Talk:Kanban (development)

Archives (Index)

2013 2015 2016 2017 2019 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Copied from User talk:A D Monroe III/Archive 1#Kanban (develpment)

I've copied the following section (#Kanban (development)) from my talk page to here, as this will be of interest to all editors there, not just me. It's in response to this revert of mine, with the edit summary of Rv; while we should keep this up-to-date, but we must also preserve the tone. These changes make the article sound promotional. Please start discussion (BRD) to reinstate; breaking down specific changes would be helpful and more manageable. I've made a slight addition to my statement here to clarify what it refers to -- the next section that follows, not the comment that follows, which was added later. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

We already had a discussion ongoing (see immediately above) on reworking the overview section. This is what led directly to my edit in the first place. Before that it was simply a list of people and dates for when books or articles were published. It smelled promotional and was not an overview. I edited it down so that it gave a synopsis of its evolution and moved it to the lead/lede section. I agree that if people can invest the time, then a researched history and variations section would be great (and the Scrum article is a good example of this).

However, someone just added the authors and dates back into what I had written, and then someone else added the overview section title back. If we were following WP:BRD then that would all have been discussed here first. My recommendation, reinstate the edit into the lead/lede and then work progressively on the new sections. Davidjcmorris  Talk  19:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree on keeping any discussion on Overview in the above #"Overview" section - complete revamp needed. I reverted the Overview deletion primarily because that didn't jibe with the that discussion. The recommendation to move the version further back to match what was decided there seems good to me. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Story points are NOT a valid metric of size, they are an indicator but not a metric (which must by definition be based on a measurement) Similarly Velocity is not a valid metric of productivity if it is based on story count or story points, neither of which are consistent measures of size. Size and Velocity in this context can only be correct if they use a linear measurement system that is formally recognised, such as cosmic function points. Colinrhammond (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Does this article even mention story points? The article as of now does not mention "point" and only mentions user stories twice, in the same sentence" "user story preparation", "user story development". Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to POV and removal of references

I'm not sure what to make of the recent edit warring, but changes to the lede and overall POV while removing references does not look good.

The large edits are difficult to unravel, which is part of the problem.

Please identify references here on this talk page that justify the changes, and explain why references should be removed. --Hipal (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

With respect, the article as it is written now sounds like a marketing blurb for the for-profit entity Kanban University. You will note in the “Evolution” section that (with the exception of Don Reinertsen), all cited references are to people who are affiliated with Kanban University (KU) in one way or another. What’s worse is that KU promotes its own proprietary version of a change management approach called “The Kanban Method” which has very little to do with Kanban in the tradition of Ohno, Deming, and others as discussed in the article opening. So, to be clear, “The Kanban Method” as promoted by KU is different from the “Kanban” that is the topic of this Wikipedia page, so all references to "The Kanban Method" should be removed.

Further, and more importantly, the “Evolution” section also ignores the contributions of others (as I will outline below) and it does not acknowledge anything that has happened with Kanban after 2016. The changes that I have proposed correctly acknowledge the contribution of the community at large and continues the discussion of Kanban right up until today. The current state of Kanban is documented in The Kanban Guide which was open-sourced by the Kanban community in 2020 and which, of course, is mentioned nowhere in this article (again, more on this below).

In short, it would be ok if the “Evolution” section as it is right now would be moved to a new Wikipedia page called “The Kanban Method” where the proprietary and for-profit motives of that approach would be disclosed. This Kanban page here, however, should be corrected to keep more inline with Kanban and to fix the factual errors that I outline below.

Factual errors:

- “But it was Microsoft engineer…” When David was at Microsoft he was pushing a Theory of Constraints (ToC) approach—not Kanban (interestingly enough, the “Evolution” section actually gets this piece right). In 2006 David tried the same ToC thing at Corbis and it failed. Darren Davis and his team at Corbis rejected the ToC approach in favour of a visual, flow-based approach. These innovations undertaken by Darren and his team are what we now know as Kanban for knowledge work. It was that team—not David—that developed Kanban and recognized Kanban’s application to the wider organization. In my version of the article I cite references for all of this.

- Corey Ladas’ contribution is dubious as his Scrumban work was really a series of blogs in which he got the elements of both Scrum and Kanban incorrect. His work is widely discredited by professionals in both the Scrum and Kanban worlds and I have references to support that. However, as his “contribution” is incorrect at best, it seems best to me to remove the reference rather than cite several sources why it is wrong. At the time of his publication, Corey was also affiliated with the precursor to KU.

- Personal Kanban again is more akin to The Kanban Method (Jim was affiliated with KU at the time Personal Kanban was created). When published, Jim Benson was also affiliated with the precursor to KU. TBH, I’m fairly neutral on this point, but I would argue Personal Kanban does little to advance the story of the evolution—especially when seen through the lens of trying to make KU look better

- If you look at the Mike Burrows’ book, again, you will see he clearly identifies his work as “The Kanban Method” and not Kanban so this reference should be removed.

- The 2016 reference to the "condensed guide" is (as always) for the Kanban Method not Kanban.

- The whole Kanban metrics section is incorrect. I can cite references from Little, Hopp, Reinertsen and others that prove the provided definitions are wrong. Further all of those metrics are defined in Vacanti’s book which they do currently reference but quote incorrectly. This whole section needs to be reworked to match the references given. My version of the article does that.

Information to be added:

- In 2017 Scrum.org published its “Kanban Guide for Scrum Teams” as part of its Professional Scrum with Kanban (PSK) curriculum. It is this guide that is considered the industry standard for using Scrum with Kanban—not Ladas’ work.

- In 2020, the Kanban community open-sourced Kanban for knowledge work in “The Kanban Guide”. This guide is maintained by a community supported, not-for-profit group and is accepted as the current standard for Kanban.

- In 2022, ProKanban.org published its “Kanban Pocket Guide” which summarizes the current state of Kanban based on “The Kanban Guide” that was published in 2020. Again, this pocket guide is offered for free in keeping with the open source nature of Kanban.

- New names and definitions for the four metrics used in Kanban with updated references.

There are other minor tweaks that need to be corrected in the article (e.g., the Kanban board image shows a blocked column which is generally frowned upon and not used in practice) but those can wait as I think there is plenty to start with here.

Thank you KanbanUser (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all the information.

Please clearly identify current and potential references.

Please clearly explain why references should be removed. --Hipal (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@KanbanUser: You are making claims that you have not supported with any proof. It is unclear from any cited sources that any of the developers are affiliated with Kanban University (whatever that is). It seems clear from your arguments that Kanban University and Scrum.org have developed different approaches to the use of Kanban. You will have to provide evidence that either one is the "accepted" version. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 May I ask did you look at my references in the edits that I made before you reverted them? I can include them all here if you would like. Also, you have missed the main point that "The Kanban Method" is not a different approach to Kanban; rather, it is not Kanban altogether. The article as it is written right now is a ploy to make it sound like The Kanban Method is Kanban when it isn't. The proper thing to do would be to create whole new page dedicated to The Kanban Method in which case everything that is said here would be true. However, as this is a page about Kanban, all references to The Kanban Method should be eliminated.

Also, I'm not suggesting Scrum.org has their own version of Kanban, I'm saying they have made contributions to the space that have been blatantly ignored. So has ProKanban.org for that matter. So has many other contributors over the years--which is my point entirely.

As I said before, please check the references in my edits and you will see all my arguments are well supported by reputable sources (that is, by people who were there from the beginning). Again, I can include all citations here if you would like me to (but my preference would have been that you would have checked all of this before blindly reverting my changes).

Also, I would ask you check all the existing references in the current article and you will see how everyone is related to Kanban University (two of the three books cited were published by KU Press, e.g.). If that is not bias, then I don't know what is.

Finally, could you at least please consider the fact that some people who wrote this current article had an agenda to usurp the meaning of Kanban for their own ends? I don't think just because this article has already been published that it should be taken as gospel. Especially when I have provided documented proof that what is stated here is false. My aim, on the other hand, is to credit the community who legitimately helped to develop Kanban and make sure the content on this page lines up with the references cited. After all, I thought that was the whole purpose of Wikipedia.

Thank you. 98.254.77.151 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@KanbanUser: Having reviewed your edits quite thoroughly, I find that they remove a fair amount of material that has been source to reliable sources (textbooks and conference publications) and replaced that with material sourced to a YouTube video (which are generally considered a less reliable source) and websites dedicated to promoting Kanban. Also, you keep claiming that "the Kanban Method" isn't Kanban. What do you mean, and whom can you cite as a source to verify that assertion? You assert that this article appears to be trying to promote Kanban University, but in the version immediately prior to your first edit, I see only one reference to KU (citing that they published a guide). I don't see how this is any more or less valid than sources published by Kanban.org or ProKanban.org. You clearly have an opinion about the value of these organizations, but you haven't yet provided any citations to prove why one set of references or one version of history is any more correct than the other. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The YouTube video that you reference is Darren presenting his conference publication to Agile India (India's largest Agile conference). By your rules, conference publications are reliable sources so this is a reliable source. Darren's material has also been corroborated by others and published at several other conferences, namely FlowCon in France ([1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPSlK2ibenA&ab_channel=FlowConFrance), Agile-Lean Ireland ([2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJVjcVCqWew&ab_channel=Agile-LeanInternational) and Lean Agile Global in London ([3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJVjcVCqWew&ab_channel=Agile-LeanInternational). These are all reputable conferences that have been serving the Agile community for years. Since, by your own words, conference publications are reliable sources, shouldn't all of these be considered reliable since they all corroborate my edits?

Darren's conference publication has also been republished by ProKanban.org as part of their Kanban Pocket Guide ([4]https://prokanban.org/kpg/) (see below).

Also, I'm not sure what "textbooks" you are referring to. Other than Don Reinertsen's book (which I included as part of my edits because it is indeed a valid reference) I only see books from David Anderson and Mike Burrows. Both books were written by employees of Kanban University (David is the CEO) and both were published by the publishing arm of Kanban University (KU Press--which was previously known as Blue Hole Press). Further, to prove my assertion that The Kanban Method is not Kanban, you need only look on Kanban University's website and you will see the they clearly identify The Kanban Method as a for-profit, proprietary approach to organizational change management (that is the subtitle of David's book and clearly stated in the description of Mike's book)--and not a strategy to achieve flow as defined by Ohno, Deming, Little, Reinertsen, and others.

All of the above sources prove my point that The Kanban Method does not represent Kanban.

Additionally, you will note the community-developed, open-sourced Kanban Guide published at [5]https://kanbanguides.org as part of my edits. The Kanban Guide contains the official definition of Kanban much like (by way of analogy) The Scrum Guide ([6]https://scrumguides.org) contains the official definition of Scrum. My quick search of the Scrum Wikipedia page shows that the Scrum Guide is mentioned at least 8 times in that article (in fact I think it is the first cited reference) yet the Kanban Guide is not mentioned here once. If [7]https://scrumguides.org is considered a reliable source for Scrum by Wikipedia, then [8]https://kanbanguides.org should also be considered a reliable source for Kanban.

Lastly, you still have not answered my question about why if some "contributions" to Kanban have been currently allowed (when they are not even Kanban as evidenced above), then why not others? The contributions by Scrum.org with their Kanban Guide for Scrum Teams ([9]https://www.scrum.org/resources/kanban-guide-scrum-teams) and their approach to implementing Kanban in a Scrum context called PSK ([10]https://www.scrum.org/courses/professional-scrum-with-kanban-training) is just as valid a contribution as any others listed here (e.g., why is Ladas' Scrumban blog a more reliable resource than Scrum.org??). Likewise, the publication of ProKanban.org's Kanban Pocket Guide ([11]https://prokanban.org/kpg/), which represents the current state of Kanban based on the Kanban Guide, is just as valid (actually more so) as the guide to The Kanban Method currently referenced in this article. Why do you continue to resist the addition of these references as it makes the current article more up to date and, more importantly, more accurate?

Thank you KanbanUser (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@WikiDan61 I forgot to tag you in my last response. KanbanUser (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

How about breaking up your response here (or in the article) into reference-by-reference explanations? Explain the removal of any references. Responses without identified references to justify changes appear to be WP:OR being used to try to change the WP:POV. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)