Cycle lean to

This is a good question. First, one lifecycle clearly does not fit all. Teams find themselves in a unique situation: team members are unique individuals with their own skills and preferences for working, let alone the scaling/tailoring factors such as team size, geographic distribution, domain complexity, organizational culture, and so on which vary by team. Because teams find themselves in a wide variety of situations shouldn’t a framework such as DA support several lifecycles? Furthermore, just from the raging debates on various agile discussion forums, in agile user groups, at agile conferences, and even within organizations themselves it’s very easy to empirically observe that agile teams are in fact following different types of lifecycles.

Identifying what creates value and eliminate all other activities, as they are by definition ‘waste’, will become your normal approach to evaluating procedures and processes across every aspect of your enterprise. When you recognise that within your organisation only a fraction of the time consumed, and a small portion of all efforts undertaken, genuinely add value for your end customer, you will have a basis to clearly define true value from your end customer’s perspective. Only then can all your non value activities (or waste) be targeted for systematic reduction and eventual removal.

Cycle lean to

cycle lean to


cycle lean tocycle lean tocycle lean tocycle lean tocycle lean to