This presentation looks at Alistair Cockburn's claim that software development methodologies are losing mind share to adaptive frameworks of which he considers the Kanban Method to be one. It also introduces an analysis of Bruce Lee's journey developing his own style of Chinese martial arts training and compares it with the journey David J. Anderson has taken developing the Kanban Method
Key Note - SEPG 2013 - Kanban and the End of Methodology
1. Kanban
and the End of Methodology
Presenter:
David J. Anderson
SEPG North America
Pittsburgh
October 2013
Release 1.0
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
Lessons we
can learn
from Bruce
Lee’s
journey in
martial arts
2. The End of Methodology
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
3. Is Kanban heralding in a new era?
It’s the end of methodology!*
Reflective Improvement
Frameworks** are the
future!
Alistair Cockburn
Kanban is such a Reflective
Improvement Framework
* http://alistair.cockburn.us/The+end+of+methodology
** Cockburn’s suggested name for this new class of methods
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
4. A methodology defines behavior
• A software engineering methodology is a
description of techniques
– what to do
– how to do it
– When to do it - sequences or workflows
– Who does what - definition of roles and
responsibilities
• Ideally, a methodology should tell us why and
give us a context to define its appropriateness
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
5. Many styles of software engineering
emerged over several decades
• Some just personal preferences
in style (e.g. PSP versus XP), but
others for specific contexts or risk
profiles (e.g. the many risk
profiles captured in a 2dimensional grid in Cockburn's
Crystal methods).
• Some styles came in schools or
movements - such as the Agile
movement
• While others came as large
frameworks such as Rational
Unified Process designed to be
tailored to a context*
*CMMI ML3 includes specific practices for process definition & tailoring
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
6. The Kanban Method was born out of
frustration with these many styles
In 2002, I was questioning whether
the specific methodology really
made that much difference
The question wasn't whether a
methodology worked or
not, or whether
appropriateness of context had
been assessed correctly or not,
the problem was organizations
were being seduced into pursuing
changes that were too large and too
ambitious. These change initiatives
were beyond their capability and
maturity to manage them
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
7. CMMI has a bl nd sp t!
• While CMMI is all about improvement - there
is no process area(s) for change management
• IMO a flaw in the model that inhibits success
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
8. Change to mature or mature to change?
It's chicken and egg - a
causality dilemma!
In order to improve
capability and
maturity, you have to be
able to manage change. In
order to manage
change, you have to first
improve capability and
maturity
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
9. Managing change has greater leverage
than picking the right methodology
I came to the conclusion (circa 2002) that the important
issue in creative knowledge work wasn't the selection of the
right methodology
Instead the bigger challenge with the greater
leverage on outcome was learning to
manage change in the organization
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
10. Traditional Change is an A to B process
Designed
Current
Process
Defined
transition
Future
Process
• A is where you are now. B is a destination.
– B is either defined (from a methodology definition)
– or designed (by tailoring a framework)
• To get from A to B, a change agency* will guide a
transition initiative to install destination B into
the organization
*either an internal SEPG or external consultants
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
11. Change initiatives fail (even) more often
than projects
Change initiatives
often fail (aborted)
or produce lack
luster results
They fail to
institutionalize
resulting in
regression back to
old behavior (and
lower maturity
levels)
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
12. How we process change…
I logically evaluate
change using System 2
I feel change emotionally
using System 1
Silicon-based
life form
Carbon-based
life form
Daniel Kahneman
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
13. Methodologies challenge people
psychology & sociologically
• New roles (defined in a methodology) attack their identity
• New responsibilities using new techniques & practices
threaten their self-esteem and put their social status at
risk
• Most people resist most change because individually they
have more to lose than to gain
• It is safer to be conservative and stick to current practices
and avoid shaking up the current social hierarchy
• Only the brave, the reckless or the desperate will pursue
grand changes
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
14. The Kanban Method…
• Rejects the traditional
approach to change
• Believes, it is better to avoid
resistance than to push
harder against it – Don’t
install a new methodology
• Is designed for carbonbased life forms Evolutionary change that is
humane
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
15. The Kanban Method…
• Catalyzes improvement
through use of kanban
systems and visual boards*
• Takes its name from the use
of kanban but it is just a
name
• Anyone who thinks Kanban
is just about kanban (boards
& systems) is truly mistaken
*also known as "kanban" in Chinese and in Japanese when written with Chinese characters
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
16. The Kanban Method is a new approach
to improvement
Kanban is a
method
without methodology
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
18. Bruce Lee rejected traditional teaching
and styles of Chinese martial arts
• There are some parallels
in the story of Bruce Lee
and the emergence of his
approach to Kung Fu
• Lee rejected the idea of
following a particular style
of Chinese Martial Arts
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
19. Kung Fu Panda simplified the art to only
four styles
Mantis
Python
Tiger
Monkey
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
20. There are in fact very many styles…
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
21. “Dry land swimming” provides a false
sense of capability
• The only way to learn is to train with a live opponent
• Lee rejected the many styles of martial arts for various
reasons, mainly that they gave the practitioners a false sense
of capability, putting them at risk in real combat situations
• He was against Kata (learning patterns without an opponent)
and described them in derogatory terms such as "dry land
swimming.“
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
22. Lee wanted to start from first principles
and core concepts
Four ranges of combat
•
•
•
•
Kicking
Punching
Trapping
Grappling
Five* Ways of Attack***
• Single Direct Attack (SDA)
• Attack By Combination (ABC)
• Progressive Indirect Attack
(PIA)
• (Hand) Immobilization Attack
(HIA)
• Attack by Drawing (ABD)
• Single Angle Attack (SAA)
*Apparently still called the Five Ways, there are actually now six **with the later inclusion of SAA
**The fact that The Five Ways has six elements is evidence of evolution in action
***Incorporated core ideas such as "center line" and single fluid motion from Wing Chun and parrying from Epee Fencing****
****Not a Chinese Martial Art and hence evidence of "no limitation as limitation"
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
23. Lee’s approach still needed a name
• He named his approach Jeet
Kune Do - the way of the
intercepting fist - after one of
the principles taught in his
method. He was quick to point
out that it was just a name, a
way of communicating a set of
ideas. He was passionate that
practitioners shouldn't get
hung up on the name or the
inclusion of any one move or
action.
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
24. Jeet Kune Do
Having no
limitation as
limitation
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
Using no
way as way
25. Jeet Kune Do encourages development
of a uniquely personal style
"absorb that which is
useful“
discard the remainder
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
• a framework from
which to pick &
develop a personal
style
• an evolutionary
approach where
adoption of
maneuvers is
learned & reinforced
by training with an
opponent
• Nothing was sacred
26. Training with an opponent provides the
core feedback loop to drive adaptation
Lee pursued ever
more elaborate
approaches to
protected real
combat training
to enable the
closed loop
learning that was
core to the
evolutionary
nature of JKD
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
27. Kata are not adaptive
In comparison with JKD, patterned styles of martial
arts taught with "kata" were open loop and not
adaptive. There is no learning from practicing kata
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
28. Water flows around the rock
“be like water”
the rock represents resistance
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
30. Kanban should be like water*
In change
management,
resistance is from the
people involved and
it is always emotional
To flow around the
rock, we must learn
how to avoid
emotional resistance
* http://joecampbell.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/be-like-water/
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
31. Start with what you do now
• The Kanban Method evolved with the principle
that it “should be like water” - enable change
while avoiding sources of resistance
• With Kanban you start with what you do
now, and "kanbanize" it, catalyzing the
evolutionary process into action. Changes to
processes in use will occur
• Evaluating whether a change is truly an
improvement is done using fitness criteria that
evaluate an external outcome
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
32. Fitness criteria are metrics that measure
observable external outcomes
• Fitness criteria are metrics that
measure things customers or
other external stakeholders value
–
–
–
–
delivery time
Quality
Predictability
conformance to regulatory
requirements
• or metrics that value actual
outcomes such as
– customer satisfaction
– employee satisfaction
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
33. Institutionalize feedback systems to
enable evolutionary change
Operations
Review
System
Capability
Review
manager to subordinate(s)
(both 1-1 and 1-team)
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
Standup
Meeting
34. Adaptive capability enables sustainable
competitiveness
• Kanban installs an adaptive capability in the
organization
– the style of working - the methodology - emerges
and evolves, adapting gracefully to changes in
business conditions, risks and uncertainties
• Such an adaptive capability makes the
organization robust and resilient and enables
the possibility of continued sustainable long
term competitiveness
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
35. Kanban’s Core Enabling Concepts
Kanban is based on some simple concepts for
managing work
• service-orientation
• service delivery involves workflow
• and work flows through a series of information
discovery activities
Kanban would be less applicable if a serviceorientated view of work were difficult to conceive
or the work was without a definable workflow
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
36. 6 Practices Enable Process Evolution
The Kanban Method
Visualize
Limit Work-in-progress
Manage Flow
Make Policies Explicit
Implement Feedback Loops
Improve Collaboratively, Evolve Experimentally
(using models & the scientific method)
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
37. So, are we at the
“end of methodology?”
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
38. So does the arrival of Kanban represent
the end of methodologies?
No!
We still need methodologies
There is still a need to
know what to do, how to
do it, when to do it and
who should perform
specific activities.
Alistair Cockburn
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
39. Perhaps methodologies should be dead?
• Do we need to define roles and
force people to fit their
definitions? Is it better to let an
individual's identity evolve and
emerge in the context of a given
organization?
• Transitioning methodologies is
I don’t want to change.
not compatible with humans
I do want to grow
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
40. Give Permission for personal &
organizational styles to emerge
• Give permission for
• Modern approaches to
personal and organizational
software
styles of software
architecture, design, program
engineering to emerge
ming and deployment all
naturally rather than
encourage fast feedback and
promoting methodology
short cycle times to
and adoption of defined
encourage learning.
methods
• Trends with communities of
• Promote known good
technical practice seem to
practices coupled with fast
indicate growing
feedback mechanisms to
disillusionment with
encourage learning &
methodologies
adaptation
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
41. The future of creative knowledge work
should be inspired by Bruce Lee & JKD
• Our opponents are uncertainty
& risk. Engage directly. Validate
speculation quickly
• Teach beginners to set up safeto-fail, learning environments at
the individual, team and project
level
• Validate assumptions early and
Train with live opponents
quickly, deploy fake, prototype
or real code to gain knowledge
No kata
of what works and what doesn't
No "drymodern technical practices
land swimming“
• Use
inside an evolutionary
framework
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
42. To get beyond Agile we must embrace
the “end of methodology”
• Perhaps now it is finally time to let go of
methodology and embrace a whole new way of
teaching and performing software engineering?
• The Agile Software Development movement has
taken us some way down this path already. It
encouraged the use of feedback loops and
emergence of modern technical practices. Now
we must complete the job and let go of Agile
methodologies altogether!
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
44. What does this mean for the CMMI?
• CMMI is methodology agnostic. A CMMI
appraisal could be performed on an
organization with a uniquely evolved software
engineering method, utilizing evolutionary
frameworks such as Lean Startup & Kanban
• There are implications for the CMMI model,
though…
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
45. CMMI Model requires a defined process
• Do we still expect a defined process? Do we expect it
to be “tailored” to a context? If so why? Is this just
bureaucratic overhead?
• Bruce Lee would have viewed a defined process as a
patterned style - dead, without learning or
evolutionary capability
• Intelligent design or evolution which do you trust
more?
• Would it be better to modify the model to look for
safe-to-fail learning environments and evidence of
process evolution rather than defined processes?
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
46. The “end of methodology” may
represent a punctuation point in the
evolution of management
• Evolution progresses through a series of
punctuated equilibriums
• The “end of methodology” is an opportunity for
an explosion of new management thinking in
creative knowledge worker industries
• And an opportunity to give the CMMI new
relevance!
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
47. Will the "end of methodology" trigger a
new wave of innovation in the CMMI?
• Will the model evolve to reflect recent
understanding in complexity science and the
need for reflective, adaptive organizations that
are robust & resilient in the presence of
uncertain, changing external conditions?
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
49. About
David Anderson is a thought
leader in managing effective
software teams. He leads a
consulting, training, publishing
and event planning business
dedicated to developing,
promoting and implementing
sustainable evolutionary
approaches for management of
knowledge workers.
He has 30 years experience in the high technology industry
starting with computer games in the early 1980’s. He has
led software teams delivering superior productivity and
quality using innovative methods at large companies such
as Sprint and Motorola.
David was a co-author of the SEI Technical Note, “Agile &
CMMI: Why not embrace both!” He is the pioneer of the
Kanban Method an evolutionary approach to change and
improved business agility. His latest book is, Lessons in
Agile Management – On the Road to Kanban.
David is a founder of the Lean Kanban University, a trade
association dedicated to assuring quality of Kanban
training through a network for member companies
throughout the world.
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
50. Acknowledgements
Joe Campbell first blogged about the similarity in philosophy
between the Kanban Method and the teachings of Bruce Lee. He coined
the phrase “Kanban should be like water”.
“Safe-to-fail Experiment” is a term used by Dave Snowden in his
Cynefin framework for comprehending complexity and managing in
complex domain problems.
This presentation was inspired by Alistair Cockburn’s blog post “The
End of Methodology” and a quote from Peter Senge, “People do not
resist change, they resist being changed!”
dja@leankanban.com @lkuceo
Alistair Cockburn has declared - the end of methodology! What has replaced it are - Reflective Improvement FrameworksThe Kanban Method is an example of a “reflective improvement framework.”http://alistair.cockburn.us/The+end+of+methodologyCockburn’s suggested name for this new class of methods
A software engineering methodology is a description of techniques - what to do and how to do it - strung together in sequences or workflows - when to do it - and wrapped with a definition of roles and responsibilities - who does what.A methodology tells us who does what, when and how it should be done.Ideally, a methodology should tell us why and give us a context to define its appropriateness
Many styles of software development/engineering emerged - some just personal prefences in style (e.g. PSP versus XP), but others for specific contexts or risk profiles (e.g. the many risk profiles captured in a 2-dimensional grid in Cockburn's Crystal methods).Some styles came in schools or movements - such as the Agile movement - while others came as large frameworks such as Rational Unified Process designed to be tailored to a context**CMMI ML3 includes specific practices for process definition & tailoring
The Kanban Method was born out of frustration with these many styles of software engineering and the challenge of installing them effectively in an organization.The question wasn't whether a methodology worked or not, or whether appropriateness of context had been assessed correctly or not, the problem was organizations were being seduced into pursuing changes that were too large and too ambitious and beyond their capability and maturity to manage such changes.
CMMI has a blind spot - while it is all about improvement - there is no process area(s) for change management. IMO a flaw in the model that inhibits success. It's chicken and egg - a causality dilemma! In order to improve capability and maturity, you have to be able to manage change. In order to manage change, you have to first improve capability and maturity.I came to the conclusion (circa 2002) that the important issue in knowledge work wasn't the selection of the write methodology but the bigger challenge was how to manage change in the organization.
Traditional change is an A to B process. A is where you are now. B is a destination. B is either defined (from a methodology definition) or designed (by tailoring a framework).To get from A to B, a change agency* will guide a transition initiative to install destination B into the organization.*either an internal SEPG or external consultants
However, change initiatives fail more often than projects fail!Change initiatives often fail (aborted) or produce lack luster results, and fail to institutionalize resulting in regression back to old behavior (and maturity levels).
The reason is people resist change. The traditional change model would work perfectly well with silicon-based life forms because the benefits could be argued and agreed with logical. But carbon-based life forms resist change because they don't process it logically but with their sensory perception, their emotional intelligence, the older brain function Daniel Kahneman calls "system 1".
New roles (defined in the methodology) attack their identityNew responsibilities using new techniques & practices attack their self-esteem and put their social status at riskStatistically, most people resist most change because individually they have more to lose than to gain. Probabilistically, it is safer to be conservative and stick to current practices and avoid shaking up the current social hierarchy. Only the brave or the reckless will pursue grand changes.
The Kanban Method rejects the traditional change management method and rejects the installation of a new style of working - a new methodology. It does this because it is better to avoid resistance than to push harder against it.The Kanban Method introduces an evolutionary approach to change that is humane. It is designed to work with carbon-based life forms processing change with system 1. The Kanban Method catalyzes improvement through the use of kanban systems and visual boards (also known as "kanban" in Chinese and in Japanese when written with Chinese characters). It is from the use of kanban that the method takes its name, but it is just a name. Anyone who thinks Kanban is just about kanban (boards & systems) is truly mistaken. The Kanban Method is an example of a new approach to improvement. It is a method without methodology.
The Kanban Method rejects the traditional change management method and rejects the installation of a new style of working - a new methodology. It does this because it is better to avoid resistance than to push harder against it.The Kanban Method introduces an evolutionary approach to change that is humane. It is designed to work with carbon-based life forms processing change with system 1. The Kanban Method catalyzes improvement through the use of kanban systems and visual boards (also known as "kanban" in Chinese and in Japanese when written with Chinese characters). It is from the use of kanban that the method takes its name, but it is just a name. Anyone who thinks Kanban is just about kanban (boards & systems) is truly mistaken. The Kanban Method is an example of a new approach to improvement. It is a method without methodology.
There are some parallels in the story of Bruce Lee and the emergence of his approach to Kung Fu.Lee rejected the idea of following a particular style of Chinese Martial Arts.
Lee rejected these for various reasons, mainly that they gave the practitioners a false sense of ability and put them at risk in real combat situations. He was against Kata (learning patterns without an opponent) and described them in derogatory terms such as "dry land swimming."
Instead he sought to break the art down into a set of basic principles:The four ranges of combatKickingPunchingTrappinggrapplingand the Five* Ways of Attack***Single Direct Attack (SDA)Attack By Combination (ABC)Progressive Indirect Attack (PIA)(Hand) Immobilization Attack (HIA)Attack by Drawing (ABD)Single Angle Attack (SAA)*Apparently still called the Five Ways, there are actually now six **with the later inclusion of SAA**The fact that The Five Ways has six elements is evidence of evolution in action***Incorporated core ideas such as "center line" and single fluid motion from Wing Chun and parrying from Epee Fencing********Not a Chinese Martial Art and hence evidence of "no limitation as limitation"
He named his approach JeetKune Do - the way of the intercepting fist - after one of the principles taught in his method. He was quick to point out that it was just a name, a way of communicating a set of ideas. He was passionate that practitioners shouldn't get hung up on the name or the inclusion of any one move or action.
The JeetKune Do emblem incorporates the words..."having no way as way." There would be no specific style or school to his approach. It is not fixed or patterned but guided by a set of principles. An individual would adapt their own style that worked best for them by learning the principles and practicing different types of kicking, punching, trapping and grappling."having no limitation as limitation." In other words, Lee would be prepared to pull ideas from any source if it made the (martial) art better and made the individual a better practitioner. His concern was the logical improvement of the method rather than loyalty to any one tradition or tribe. He was happy to borrow ideas from Western traditions as much as Eastern.
While JeetKune Do is often described as a framework from which an individual can pick and choose to develop their own style, it is also an evolutionary approach. Lee referred to "absorb what is useful" and discard the remainder. And this was at the personal level for an individual developing their own style. If they chose to discard "intercepting fist" this would be acceptable. They were following the philosophy faithfully and the inclusion of any one maneuver or set of maneuvers was not critical.
In JeetKune Do training is always with an opponent. This provides the core feedback loop and learning opportunity that allows a practitioner to select that which "is useful" and discard that which is not.Lee pursued ever more elaborate approaches to protected real combat training to enable the closed loop learning that was core to the evolutionary nature of JKD. In comparison patterned styles of martial arts taught with "kata" were open loop and not adaptive.
Bruce Lee was a philosopher. He majored in philosophy at the University of Washington, Seattle. His own personal philosophy was heavily influenced by Taoism and Buddhism. He brought this philosophy to his interpretation of Kung Fu and the heart of JeetKune Do.One of his key teachings was "to be like water". Water flows around the rock. The rock represents resistance - in fighting, the resistance is from the opponent.
In change management, resistance is from the people involved and it is always emotional.To flow around the rock, we must learn how to avoid emotional resistance.
The Kanban Method evolved with this principle in mind. That we must discover a way that enabled change while avoiding invoking sources of resistance - even better if we could motivate the people involved to advocate for the changes required. With Kanban you start with what you do now, and "kanbanize" it, catalyzing the evolutionary process into action. Changes to processes in use will occur and evaluating whether a change is truly an improvement can be done using fitness criteria that evaluate the external outcome.
Fitness criteria are metrics that measure things customer or other external stakeholders value such as delivery time, quality, predictability, conformance to regulatory requirements or metrics that value actual outcomes such as customer satisfaction or employee satisfaction
Kanban closes the learning loop using 3 feedback mechanisms:the standup meeting in front of the kanban boardthe manager to subordinate meetings (both 1-1 and 1-team)the operations review meetingIronically, these have come to known as the Kanban Kata. Ironic because Lee was opposed to Kata as they normally represent an open loop system without learning.
Kanban installs an adaptive capability in the organization and the style of working - the methodology - emerges and evolves, adapting gracefully to changes in business conditions, risks and uncertainty.Such an adaptive capability makes the organization robust and resilient and enables the possibility of continued sustainable long term competitiveness.
Kanban, like JKD, _is_ based on simple principles. As already described, these are: service-orientation service delivery involves workflowand work flows through a series of information discovery activitiesThese principles give us a lens through which to view knowledge work activities and some clues as to the applicability of Kanban. Kanban would be less applicable if a service-orientated view of work were difficult to conceive or the work was without a definable workflow.
There are some differences between JKD and Kanban. It is dangerous to draw too close an analogy.JKD contains a martial art framework. It contains a core set of principles based on an underlying theory of fighting and vulnerability of the human body: concepts such as "center line" from Wing Chun, for example.Kanban is really a management method. It directly addresses change management. It also creates a mechanism for framing operational decisions through its core concepts such as use of pull systems and the consequent concept of deferred commitment.Kanban does not contain a framework of concepts for doing any specific types of work. There are no techniques for developing software or performing any other type of creative knowledge work.
For specific domains, Kanban cannot guide you or tell you what to do, there must be knowledge of that domain, such as software engineering, and within those domains, different schools of thought will still exist. Kanban is, therefore, not an equivalent of JKD for software engineering.Kanban is not a framework for evolving a personal style of software engineering, in the way that JKD is a framework for evolving a personal style of combat.Kanban is a complete method for installing evolutionary capability in an organization. It is domain agnostic.
So does the arrival of Kanban represent the end of methodologies?Alistair Cockburn argues it doesn't! There is still a need to know what to do, how to do it, when to do it and who should perform specific activities. There is, in his opinion, still a need for a definition of who, what, when, where and how.
However, perhaps JKD and the philosophy of Bruce Lee gives us some clues that methodologies can and indeed should be dead!Do we need to define roles and force people to fit their definitions? Is it better to let an individual's identity evolve and emerge in the context of a given organization?
Perhaps it is enough for us to teach a catalog of techniques from programming languages to architecture, analysis and design patterns that teach known good practices? Modern approaches to software architecture, design, programming and deployment all encourage fast feedback and short cycle times to encourage learning. Perhaps we need to be focusing on giving permission for personal and organizational styles of software engineering to emerge naturally rather than promoting methodology and adoption of defined methods?
The future of methodology should be inspired by Bruce Lee and JKD - train with live opponents, no kata, no "dry land swimming". Rather than define roles, responsibilities and procedures, we should teach beginners how to set up safe to fail, learning environments at the individual, team and project level - validate assumptions early and quickly, deploy fake, prototype or real code to gain knowledge of what works and what doesn't. This begins to sound a lot like many modern technical practices, framed inside something like Lean Startup.
The Agile Software Development movement has taken us some way down this path already. Perhaps now it is finally time to let go of methodology and embrace a whole new way of teaching and performing software engineering? Getting _Beyond_Agile_ should see us embrace an "end to methodology!"
And what does this mean for the CMMI?CMMI is methodology agnostic. A CMMI appraisal could be performed on an organization utilizing Lean Startup ideas and using its own evolved style of software engineering.Some changes to the model may be required, though!
Do we still expect a defined process? If so why? Is this just bureaucratic overhead? Bruce Lee would have viewed a defined process as a patterned style - dead, without learning or evolutionary capability. Would it be better to modify the model to look for safe-to-fail learning environments within the organization rather than defined processes?