kanbandev at Yahoo! Groups

Re: Cost of delay

Alan Shalloway — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:31:09 GMT

The degree of precision does vary. Sometimes it's known (for example, past a due date it might drop to 0). Mostly it's to create awareness for comparisons of

Re: Releases and Value was Reporting Example, Minimal, Not Marketabl

Chris Matts — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:05:21 GMT

Hi Tom I recently did an MMF which took about 6 months. To my mind that it is way too big a release to put in one go. As a result, we did several releases to

Re: Releases and Value was Reporting Example, Minimal, Not Marketabl

Tom Ayerst — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:53:14 GMT

Hi Chris, Not sure I agree with this. Certainly all releases are risky. Are big releases riskier than small releases? Not sure - they have been in the past

Releases and Value was Reporting Example, Minimal, Not Marketable

Chris Matts — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:20:24 GMT

Dear All Re-reading David's post I realised that I had been making assumptions about other peoples understanding of releases and value. All releases should be

Re: Reporting Example, Minimal, Not Marketable

Chris Matts — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:03:42 GMT

Hi David The concept is that you deliver based on value. You identify the value and then from that, the minimal number of features are delivered. In Joshua's

Re: Reporting Example, Minimal, Not Marketable

Viktor Klang — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:02:38 GMT

... Ah, I was comparing apples to oranges, sorry. ... -- Viktor Klang ... Blog: klangism.blogspot.com Twttr: twitter.com/viktorklang Code:

Re: Reporting Example, Minimal, Not Marketable

Viktor Klang — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:02:27 GMT

... So you're proposing that the Economically Viable Feature won't vary in size by several orders of magnitude? ... -- Viktor Klang ... Blog:

Re: Reporting Example, Minimal, Not Marketable

David Anderson — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:36:06 GMT

It's not the term, it is concept I don't like. MMF is not a useful unit from a flow perspective because MMFs can vary in size by several orders of magnitude.

Re: Cumulative flow diagram best practice

Ole Christian Rynning — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:21:49 GMT

... production =)". When it fills up we throw the feature cards in a dated envelope in a box. I agree with Eric that keeping some tasks on the board looks good

Re: What do people do for Value?

Chris Simmons — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:24:39 GMT

Talk about trial by fire! A great way to determine what techniques work.

Re: [!! SPAM] RE: [kanbandev] Re: An Insight on the Efficiency of K

Dan Rawsthorne — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:33:20 GMT

Yes, that is my point, Alan. Yet you are using the simplicity of the process of scrum to knock scrum, rather than look at the totality. Basically, giving

Re: Cumulative flow diagram best practice

Chris Simmons — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:52:48 GMT

... No it doesn't. Maybe I'll rename "Completed" to "ready to be shipped". My team ships every two weeks - currently continuously deployment is not a

Re: Cumulative flow diagram best practice

Ole Christian Rynning — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:31:13 GMT

... To me it sounds like shipped is on the wrong side of done in your value stream. I.e. a potential bottleneck. Does a feature generate value before being

Re: Reporting Example, Minimal, Not Marketable

Joshua Kerievsky — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:26:42 GMT

... Hi Greg, Aside from chartering, I think it helps to * focus on the valuable chunks of work * know how to complete those chunks via small pieces of

Re: Cumulative flow diagram best practice

Chris Simmons — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:56:32 GMT

... Correct - at least that's the way we've been doing it before. We haven't actually shipped any items since moving to actual kanban <2 weeks ago, so the