Stories with Tag lean

• Milk Kanban

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-15 15:32:02

  Verbose tl;dr

  The "Milk Kanban" is a simple physical Kanban system for managing household milk consumption. Using sticky notes representing milk cartons and a whiteboard divided into "To Buy," "In Fridge," and "Empty" columns, family members can visually track milk availability. This system aims to prevent running out of milk by making the current milk supply and its status transparent to everyone, prompting timely replenishment. The author highlights its effectiveness in reducing "milk anxiety" and streamlining the process of managing this essential household item.

  The blog post "Milk Kanban," authored by Michal Brodziński, details a straightforward yet effective method for managing household milk consumption and replenishment using a Kanban-style system. Brodziński, motivated by frequent milk shortages in his home, sought a solution that went beyond simple shopping lists. He found inspiration in the Kanban methodology, commonly used in software development and project management for visualizing and optimizing workflows.

  The core of the system revolves around physical tokens, each representing one unit of milk (e.g., a carton). These tokens are placed in a designated area, visually representing the current milk inventory. When a unit of milk is consumed, the corresponding token is removed. A clearly defined reorder point is established – in Brodziński's case, when only two milk tokens remain. Reaching this reorder point triggers the action of purchasing more milk.

  The system's elegance lies in its simplicity and visual clarity. The readily apparent number of tokens provides an immediate understanding of the milk stock level, eliminating the need for mental inventory tracking or checking the refrigerator. The designated reorder point ensures timely replenishment, preventing milk shortages and the associated morning frustrations.

  Brodziński further elaborates on the practical implementation, noting the use of magnets for the tokens and a magnetic whiteboard as the Kanban board. He underscores the importance of placing the board in a highly visible, frequently trafficked area, ensuring the system remains top-of-mind for all household members. While acknowledging the seemingly trivial nature of the problem, Brodziński highlights the system's effectiveness in eliminating a recurring domestic inconvenience, showcasing the adaptability of Kanban principles to even the most mundane aspects of life. He emphasizes the system's success in eliminating the mental overhead of milk management, freeing up cognitive resources for more significant concerns.

  • kanban
  • productivity
  • Milk
  • Grocery Shopping
  • Inventory Management
  • Household Management
  • Visual Management
  • Shopping List
  • food waste
  • agile
  • lean

  Summary of Comments ( 153 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43373157

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users generally found the "Milk Kanban" system clever and relatable. Several commenters shared their own similar, often simpler, methods for managing household groceries, including using whiteboards, magnets, and even just a shared shopping list. Some questioned the necessity of such a system for a single person, while others appreciated the visual aspect and potential for reducing mental load. The discussion also touched on the balance between over-engineering simple tasks and the benefits of applying project management principles to everyday life. A few commenters expressed concern about the environmental impact of the physical cards, suggesting digital alternatives.

  The Hacker News post "Milk Kanban" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43373157) has a moderate number of comments, discussing the author's simple Kanban system for managing milk consumption and replenishment using a whiteboard. Several commenters engage with the core idea, offering variations, alternatives, and expansions on the concept.

  A significant thread discusses the merits and drawbacks of physical versus digital systems for such a simple task. Some argue for the tactile and visual immediacy of a physical board, highlighting the satisfaction of physically moving cards. Others prefer the convenience and automation potential of digital tools, suggesting apps like Trello or Todoist, or even integrating with smart refrigerators or grocery delivery services. This discussion touches upon the broader theme of choosing the right tool for the job, with simplicity and ease of use being key factors.

  Several commenters offer practical modifications to the author's system. Suggestions include using magnets instead of tape, color-coding cards to represent different types of milk or expiration dates, and incorporating a "need to order" section on the board. One commenter suggests a simplified two-column system – "Need" and "Have" – arguing for minimalism. Another commenter points out the potential for applying the same Kanban principles to other household items beyond milk.

  Some comments focus on the humorous aspect of applying a project management methodology to something as mundane as milk. One commenter jokes about the potential for "milk stand-up meetings," while another imagines a future where over-engineered milk management systems become commonplace. This lighthearted tone adds a layer of levity to the discussion.

  A few comments express skepticism about the necessity of such a system for a simple task, arguing that it adds unnecessary complexity. However, others counter that the system's value lies not just in managing milk, but in demonstrating the broader applicability of Kanban principles to everyday life. They see it as a fun and accessible way to introduce people to the concepts of visual workflow management.

  Finally, a couple of comments delve into the psychological aspects of such systems, suggesting that the act of physically moving cards on a board can provide a sense of accomplishment and contribute to habit formation. They connect this to the broader discussion of gamification and motivation.

• If we had the best product engineering organization, what would it look like?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-12 19:27:07

  Verbose tl;dr

  James Shore envisions the ideal product engineering organization as a collaborative, learning-focused environment prioritizing customer value. Small, cross-functional teams with full ownership over their products would operate with minimal process, empowered to make independent decisions. A culture of continuous learning and improvement, fueled by frequent experimentation and reflection, would drive innovation. Technical excellence wouldn't be a goal in itself, but a necessary means to rapidly and reliably deliver value. This organization would excel at adaptable planning, embracing change and prioritizing outcomes over rigid roadmaps. Ultimately, it would be a fulfilling and joyful place to work, attracting and retaining top talent.

  James Shore's blog post, "If we had the best product engineering organization, what would it look like?", paints a utopian vision of a software development environment characterized by remarkable efficiency, unwavering quality, and genuine employee fulfillment. Shore envisions an organization where product engineering is not merely a department, but a holistic approach interwoven into the fabric of the company. This utopian organization prioritizes continuous improvement and learning, fostering a culture of experimentation and psychological safety where mistakes are viewed as opportunities for growth, not grounds for reprimand.

  Central to Shore's vision is the concept of small, autonomous, cross-functional teams. These teams, resembling miniature startups within the larger organization, possess full ownership of their respective products, from conception and design to development, deployment, and ongoing maintenance. They are empowered to make independent decisions, driven by a deep understanding of user needs and business goals. This decentralized structure minimizes bureaucratic overhead and allows teams to iterate quickly, responding to changes in the market with agility and precision.

  The technical proficiency of these teams is paramount. Shore highlights the importance of robust engineering practices such as continuous integration and delivery, comprehensive automated testing, and a meticulous approach to code quality. This technical excellence ensures that products are not only delivered rapidly, but also maintain a high degree of reliability and stability. Furthermore, the organization prioritizes technical debt reduction as an ongoing process, preventing the accumulation of technical baggage that can impede future development.

  Beyond technical prowess, Shore emphasizes the significance of a positive and supportive work environment. The ideal organization fosters a culture of collaboration and mutual respect, where team members feel valued and empowered to contribute their unique skills and perspectives. This includes a commitment to diversity and inclusion, recognizing that diverse teams are more innovative and better equipped to solve complex problems. Emphasis is also placed on sustainable pace and reasonable work hours, acknowledging the importance of work-life balance in preventing burnout and maintaining long-term productivity.

  In this ideal scenario, the organization functions as a learning ecosystem. Individuals and teams are encouraged to constantly seek new knowledge and refine their skills through ongoing training, mentorship, and knowledge sharing. This continuous learning ensures that the organization remains at the forefront of technological advancements and adapts to the ever-evolving demands of the market. The organization itself learns from its successes and failures, constantly adapting its processes and structures to optimize for efficiency and effectiveness.

  Ultimately, Shore’s vision transcends mere technical proficiency. He argues that the best product engineering organization isn't just about building great software; it's about creating a fulfilling and rewarding environment for the people who build it. It's about fostering a culture of continuous improvement, innovation, and collaboration, where individuals and teams can thrive and achieve their full potential. This results in not only superior products, but also a sustainable and thriving organization capable of long-term success in the dynamic world of software development.

  • product engineering
  • organizational design
  • engineering culture
  • team structure
  • Software Development
  • product development
  • agile
  • lean
  • continuous improvement
  • leadership
  • management
  • Innovation
  • collaboration
  • effectiveness
  • Efficiency
  • best practices
  • ideal organization
  • high-performing teams
  • organizational effectiveness
  • product vision
  • customer focus
  • employee empowerment
  • psychological safety
  • organizational structure
  • team dynamics
  • Communication
  • motivation
  • alignment
  • autonomy

  Summary of Comments ( 96 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42676123

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree with James Shore's vision of a strong product engineering organization, emphasizing small, empowered teams, a focus on learning and improvement, and minimal process overhead. Several express skepticism about achieving this ideal in larger organizations due to ingrained hierarchies and the perceived need for control. Some suggest that Shore's model might be better suited for smaller companies or specific teams within larger ones. The most compelling comments highlight the tension between autonomy and standardization, particularly regarding tools and technologies, and the importance of trust and psychological safety for truly effective teamwork. A few commenters also point out the critical role of product vision and leadership in guiding these empowered teams, lest they become fragmented and inefficient.

  The Hacker News post "If we had the best product engineering organization, what would it look like?" generated a moderate amount of discussion with several compelling comments exploring the nuances of the linked article by James Shore.

  Several commenters grappled with Shore's emphasis on small, autonomous teams. One commenter questioned the scalability of this model beyond a certain organizational size, citing potential difficulties with inter-team communication and knowledge sharing as the number of teams grows. They suggested the need for more structure and coordination in larger organizations, potentially through designated integration roles or processes.

  Another commenter pushed back on the idea of completely autonomous teams, arguing that some level of central architectural guidance is necessary to prevent fragmented systems and ensure long-term maintainability. They proposed a hybrid approach where teams have autonomy within a clearly defined architectural framework.

  The concept of "full-stack generalists" also sparked debate. One commenter expressed skepticism, pointing out the increasing specialization required in modern software development and the difficulty of maintaining expertise across the entire stack. They advocated for "T-shaped" individuals with deep expertise in one area and broader, but less deep, knowledge in others. This, they argued, allows for both specialization and effective collaboration.

  A few commenters focused on the cultural aspects of Shore's ideal organization, highlighting the importance of psychological safety and trust. They suggested that a truly great engineering organization prioritizes employee well-being, encourages open communication, and fosters a culture of continuous learning and improvement.

  Another thread of discussion revolved around the practicality of Shore's vision, with some commenters expressing concerns about the challenges of implementing such radical changes in existing organizations. They pointed to the inertia of established processes, the potential for resistance to change, and the difficulty of measuring the impact of such transformations. Some suggested a more incremental approach, focusing on implementing small, iterative changes over time.

  Finally, a few comments provided alternative perspectives, suggesting different models for high-performing engineering organizations. One commenter referenced Spotify's "tribes" model, while another pointed to the benefits of a more centralized, platform-based approach. These comments added diversity to the discussion and offered different frameworks for considering the optimal structure of a product engineering organization.