Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: kanban korrection

Expand Messages
  • Karl Scotland
    Tobias: I read the article. Good stuff. Honestly, if you changed every occurrence of the word Kanban for Scrum your article would still read intelligently
    Message 1 of 63 , Jul 11, 2009
      Tobias: I read the article. Good stuff. Honestly, if you changed every occurrence of the word "Kanban" for "Scrum" your article would still read intelligently and accurately. What does Kanban add that is not already in Scrum?

      Karl: The most noticeable difference is that Kanban Systems directly limit work in progress, as opposed to using a time-box to limit work in progress.

      Tobias: Scrum remember is not a defined process. It is simply a framework that allows teams to create a process for themselves that suits their context/people/product/business environment and so on. The mistake people often make with Scrum is to think they have to do it a certain way, according to a book -- or more often a tool. That is a mistake, and one that causes people to say "Scrum doesn't work".

      Karl: Yep. Replace Scrum with Kanban and that still applies :)

      Tobais: As far as I can make out, "Kanban" as a new software process/methodology/whatever was invented because someone's (limited) idea of what Scrum is didn't work for them. Finding ways to be creative within the Scrum framework is to be applauded, but believing one is doing something radically new and giving it a new name just seems like unnecessary overhead.

      Karl: Wrong - unless you are suggesting you can still be doing Scrum without Sprints (i.e. time-boxes)? It sounds to me like you are saying "If your process works then we can call it Scrum, and if you process doesn't work then we can say its not Scrum".
    • Petri Heiramo
      Interesting comments, Victor, ... Good reasoning is also dependent on culture and background. For some, the _logical_ ( I mean, it s not reasonable to expect
      Message 63 of 63 , Jul 14, 2009
        Interesting comments, Victor,

        > I would like to add here that common sense is very different from using a
        > good reasoning.
        > Common sense depends a lot more on culture than reasoning and good
        > thinking.

        Good reasoning is also dependent on culture and background. For some, the _logical_ ("I mean, it's not reasonable to expect me to give you a quote on what it will cost if you can't be more specific than that!") way to buy software is waterfall...

        Anyway, you're right in that "common sense" is defined by each person, and it's usually used to demean something "stupid" someone else does. :)

        > In many aspects I think, today, common sense is actually the enemy of an
        > empirical control method.

        There may be conditioning in the picture, too.


        Petri

        ---
        Petri Heiramo
        Process Development Manager, Agile Coach (CST)
        Digia Plc., Finland
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.