Re:Less is more agile
by eyelidlessness on Saturday September 03, 2022 @10:35PM
(#32709203)
I won’t wade into the intricacies of defining Waterfall or whether it has merit, but it definitely should be mentioned that Kanban—a capital A Agile technique which most capital A Agile advocates find unstructured and unpredictable (as in tends towards lowercase a agile)—was popularized by an auto manufacturer, where safety and liability are at least as much a concern as construction.
Re:Less is more agile
by user_named on Saturday September 03, 2022 @11:19PM
(#32709468)
Kanban is a core but small part of TPS, it can't be said to be pro or against safety.
> > was popularized by an auto manufacturer, where safety and liability are at least as much a concern as construction.
> Kanban is a core but small part of TPS, it can't be said to be pro or against safety.
The poster's point is that it's not obviously defective from that standpoint, despite criticisms that imply that it is.
Re:Less is more agile
by eyelidlessness on Sunday September 04, 2022 @12:13AM
(#32709753)
Almost exactly my point. There’s a fairly strong set of evidence that it’s safety-neutral at worst.
On the contrary, Mary Poppendieck has a wonderful presentation she gave on how the Empire State Building was built in record time by literally doing it as a more agile-style construction. https://chrisgagne.com/1255/mary-poppendiecks-the-tyranny-of...
Likewise, American manufacturers by WWII had already gotten very good at building complicated machinery based on relatively light levels of blueprints and documentation, with the detail-level designs being added to the drawings used on the factory floor.
In many ways we have to blame the introduction of computerized project management for waterfall... it simply wouldn't have been workable before that to even attempt a real waterfall method for projects.