Skip to main content

Applying Little's fLaw to Software Development



Concept of Product Development Flow
"I believe that the dominant paradigm for managing product development is fundamentally wrong.  Not just a little wrong, but wrong to its very core.  It is as wrong as we were in manufacturing, before the Japanese unlocked the secret of lean manufacturing.  I believe that a  new paradigm is emerging, one that challenges the current orthodoxy of product development."  -- Donald Reinertsen
Reinertsen goes beyond the advance ideas of lean manufacturing, what he calls Flow-Based Product Development.

Scrum was sparked by a paper called The New New Product Development Game by Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka (1986).  Are you seeing a synergy of ideas?


Lean principle of Flow

In the manufacturing world Toyota exemplifies the achievements one may obtain in 50 years of practicing a new mindset of principles.  Manufacturing deals with repetitive tasks predictable processes to produce component parts, homogeneous delay cost, and homogeneous task duration to produce components and in assembly of components into consumer goods.  These product manufacturing sequences work fine in a FIFO order, which are quite acceptable in manufacturing goods.  However this is untrue for Flow-Base Product Development.  Because this type of development deals with non repetitive, highly variable, flow of dissimilar components.

What is a good tool in manufacturing is not necessarily a great tool in Product Development.

Application of Little's Law


 -- by Mark Woepple.


Constraints implicit in Little's Law

a) it is dealing with averages; for averages to apply to a domain, there needs to be more than a few things to be measuring - and those items should exhibit a general resemblance to a bell curve, for which an average is a significantly useful characterization.

b) this law - which Little describes as is a mathematical theorem and therefore a tautology, applies to queues.

c) when giving examples for the application of his Law (theorem) Little and Graves does not use a queue for any truly creative endeavors - such as mass production of unique art works, or the building of architecture significant unique structures (bridges, towers), etc.  What is described are: Semiconductor Factory, E-Mail tools, Hospital Wards, TollBooths, Housing Market, and Doughnut Shop.

d) this law was derived from a study of steady-state processes. "So far we have developed and discussed Little's Law as a relationship among steady-state stochastic processes. The contexts we have examined have been well- behaved, stable, and on-going. In particular we assume that the characteristics of the arrival and service processes are stationary over time."  It is generalized beyond that domain.

e) in application to a variant system (grocery story) the analytic interlude was conceived; requiring two essential conditions:

  • Boundary conditions-we specify the finite time window to start and end with an empty system. This was a natural condition for the supermarket, and indeed, would be common for many service systems. 
  • Conservation of customers-we assume that all arriving customers will eventu- ally complete service and exit from the system; there are no lost customers, so that the number of arrivals equals the number of departures. Again, this is a valid assumption for many systems of interest.  

"Notice that our formula is exact, but after the fact. In other words, we cannot complete our calculation until the supermarket door shuts. This is not a complaint. It merely says that we are observing and measuring not forecasting."

f) when transmuting Little's Law to Operations Management the transmuted equation becomes THroughput = Work In Process / CycleTime ::  TH = WIP/CT
"At a minimum we must have conservation of flow. Thus, the average output or departure rate (TH) equals the average input or arrival rate (A). Furthermore, we need to assume that all jobs that enter the shop will eventually be completed and will exit the shop; there are no jobs that get lost or never depart from the shop. In addition, we need some notion of system stability. We consider two possibilities, as this issue raises another important consideration."
g) concluding remarks for Operations Management application:
"In each case we see that Little's Law can apply, albeit with some required conditions and thoughtful attention to the goals of the application."

Applying Little's fLaw to Software Development


LKCE12: Daniel Vacanti - Little’s Flaw





See Also:
Chapter 5 Little's Law - MIT by Little & Graves

The average waiting time and the average number of items waiting for..a service in a service system are important measurements for a manager. Little's Law relates these two metrics via the average rate of arrivals to the system. Thisfunda- mental law has found numerous uses in operations management and managerial decision making. 

When U.S. air force discovered the flaw of averages
In the early 1950s, a young lieutenant realized the fatal flaw in the cockpit design of U.S. air force jets. Todd Rose explains in an excerpt from his book, The End of Average.

And on a larger scale than product development - Life is defined by Flow...

The constructal law is the law of physics that accounts for the phenomenon of evolution (configuration, form, design) throughout nature, inanimate flow systems and animate systems together.

The constructal law was stated by Adrian Bejan, the J.A. Jones Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Duke University, in 1996 as follows:
For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it.

Everything created is predicted by nature: A new video explains the physics of flow
by Ephrat Livni
[L]ife is movement that evolves freely, in both animate and inanimate spheres. Alive are all the freely changing flow configurations and rhythms that facilitate flow and offer greater access to movement. When movement stops, life ends. When movement does not have the freedom to change and find greater access, life ends.
Post a Comment

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

David's notes on "Drive"

- "The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us" by Dan Pink.

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion.  This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM".  There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE.  And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.

Introduction

Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving.  Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be.  This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation.  At the time there were two main drivers of motivation:  biological & external influences.  Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory:  "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3).  This is Dan Pink's M…

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.









In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.





Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    Stories
    To Do
    Work In P…

What belongs on the Task Board?

I wonder about these questions a lot - what types of task belong on the task board?  Does every task have to belong to a Story?  Are some tasks just too small?  Are some tasks too obvious?  Obviously some task are too larger, but when should it be decomposed?  How will we know a task is too large?

I answer these questions with a question.  What about a task board motivates us to get work done?  The answer is: T.A.S.K.S. to DONE!



Inherent in the acronym TASKS is the point of all tasks, to get to done.  That is the measure of if the task is the right size.  Does it motivate us to get the work done?  (see notes on Dan Pink's book: Drive - The surprising Truth about what motivates us) If we are forgetting to do some class of task then putting it on the board will help us remember.  If we think some small task is being done by someone else, then putting it on the board will validate that someone else is actually doing it.  If a task is obvious, then putting it on the board will take vi…

Team Performance Model - by Drexler and Sibbet

Many of you have all heard of the Tuckman model of team dynamics (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing).  It was created in 1966 and has become the most popular model for describing team behavior.  Is it time to level up in your mental model of team dynamics?  Are you ready for a richer more functional model?



Introducing the Team Performance Model by Drexler and Sibbet



Orientation - Why am I here?
"Orientation is about understanding the purpose of a team and assessing what it will mean to be a member.  you need to understand the reason the team exist, what will be expected of you and how you will benefit from membership.  In a new team, these are individual concerns, because the group is only potentially a team.  that is why these concerns are illustrated as occurring in your imagination at an intuitive level.  As a team leader it is important to provide time and space for people to answer these internal questions themselves."

Keys to when Orientation challenges are resolve…