On WIP Limits

Notes from Accelerate

(Chapter 7 - Lean Management Practices)

To understand how WIP limits can be helpful, we need a bit more context of the bigger picture. The idea comes from lean management practices, and these can, and have been used succesfully by software engineering teams.

  • WIP limits are a way to “drive process (improvement) and increase throughput”. I’ve heard other authors (Team Topologies) refer to this as “optimising for flow of value through the system”

  • Can also be thought of as a way to identify bottlenecks in your system

  • Optimising for flow of value works best in an environment that focuses on team-first thinking, as opposed to optimising individuals' output.

  • Implementing WIP limits in isolation is not going to be helpful:

we’re not just asking teams whether they are good at limiting their WIP and have processes in place to do so. We’re also asking if their WIP limits make obstacles to higher flow visible, and if teams remove these obstacles through process improvement, leading to improved throughput. WIP limits are no good if they don’t lead to improvements that increase flow. read first few pages of chapter 7 for elaboration on quote above

WIP limits on their own do not strongly predict delivery performance. It’s only when they’re combined with the use of visual displays and have a feedback loop from production monitoring tools back to delivery teams or the business that we see a strong effect.

  • Fast flow/quick throughput result in a team that’s more agile to changes, or as Atlassian puts it:

reduce the amount of work “nearly done”, by forcing the team to focus on a smaller set of tasks. At a fundamental level, WIP limits encourage a culture of “done.”

safely & sustainably reduce the lead time to thank you

Why should you care about Accelerate?

  • Written by the same people responsible for the annual State of Devops reports, 4 years after they started publishing them, spent looking at the metrics of high performing vs low performing teams.
  • Uses well defined, & rigorous (subjective) research methods
  • I’ve seen it cited by many books, articles, & conference talks since. I’m aware that there’s many biases involved here, so take it with a grain of salt :)

This book is a highly recommended read in my opinion

Related reading