<?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: CONWIP systems</title>
	<atom:link href="http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2009/06/28/conwip-systems/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2009/06/28/conwip-systems/</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: Paul Beckfordp</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2009/06/28/conwip-systems/comment-page-1/#comment-29355</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Beckfordp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:32:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/?p=1751#comment-29355</guid>
		<description>Hi Corey,

I think your explanation here omits the simple self regulating CONWIP method that XP teams have been applying implicitly for years.

Let me explain. Think of a team of independent intelligent agents, with each agent applying simple rules. One such rule is that you on,y work on one taks at a time,and that when complete you pull the highest priority task from the board either as a sing,eton or as a pair.

Applying this system results in a self organised CONWIP which is limited to the number of available pairs/agents.

The importance of such an approach is that it. Yields on the ideas of Complex Adaptive Systems. The team swarm the board, each applying simple rules, and a chorent system behaviour emerges as a consequence. Similar to the flocking of Boyds,

I  thought it was worth explaining this since it is a common misunderstanding of how XP works. This flocking approach also has a Humber of advantages. The team will automatically adapt to change. Say less agents  are available or tasks that do not require pairing begin to make up the bulk of the demand.The WIP limit varies automatically adapting to the available capacity  and the varyng demand as needed.

Paul.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Corey,</p>
<p>I think your explanation here omits the simple self regulating CONWIP method that XP teams have been applying implicitly for years.</p>
<p>Let me explain. Think of a team of independent intelligent agents, with each agent applying simple rules. One such rule is that you on,y work on one taks at a time,and that when complete you pull the highest priority task from the board either as a sing,eton or as a pair.</p>
<p>Applying this system results in a self organised CONWIP which is limited to the number of available pairs/agents.</p>
<p>The importance of such an approach is that it. Yields on the ideas of Complex Adaptive Systems. The team swarm the board, each applying simple rules, and a chorent system behaviour emerges as a consequence. Similar to the flocking of Boyds,</p>
<p>I  thought it was worth explaining this since it is a common misunderstanding of how XP works. This flocking approach also has a Humber of advantages. The team will automatically adapt to change. Say less agents  are available or tasks that do not require pairing begin to make up the bulk of the demand.The WIP limit varies automatically adapting to the available capacity  and the varyng demand as needed.</p>
<p>Paul.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2009/06/28/conwip-systems/comment-page-1/#comment-7359</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:20:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/?p=1751#comment-7359</guid>
		<description>In your discussion of the bucket brigade approach, what do you mean by cards &quot;moving upstream or downstream&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In your discussion of the bucket brigade approach, what do you mean by cards &#8220;moving upstream or downstream&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Synesthesia</title>
		<link>http://leansoftwareengineering.com/2009/06/28/conwip-systems/comment-page-1/#comment-7132</link>
		<dc:creator>Synesthesia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 May 2010 21:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://leansoftwareengineering.com/?p=1751#comment-7132</guid>
		<description>[...] CONWIP systemsConstant Work In Progress &#8211; simplest form of Kanbansystems lean conwip kanban workflow [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] CONWIP systemsConstant Work In Progress &#8211; simplest form of Kanbansystems lean conwip kanban workflow [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.477 seconds -->

