back
|01 Oct 2017|Klaus Leopold

WIP Limits Must Die!

Flight Levels
13

A drastic title, but I really mean it. Some people have a fit when I say that you should limit the work in a Kanban system. The notion of limiting them, and the work, leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. At the implementation level, it sounds like, “You think I’m not capable of doing two things at once?” At higher levels, for instance in portfolio management, it sounds like, “We are rejecting customer orders.”
In the world of working effectively, WIP limits are a core element. Their purpose is to simply prevent you from getting bogged down. This bogging down is most apparent when the only thing being discussed is starting initiatives, proposals and projects. Meanwhile, we know multitasking is a myth and companies are not successful because they start as many projects as possible, but rather when they finish as many projects as possible.

Nothing can fly where everything lands

Here’s the thing: We do not want to restrict or constrain work with WIP limits. Rather, we want to get to the point where arrival and departure rates in the system are nearly equal. I like to compare this to an airport: When there are more airplanes landing than taking off, the entire area will be piled up with airplanes in very short order. It is absolutely logical that an airport has a certain capacity (WIP limit) and that arrivals and departures are planned based on this capacity (starting and completing work). If the airport is at capacity, airplanes must depart (work must be completed) before the next airplanes can land (new work can be started).
Most importantly, limiting the amount of work in a work system is a means to an end. There should not be more work started than can be finished. To prevent the system from becoming clogged, there can only be a certain amount of active work, and this amount is represented by the WIP limit. Even though my inherent enthusiasm for WIP limits will probably never waver, and from every possible practical and theoretical point of view they simply make sense, I find myself more and more often trying to avoid the term “limit”. It prompts many people to make an incorrect association. But I am baffled at the moment how to phrase WIP limits differently.
Does anyone have an idea? I would be thankful for any suggestions.

Navin Anand
03 Oct 2017 14:15

Great point Klaus. A suggestion that comes to mind – label it by key outcome it aims to achieve, rather than what it is. Maybe something like “Work Flow Balancing Criteria”.

Tim Nolan
06 Oct 2017 22:15

How about “balanced work flow” or simply “balanced work?”

François Bachmann
04 Oct 2017 07:38

Sustainable Juggling Capacity

Julia Wester
03 Oct 2017 17:04

Level can replace Limit. WIP Level. Optimal WIP level. If you go beyond, you are reducing the ability of the system to deliver at its full potential.

Troy Tuttle
03 Oct 2017 21:46

Work Overload Limit.

seamus doherty
04 Oct 2017 10:21

First impressions are important.
My experience sofar indicates that just using “WIP” is better for conversations and softer buy in, but sometimes WIP is very tightly associated with “WIP Limit”, also WIP sounds very like WHIP!. So I have used “Work In Progress” (long hand) in conversations and it gets more doors open for continued conversation around team/process overload. Also just using “work in progress” is probably more in line with starting out with Kanban by showing what the current flow/phases are. One can also transition to “WIP Limit” later on when group is comfortable with concept.
Also I like Julia’s idea of using “level”, it’s softer, more transitionary and is like a half way house.

Anton
04 Oct 2017 14:27

I think balanced system capacity or effective flow pressure could fit here.

Marco
09 Oct 2017 14:38

My suggestions are:
work in progress target
or when combining other good answers: flow speed indicator

Prateek Singh
09 Oct 2017 21:08

Optimal Operating Capacity! There should be good reasons for being under or over the capacity. By violating it in either direction we are making a conscious choice to run a sub-optimal system.

Sathish Mohanraj
06 Nov 2017 02:44

Great point, Klaus. I really like the way that Prateek was referring it as “Optimal Operating Capacity” or just “Optimal Operational Capacity” :-).

Klaus Leopold
21 Oct 2017 16:59

Thanks for the great ideas! I’ll test them and report what a wider audience says 🙂

Regis
24 Feb 2020 13:11

Any conclusions/decisions so far? 😀

Pedro
16 Jan 2020 17:58

Try WC, work capacity

This conversation lacks your voice:
Your E-Mail Address will not be published.