

The design with non-homogenous flow, as its name suggests, pinpoints that most important risk dimension was managing flow. On the other hand risks related to capability management and overburdening don’t seem so important.

Optimal Design

The structure of Portfolio Kanban board can show only that much. We can’t visualize all the risk dimensions using the board structure alone. David Anderson in his Enterprise Service Planning talk points that it is common that organizations track 4-8 different dimensions of risks. The board design can address one or two.

Make it the two that matter most.

Where would others go? Fortunately we still have items on our board, whatever we decide them to be. We can track information relevant for other risk dimensions using information on index cards. The design of the items on the board is no less important than the design of the board itself.

Designing Portfolio Kanban board is not an obvious task. We don’t even have a standard approach – something similar to a flow-based design we commonly use on a team level. Understanding how we manage risks is the best guidance that can lead to fairly optimal board design quickly.

Of course one alternative is to go through a trial and error process. Eventually you’d land with similar outcomes. A quicker way though is to start with understanding risks.

April 21, 2015
Portfolio Kanban and Doing the Right Thing

There’s an ongoing discussion that I occasionally refresh with Markus Andrezak on usefulness of applying Kanban to manage portfolio and generally to the process of figuring out which products should be built.

What is Portfolio

One obvious thing that we can start with is focusing on a specific context. After all portfolio is a pretty loaded word and it is used in all sorts of situations. While my goal isn’t to boil down portfolio discussion to only few available options I see at least three distinctively different cases.

There are organizations that ore focused on project work. A typical gig they run would be a distinct initiative that is different form all the other initiatives they run. What’s even more important the revenue from that work would be connected to delivering work. This would be a project portfolio case. A classic example would be an offshore web software shop.

Then we have organizations that, similarly to the previous example, focus on building multiple concurrent and independent initiatives yet they would operate them as products by themselves. In other words they earn money by directly selling their software, or services provided by that software, to the end users. There’s no simple definition when the work is done. This would be a product portfolio case. A classic example would be a game development studio.

Then there is an alternative version of product portfolio where the whole company is focused on building a single product. In such a case the overarching initiative that everyone contributes to is obvious as there is only a single one. The discussion would happen between either specific goals to achieve or specific big scale functionalities to build. This would frequently be labeled a product portfolio too although for the sake of this discussion I’d go with a feature portfolio label, even if it isn’t precise especially for big organizations. A classic example would be a startup building what they believe is the next world-changing product.

Of course we can think of a mix of any of these scenarios and rarely only one of them will be pursued by an organization exclusively. What’s more we could go further with a differentiation within these scenarios. We’d see a completely different dynamics of project portfolio in a company that works under time and material terms than from one that build fixed price projects. A very different feature portfolio will be in a startup at an early phase which is still figuring out product-market fit that in an established company focusing on leveraging their user base or staying ahead of competition.

Where is the Problem

The discussion about applicability of Portfolio Kanban boils down to defining what is the most painful problem on a portfolio level in a given context. From that perspective there is a clear distinction between project portfolios and the other two scenarios. The difference is in the way revenues are generated.

In project work the more projects we finish the more revenues we can expect. With product or feature portfolio building software is only an intermediate step in order to generate revenues. In other words we know much more up front about return on investment in project portfolio scenario than we do in other two.

That doesn’t completely change the bottom line. In each case the choice on endeavors an organization works on is crucial for its long-term health. In each case overcommitment and too much work in progress on portfolio level can decimate the value of any ongoing work, no matter how carefully chosen. There are commonly mentioned reasons for that: long lead times mean long feedback loops and a lot of work in progress results in inefficient work.

There’s one more dimension that from my experience is at least equally, if not more, important. The constraints provided by work in progress limits change the dynamics of the discussion about starting new stuff, be it projects, products or major features.

Typically the discussion about economic feasibility of starting a new product or a project happens in isolation. If the ultimate problem that we are trying to solve is choosing the right initiatives to work on it should never happen in isolation. After all most of ideas we come up with make sense… in some context. An interesting question would be whether we are in such a context.

We may have a bunch of projects that we expect to be profitable. But which of them provide us most monetary and non-monetary value? How starting another one affects the ones that are already ongoing? Given a business hypothesis which we want to validate, which out of all possible experiments would generate most valuable information? Would starting another concurrent experiment obfuscate the outcomes of ongoing ones?

Of course we can say that each project will provide some value and each experiment will provide some learning opportunities. We don’t have infinite capabilities thus we need to choose.

Role of Portfolio Kanban

The way I look at Portfolio Kanban is that is addresses a very common issue of overburden at portfolio level and as a result it drives the discussion about what are the right endeavors to pursue. The latter starts happening when, thanks to WIP limits, we start saying no to new initiatives. What WIP limits create is they underscore available capabilities as a scarce resource. The next step typically is more careful consideration how these capabilities are put in the best use, which ultimately means a discussion about what is the right thing to build.

Obviously this dynamics is not true in all environments. Startups, especially at the early stages, will likely focus on figuring out what is the right thing to build without any external incentive. Organizations built around a single product, at least to a certain size, will naturally maintain discipline in strategy planning that will provide an answer what are the crucial product goals for them.

Beyond that it all gets fuzzy. If an organization gets big enough it has capacity to build multiple initiatives concurrently. Each product that grew far enough has a number of potential development paths it can follow and each of them can be promising on its own. If we talk about multiple product organization a temptation to follow a bunch of new goals at the same time is even stronger. And with projects it’s like an everyday issue.

Of course I don’t say that it’s not possible to start the other way around: nailing down the ultimate purpose, which may mean answering the Spice Girls question, and following up with defining what are the right features, products or projects that serve the purpose. This would likely mean that the number of concurrent initiatives will be limited as majority of activities would be optimized toward pursuing the purpose.

The problem is few organizations are ready to make this step just like that. And even when they are, there are still a lot of risks along the way. First, depending on how the ultimate goal is defined it doesn’t have to limit the options for what constitutes an attractive endeavor and we’re back to the square one. Second, even if the purpose provides enough focus there’s typically still plenty of options how to pursue the goal and thus overburdening portfolio is still a viable option. Third, and most importantly, in bigger organizations defining a single purpose may be impossible because office politics kicks in or there isn’t enough strategic leadership present.

In either of these cases as well as in the most common situation where there isn’t enough awareness to even start the discussion about the purpose Portfolio Kanban may serve as a facilitation tool. On the top of efficiency gains, similar to those seen in other applications of Kanban, it would catalyze the discussion about what is the right thing.

This is, in fact, the most important outcome of introducing Portfolio Kanban that I’ve seen.

What Portfolio Kanban Is Not

An argument I’ve heard a couple of times is that Portfolio Kanban doesn’t help to define what is the right thing to build or what is the ultimate purpose. I completely agree with this one. That answer simply isn’t there. Portfolio Kanban, pretty much alike any Kanban application, is a meta method. One shouldn’t expect to get context-specific answers.

If an organization is ready to look for these answers that’s great. Depending on specific context Lean Startup, Lean UX or other modern product management approaches may be relevant. That’s where awesome guys like Will Evans or Markus Andrezak kicks in with their expertise. That’s where Stephen Bungay’s work will prove invaluable, which Jimdo guys will happily confirm. That’s where Don Reinertsen would provide outstanding guidance for decision making.

In such cases, usefulness of Portfolio Kanban will indeed be limited. It will be mostly process improvement and efficiency stuff.

A common case wouldn’t be even remotely as rosy though. That’s why value provided by Portfolio Kanban typically go beyond the process stuff. It would still stop at introducing pressure to start important and difficult discussions. It wouldn’t provide guidance for that conversation. A good thing is that there would be more pressure the more screwed up the situation is. We can expect this catalyzing mechanism to exist continuously till we either solve the problem or give up on limiting work in progress on portfolio level.

If someone claims that Portfolio Kanban is supposed to provide more than that in terms of defining what is the right thing, well, we may be talking about different things.

November 2, 2014
Portfolio Management: Stop Starting, Start Finishing

Whenever I end up discussing project portfolios with people representing or knowing specific organizations out of curiosity I ask a couple of questions. How many projects? How many people running those projects?

Note, most of the time I don’t ask these questions in the context of completely random organizations. The most common case would be asking people who are a part of Agile and Lean community. People who understand the concept of limiting work in progress and its implications.

Disturbing news is that, even among the most mindful people, the answers I would get are pretty much shocking.

Kanban Leadership Retreat is an occasion to meet people advancing thinking for a community that painted limiting work in progress prominently on their banners. One would expect that these people, if not anyone else, would be ahead of the rest of the crowd in addressing the issue of too many concurrent projects.

Well, maybe we are. At the same time the ratio of a number of projects run by an organization to a number of people who work on those projects reported at the last Kanban Leadership Retreat in Cascais is terrifying.

1.0, 2.1, 4.5 and 6.0. Let me rephrase what this number is. This is how many projects per person an organization runs on average. In fact, it does mean that some people are in a situation that is much worse than that.

I didn’t gather that data in any consistent manner. I just asked my question any time the context would pop up in a discussion. It isn’t by any means proper research. It shows, however, a very interesting trend. The best result is a project per person, and we are talking here about an organization with a hundred engineers in this case. Few of those projects, if any, require attention of a single person only.

From that point though we go downhill. I can’t imagine any situation where a single person runs concurrently a few projects and they are at least a tiny bit effective. This means heavy multitasking for those initiatives that get any progress and lots of others where progress is nil. Effectively, they are parked even if management believes that they are active.

Let me repeat. It wasn’t reported by a random community. It is the community that calls their user group meetings Limited WIP Society. Not Visualization Society or Flow Society. Limited WIP Society. We do care. We do pay attention. Yet still, we do suck at that. Big time.

Larry Maccherone in his talk at Lean Kanban North America reported that teams that work on a single project are significantly better in terms of defect density. We can use that as a proxy for quality of work. It’s not anecdotal evidence. Larry bases his research on raw data from almost ten thousand agile teams.

By the way, Larry also reported that team size of 5-9 people is by far the most popular one. In other words, ideally, we should be looking as projects to people ratio of 0.2 and below. Of course it is contextual and shouldn’t be treated as the true north. In organizations that typically run tiny projects that require attention of 2-3 people such ratio may be unachievable. At the same time we do have companies that typically run huge initiatives that involve dozens of people.

In either case anything above 1 is obviously crazy. In fact 1 is crazy already.

We can’t make this possibly work.

The easiest way out is obviously reviewing the portfolio and putting on hold or abandoning a big chunk of ongoing initiatives. This would mean that the active remainder would get more, hopefully enough, attention so that these projects can be completed in reasonable time.

Sad truth is that I know such an expectation is unrealistic.

If we understand that potential projects are options that we can execute and once we decide to start them it means commitment we should also understand the consequences. Commitment means that there’s a price to be paid for abandoning an initiative. What’s more that cost isn’t easy to assess. How much would reputation of a company suffer for letting a client down? How much bad word of mouth would be triggered?

Another way is to go with the theme of Lean Kanban Central Europe conferences: stop starting, start finishing.

In other words make it hard to start new stuff. Discuss the cost and risks attached to adding one more thing to your plate. I don’t expect an explicit WIP limit. On portfolio level it is rarely a feasible option anyway. The strategy that you can use is WIP limits by conversation.

There’s not much guidance needed to shift these conversations to a broader context that is frequently ignored. It’s not only how much a new project would cost and how much we are going to get in revenues. It is also about available capabilities: can we staff a project appropriately for its whole lifecycle? What is the cost of delaying the project? What risks are we going to introduce by starting a new initiative both to that initiative and to all ongoing ones? And what is ultimately value of completing the project?

The value question goes way beyond simple financial outcome. In fact, it is a very deep discussion as one needs to understand the goals of an organization. Otherwise discussion about value is pretty much irrelevant. Also discussion about value doesn’t happen in isolation. Remember how hard it was to let down current clients breaking our commitments to them? Well, that’s clearly negative value for the company. If that’s the cost you pay you better have a damn good reason to do so.

I do admit that WIP limits by conversation is a concept that seems vague and fuzzy. However, given that people understand what is effect of too much of work in progress I find it a surprisingly powerful tool. It simply shift the focus of a discussion and thus influences how decision making process looks like. It is like a facilitation tool that helps us to use knowledge that we already have.

Then we stop starting and start finishing.

If we do that in a continuous manner we evolve toward more effective way of working. Not only does it mean fewer emergencies or better reliability but also choosing the right initiatives to run. It would be a nice situation to be in, wouldn’t it?

June 22, 2014
Kanban Landscape and Portfolio Kanban

One of reasons why Kanban Leadership Retreat (KLRAT) is such an awesome event is that it pushes our understanding of Kanban to a new level. No surprise that after the retreat there’s going to be much content related our work in Mayrhofen published here.

One of sessions was at KLRAT was dedicated to sort out the Kanban landscape – how we position different Kanban implementations in terms of both depth and scale.

Here’s the outcome of the session

To roughly guide you through what’s there: the axes are maturity and scale. Maturity would differentiate implementations that are shallow and use only parts of Kanban from those that are characterized by deep understanding of principles and practices. Scale, on the other hand, represents a spectrum that starts with a single person and ends with all the operations performed by an organization.

If we use scale as staring point we would start with Personal Kanban. If you ask me I believe that the range of depths of Personal Kanban applications should be wider (thus a bit taller area highlighted on the following picture), but I guess it’s not who should take the stance here.

Then we have the whole lot of different Kanban applications on a team and a cross-team level. For most of attendees this was probably the most interesting part and I guess there will be much discussion about this part across the community.

For me though a more thought-provoking bit was the last part (which by the way got pretty little coverage in discussion): Portfolio Kanban. After all, this is my recent area of interest.

Since we didn’t have enough time to sort out all the details during the session the final landscape was a sort of follow-up. Anyway, my first thought about the whole picture was that the range of depth of Portfolio Kanban implementation should be broader.

Given a simple fact that limiting work in progress on portfolio level is tricky at best, many teams start simply with visualization. Of course I don’t have anything against visualization. In fact, I consider visual management, which is implementation of the first Kanban practice, a tool that allows harvesting low-hanging fruits easily. In terms of improvements on portfolio level low-hanging fruits are rarely, if ever, a scarce resource.

Having said that, Portfolio Kanban or not, I don’t consider visual management a very mature or deep Kanban implementation. That’s why my instant reaction was that we should cover less mature implementations on portfolio level too.

That’s not all though. When we think about shallow Portfolio Kanban implementations, e.g. visualization and not much more, we should also think about the scale. It’s a quite frequent scenario that we start visualizing only a part of work that is done across the organization, e.g. one division or one product line. From this perspective, such implementations are closer to multi-service scale than to full-blown portfolio context.

That’s why I believe Portfolio Kanban implementations should cover even broader area, especially when we talk about low-maturity cases.

Finally, the picture would cover different Portfolio Kanban implementation I know. I guess this might mean that, in some point of future, we will go into more detail talking about maturity and scale of Portfolio Kanban implementations. However, as for now I think it is enough.

Interestingly enough the area I propose for a portfolio level implementations covers much of whitespace we’ve had on the picture. It is aligned with my general perception of Kanban as a method that can be scaled very flexibly throughout the broad spectrum of applications.

July 10, 2013
Kanban Leadership Retreat: Portfolio Kanban

This year’s Kanban Leadership Retreat (KLRAT), as always, was awesome. In fact, despite sharing some critical feedback during retro session at the very end of the event, I still consider it the best event of the year, hands down. This year I’ve come back home with the biggest homework ever: experiments to try out, ideas to play with, concepts to write down, etc. It means that coming back next year is a no-brainer to me.

One area that you’ll hear a lot about here is Portfolio Kanban. And this was also the subject of my session at the retreat.

The Goal

One of my goals for KLRAT this year was pushing forward the discussion on Portfolio Kanban. Answering questions like: what are the boundaries of the method? What are the gaps we still need to cover to make Portfolio Kanban thorough? How the implementations on portfolio level are aligned with the method as we know it?

During the session I wanted to talk about all these things. My expectation wasn’t to rule out all the doubts. I assumed that the outcome would include some answers as well as some new questions but overall would bring us to better understanding what Portfolio Kanban is.

The Hypothesis

I hypothesized that Kanban method with its principles and practices define well the approach we can use on portfolio level. In other words that we don’t need any other definition for Portfolio Kanban than the one we already have for Kanban. This is where we started.

The Process

I didn’t want to start with the Kanban definition and look for its possible applications (we would find those, wouldn’t we?). I asked participants for a brain dump practices, actions and techniques that we use manage portfolio. Then we sorted them into six buckets of Kanban practices. For example portfolio overview would be covered by visualization so it went to the visualize bucket, limiting number of ongoing projects would obviously go to the limit WIP bucket, etc.

Of course there were odd balls too. These went to the side as another group. Actually, this one was the most interesting one for me as they pointed us to possible gaps.

Everyone had a chance to briefly explain what they put on the wall and why it went to a specific bucket. Then we used the remaining time to discuss the challenges we see – which questions weren’t addressed and need further work.

The Outcomes

There are a few lessons learned from the exercise. I think the most important bit is that the hypothesis was confirmed. I am convinced that using constraints of Kanban method we can neatly define Portfolio Kanban.

Of course the specific techniques will be different. Interpretation of practices will vary too. But the same is true with team level Kanban applications in different contexts.

Things get more interesting once we go deeper into the details. Let’s look at the wall which is the documentation of the session (click for a larger version).

After a glimpse you can see that one bucket is almost empty. Surprisingly enough is the improvement / evolution bucket. Does it mean that we don’t see a match between Kanban method and portfolio management in this aspect? Personally, I think that it would be too quick to draw such conclusions.

An observation made by Klaus Leopold was that quite a bunch of the stickies on the wall that could be placed not only in their original place but also in the improvement / evolution bucket. That’s obviously true. But then I can’t help but thinking that if we were doing the very same exercise with Kanban on team or service level the end result would look different.

I think that the answer is that evolution on a portfolio level involves different behaviors and different tools than on a team level. How exactly? Well, this is one of these loose strings we have after the session, so I don’t have an answer for this. Yet.

Finally, pretty obvious outcome of the session is the list of the challenges we will have to address (or explicitly leave unaddressed) to finalize definition of Portfolio Kanban

Although we aren’t there yet in terms of defining what Portfolio Kanban is going to be, we made a big step forward. And this was exactly what I wanted to achieve. I didn’t want more divergence as I believe we’ve had enough of that so far. I didn’t expect more convergence either. Not just yet. Also I think that the time at KLRAT is just too scarce to spend it discussing the exact definition.

And that is how the end result of our work looked like.

All in all there are going to be follow-up steps – those that will bring convergence. If you are interested in further work on the subject stay tuned.

July 3, 2013
WIP Limits by Conversation

The biggest challenge when applying Kanban on portfolio level is how to introduce WIP limits. Kanban without limiting work in progress will always be shallow. In fact, many would argue (me included) that it is not Kanban at all.

The problem is that typical methods we use to limit work in progress on a portfolio level simply don’t work. Well, of course you can try to limit the number of concurrent projects, but if you’re like a vast majority of companies your projects will vary in their size very, very much. I find 1:200 difference in size between the smallest and the biggest project run by an organization pretty common.

If we wanted to translate this to work we do on a team level we would be talking about having tasks that we finish in anything between half a day and half a year.

It means that you could substitute one of your big ongoing projects with a dozen concurrent small ones and that’s still fine. Except that using a number of projects as a WIP limit doesn’t seem like a good idea anymore.

Limiting work in progress in such an environment has to be contextual. One has to take into consideration size and length of projects, dependencies between them, etc. A different WIP limits will be applicable when portfolio is dominated by medium-to-big endeavors and different will make sense when you’re coping mainly with small projects. In short, to say anything more about sensible WIP limits we have to know the context.

If we discuss the current context, everything that is happening right now, estimated effort needed to complete the new project, available and required capabilities and any other potential projects we can likely say whether we should or should not start the project. This is basically the core of idea called WIP limits by conversation (I credit Klaus Leopold who I learn the term from). With each new project in a backlog we discuss to say whether it fits the implicit WIP limits or not.

It may sound like it’s a lot of work but it isn’t. The most difficult discussions will be around relatively big projects but then, you don’t start such projects every other week, do you? Discussions about small projects may be more frequent but they will be way easier to decide on too. And they won’t be happening so very often either.

A tool that is very handy to support WIP limits by conversation is good visualization. Unless everyone involved has a general idea which teams work on what, what capabilities free teams can offer, what are other commitments, etc. the discussion will be basing on gut feelings. And a gut feel of most CEOs is that the company will cope with every single project… somehow. This is how you end up having 30 people involved in 100+ projects. Not the most effective way of working, right?

I am perfectly aware that the approach seems to be vague, but the general rule is that the more variable the work is the less explicit WIP limits can be.

WIP limits by conversation may also seem fragile. If there is a person who pushes more and more projects into the system lack of explicit rules for limiting work in progress may seem like a weakness. Not necessarily so. Usually visualization is enough to show risks attached to a project that doesn’t fit available capabilities. After all, no wants to start a project that is doomed for failure and will hurt the organization’s reputation.

Of course the conclusion of discussion may be that not starting the project is not an option because of, e.g. relationship with the customer, but then you simply start talking about costs. What other work won’t be done or will be delayed, etc. A format of conversation proves to be very useful on such occasions.

One nice side effect of introducing WIP limits by conversation is that you are encouraged to talk about thing like expected value, cost of delay, estimated effort and probabilities of all of these numbers for all the projects that you start. It usually helps to refrain from projects that don’t make much sense but unless you’d started asking such questions no one would have been aware of the fact.

Another gain is slack time generated on a team level. If you care about not overloading the teams, occasionally they won’t have an ongoing project. This is perfect moment to all sorts of improvement work as well as learning or helping other teams.

My experience is that, despite its vague nature, limiting WIP by conversation works surprisingly well. After all, I don’t know many people that want to make their teams miserable and hurt their organization on purpose.

March 25, 2013