4,204 karma · joined March 28, 2013
With any such model (maturity models for example) I always look for what is supposed to drive the transitions between stages. Often that is more interesting than the model itself.
In this model, a key driver seems to be “analysis”. Some contexts are less susceptible to that than others. Perhaps the ability to recognise that situation counts as analysis, but that’s not clear here.
For me, the Zen of Kanban in product development is to work the board from right to left, working backwards from a "done" that means "someone's need was met" [1], stickies staying on the board until the learning is accounted for. You just don't get those senses of impact and learning if you think in tasks, and when tasks are managed at an unnecessarily fine granularity, I would consider it dysfunctional.
For what it's worth, I'm the author of Kanban from the Inside (celebrating its tenth anniversary in September) and Right to Left: The digital leader's guide to Lean and Agile (2019).
Edit: In case I am suspected of being anti Scrum, the reverse is true. Scrum done well can be truly great. Moreover, Scrum and Kanban are highly complementary to each other – they not only work in different ways, they do different things. As the article eventually acknowledges, there is no either/or here.
[1] agendashift.com/done
How systems regulate themselves (and also perpetuate themselves) is the question behind cybernetics, and in the organisational context, management cybernetics. The problem generalises way beyond biology. The information theoretic and control implications are fascinating.
(I’m writing a book on the subject; ping me if interested)
Seems like the system is working
Sounds interesting. Could someone elaborate on that?