<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: In search of one piece flow</title>
	<atom:link href="http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/</link>
	<description>Essays on the Continuous Delivery of High Quality Information Systems</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:15:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Danilo Sato &#187; Blog Archive &#187; [Agile 2008] Starting a Kanban System for Software Engineering with Value Stream Maps and Theory of Constraints</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-3363</link>
		<dc:creator>Danilo Sato &#187; Blog Archive &#187; [Agile 2008] Starting a Kanban System for Software Engineering with Value Stream Maps and Theory of Constraints</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:14:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-3363</guid>
		<description>[...] kanban lane. Instead of trying to explain the whole idea here, I suggest you to read Corey&#8217;s series of 4 posts on the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] kanban lane. Instead of trying to explain the whole idea here, I suggest you to read Corey&#8217;s series of 4 posts on the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Not all activities are best handled by generalists &#124; Lean Software Engineering</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-1941</link>
		<dc:creator>Not all activities are best handled by generalists &#124; Lean Software Engineering</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-1941</guid>
		<description>[...] is a pro-specialist argument for design, too &#8212; as Corey lays out his case in his thoughtful one-piece flow post [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is a pro-specialist argument for design, too &#8212; as Corey lays out his case in his thoughtful one-piece flow post [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: An ideal case &#124; Lean Software Engineering</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-332</link>
		<dc:creator>An ideal case &#124; Lean Software Engineering</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:56:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-332</guid>
		<description>[...] 4 in the series including 1, 2, 3, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 4 in the series including 1, 2, 3, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David anderson</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-107</link>
		<dc:creator>David anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:58:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-107</guid>
		<description>Tim,

Do you have more than one job title across the folks in your department? Do you have people who do analysis or requirements and don&#039;t write code? Do you have testers? Do you have a user interface designer? or usability engineer? How about a dba?

Division of labor is a reality of life in any sizable IT shop or software product company. If you don&#039;t have division of labor, you have a craft shop on a small scale - which is all very well - but the for the rest of us we need to solve the problems of software engineering in medium and large scale with levels of professionalism and competence that require division of labor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim,</p>
<p>Do you have more than one job title across the folks in your department? Do you have people who do analysis or requirements and don&#8217;t write code? Do you have testers? Do you have a user interface designer? or usability engineer? How about a dba?</p>
<p>Division of labor is a reality of life in any sizable IT shop or software product company. If you don&#8217;t have division of labor, you have a craft shop on a small scale &#8211; which is all very well &#8211; but the for the rest of us we need to solve the problems of software engineering in medium and large scale with levels of professionalism and competence that require division of labor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Corey</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator>Corey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-104</guid>
		<description>Hello Tim, thank you for the comment.  

I hope that the previous post makes it clear that iterative development is a fundamental premise here.  Not only would I advocate iterative development, but I advocate its strong form in evolutionary development.

Working closely together is also the idea here, in the same way that any lean workcell requires close cooperation between team members in order to realize flow and continuous improvement.

As for the division of labor, it&#039;s been my experience that most people in IT have job titles like &quot;requirements analyst&quot; and &quot;software engineer&quot; and &quot;quality assurance engineer&quot;.  Unlike some voices in the Agile community, I&#039;m saying there&#039;s nothing wrong with those titles and nothing wrong with functionally aligned organizations.  In the past, I might have taken a Scrummier view of that question, but since I&#039;ve seen how things work at Corbis, I&#039;ve completely changed my mind.  The punch line of this series of articles is how to make those functional organizations work to everybody&#039;s advantage.  Another premise here is that, as a manager, you have some power to organize teams as you see fit.  

As far as I&#039;m concerned, Goldratt had the last word on multitasking, but I can summarize in a simple maxim:  

&lt;em&gt;Multitasking makes e v e r y t h i n g&#160;&#160;&#160;t a k e&#160;&#160;&#160;l o n g e r.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Tim, thank you for the comment.  </p>
<p>I hope that the previous post makes it clear that iterative development is a fundamental premise here.  Not only would I advocate iterative development, but I advocate its strong form in evolutionary development.</p>
<p>Working closely together is also the idea here, in the same way that any lean workcell requires close cooperation between team members in order to realize flow and continuous improvement.</p>
<p>As for the division of labor, it&#8217;s been my experience that most people in IT have job titles like &#8220;requirements analyst&#8221; and &#8220;software engineer&#8221; and &#8220;quality assurance engineer&#8221;.  Unlike some voices in the Agile community, I&#8217;m saying there&#8217;s nothing wrong with those titles and nothing wrong with functionally aligned organizations.  In the past, I might have taken a Scrummier view of that question, but since I&#8217;ve seen how things work at Corbis, I&#8217;ve completely changed my mind.  The punch line of this series of articles is how to make those functional organizations work to everybody&#8217;s advantage.  Another premise here is that, as a manager, you have some power to organize teams as you see fit.  </p>
<p>As far as I&#8217;m concerned, Goldratt had the last word on multitasking, but I can summarize in a simple maxim:  </p>
<p><em>Multitasking makes e v e r y t h i n g&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;t a k e&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;l o n g e r.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tim dugan</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-103</link>
		<dc:creator>tim dugan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 02:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-103</guid>
		<description>I think this is a bad assumption:  &quot;...you have a small cross functional team. There is one specialist for each step in the workflow, a classic division of labor.&quot;  I&#039;ve never known software to work like that.  The designer and builder either are the same or work close together.  Also, it seems rare that people are dedicated to a single task.  And, finally...we want to be sure this handles iterative development.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this is a bad assumption:  &#8220;&#8230;you have a small cross functional team. There is one specialist for each step in the workflow, a classic division of labor.&#8221;  I&#8217;ve never known software to work like that.  The designer and builder either are the same or work close together.  Also, it seems rare that people are dedicated to a single task.  And, finally&#8230;we want to be sure this handles iterative development.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kanban systems for software development &#124; Lean Software Engineering</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>Kanban systems for software development &#124; Lean Software Engineering</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:29:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-99</guid>
		<description>[...] 4 in the series including 1, 2, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 4 in the series including 1, 2, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Software &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Project Ideas for a Master’s in Software Engineering?</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-94</link>
		<dc:creator>Software &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Project Ideas for a Master’s in Software Engineering?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 14:30:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-94</guid>
		<description>[...] Software development under this model is unlikely to qualify as software engineering. Feature Crew. If it is not possible to assemble enough generalists to implement effective craft production, then perhaps small multidisciplinary teams &#8230; &#8230;more [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Software development under this model is unlikely to qualify as software engineering. Feature Crew. If it is not possible to assemble enough generalists to implement effective craft production, then perhaps small multidisciplinary teams &#8230; &#8230;more [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: In search of one piece flow (part 2) &#124; Lean Software Engineering</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>In search of one piece flow (part 2) &#124; Lean Software Engineering</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-92</guid>
		<description>[...] the previous post we considered the notion of synchronizing a design workflow like an assembly line. A little [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the previous post we considered the notion of synchronizing a design workflow like an assembly line. A little [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J.D. Meier's Blog</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/comment-page-1/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>J.D. Meier's Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 06:17:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2007/08/24/in-search-of-one-piece-flow/#comment-91</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;The Better Adapted You Are, the Less Adaptable You Tend To Be...&lt;/strong&gt;

I was skimming The Secrets of Consulting and I came across this nugget: “...Many years ago, Sir Ronald...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The Better Adapted You Are, the Less Adaptable You Tend To Be&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>I was skimming The Secrets of Consulting and I came across this nugget: “&#8230;Many years ago, Sir Ronald&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.377 seconds -->

