How do you balance flexibility and predictability in Kanban vs Scrum?

One thing I've found helpful that in Kanban, flexibility comes from adjusting workflow as needed, while predictability is maintained by tracking metrics like cycle time and throughput. This helps forecast delivery without set sprints. While in Scrum, predictability comes from timeboxed sprints, and flexibility is achieved by adapting during sprint reviews. Teams can balance this by leaving room for unexpected tasks while staying focused on sprint goals.

In Kanban, balance flexibility and predictability by using WIP limits to manage flow and maintain stability while allowing for continuous delivery and adaptation. In Scrum, balance by adhering to fixed sprints for predictability, but remain adaptable within the sprint to address changing requirements. Use regular reviews and retrospectives in both methods to adjust processes and improve predictability and flexibility over time.

Back in 2014 at Barclays, we had Scrum and Kanban teams working together during our Agile transformation. The Mobile App Team, using Scrum, had a cadence and so predictability, delivering new features (stories) every two weeks. Each sprint's end was a mini-celebration, highlighting our progress and plans. Also what is missed and can be improved? Our Production Support Team was leveraging Kanban flexibility tackling unpredictable issues, and critical bugs, ensuring seamless operations with a continuous flow of fixes. This Scrum-Kanban blend was like having a dependable train service (Scrum) for scheduled journeys and taxis (Kanban) for unexpected routes. It was an Agile approach that brilliantly balanced predictability with flexibility.

In Kanban, flexibility is prioritized over predictability, as it allows for continuous adaptation to changing priorities and requirements. The emphasis is on visualizing workflow and optimizing throughput. Teams focus on completing work items as they arise, with no predefined iterations. This flexibility allows for quick response to customer needs and market shifts. Conversely, Scrum leans more towards predictability with its fixed-length iterations (sprints) and prescribed roles, events, and artifacts. This structure provides a predictable cadence for delivery, fostering transparency and planning.

Balancing flexibility and predictability is key when choosing between Kanban and Scrum, as each framework offers different strengths in these areas. Kanban is a flow-based method that focuses on visualizing and optimizing the work in progress. Kanban is inherently flexible, allowing for work to be pulled in as capacity becomes available, without fixed iterations. Scrum is a time-boxed method that divides the work into fixed-length iterations called sprints. By understanding the strengths of Kanban and Scrum, you can tailor your approach to optimize both flexibility and predictability in your workflow.

Recordar que Kanban se enfoca en la flexibilidad y la adaptabilidad, mientras que Scrum se enfoca en la previsibilidad y la planificación. En Kanban, se puede ajustar el flujo de trabajo según sea necesario para adaptarse a los cambios en el proyecto o en el entorno.En Scrum, se espera que el equipo se adhiera al plan del sprint y entregue lo que se ha comprometido a entregar. Para equilibrar la flexibilidad y la previsibilidad en Kanban, se puede establecer un límite de trabajo en progreso para evitar que el equipo se sobrecargue y se pierda la visibilidad del flujo de trabajo. En Scrum, se puede hacer mediante reuniones diarias de seguimiento para mantener al equipo enfocado en los objetivos del sprint y permitir ajustes si son necesarios

Kanban is a great flow-based method for visualizing and optimizing work. For example, at my previous company, our game development team used a Kanban board to manage our tasks. By limiting tasks in each stage, we quickly spotted bottlenecks—like when too many features were waiting for testing—and adjusted accordingly. This reduced delays and helped us release updates more consistently. What I love about Kanban is its flexibility—it doesn’t require specific roles or meetings, and it focuses on continuous improvement through data and feedback. It’s an adaptable method that fit our team perfectly.

As someone who has navigated this journey firsthand, Kanban focusing on flow-based methods and Scrum emphasizing time-boxed iterations. Through my experiences, I've learned that while Kanban may excel in certain team environments like DevOps, Scrum may be better suited for development teams. Kanban boards allowed us to gain valuable insights into our workflow ,Its emphasis on visualizing work and optimizing flow resonates deeply with the iterative and dynamic nature of DevOps practices. With clear visual representations of work items moving through different stages, we could easily identify bottlenecks and optimize our processes in real-time. WIP limits allowed us to maintain focus and prevent overload.

Grande poder do Scrum é o time-boxed, ele da censo de urgencia a curtos periodos.. Como costumo dizer o Scrum bem feito vai apontar o dedo para o que esta errado. Quando você faz ele bem feito com retrospectiva bem feitas sempre vamos pegar os calos e tentar resolver.

Scrum is a time-boxed methodology with fixed-length iterations known as sprints. It provides predictability by setting specific sprint goals and timelines, enabling teams to plan and commit to a set amount of work for each sprint. Changes to the sprint backlog are generally discouraged during the sprint to maintain focus and stability.

🔄 Scrum, a time-boxed method, organizes work into fixed-length sprints. Roles like product owner, scrum master, and developers are crucial. Ceremonies like sprint planning, daily standup, sprint review, and retrospective ensure progress. Adaptation based on feedback and learning drives Scrum's goal of delivering valuable product increments! 🚀🔄 #Scrum #Agile

Scrum is like a sprint race with set time boxes. Picture a relay race: each runner has a fixed time to run their leg before passing the baton. In Scrum, teams work in short bursts called sprints, typically 1-4 weeks. Within each sprint, they tackle specific tasks, like runners completing their laps. Time boxing keeps things focused, ensuring teams deliver regular, high-quality work, much like runners aiming for their best times within set limits.

Technically a sprint is not a time-box. Scrum does not have roles, but accountabilities They are known as events, not ceremonies. Silly AI, its hard to take these posts serious when you cannot even regurgitate official source information, but instead perpetuate common gross misunderstandings. Whats worse is the people that reply as if they are experts, but don't correct the mistakes.

Scrum is more about structure and routine. You plan out work for short sprints (like 2-4 weeks) and commit to getting stuff done by the end. Once a sprint starts, you can’t really change what you’re working on, which helps everyone stay focused. After each sprint, you review what went down, and adjust for the next one. It’s predictable and helps keep things on track, but you lose some flexibility during each sprint. It’s a good fit for teams that like clear deadlines and a steady rhythm.

Scrum’s structure and regular feedback loops are invaluable. For instance, in a recent project, our team used Scrum to deliver a new app feature every two weeks. The sprint reviews allowed us to gather user feedback early, making adjustments swiftly and ensuring we stayed aligned with customer needs. Scrum’s disciplined approach helped us maintain focus, foster collaboration, and continuously improve our process.

Yeah, nah. This is not really what Scrum is about. For a start, each Sprint can be considered a small project. While we do want a working, valuable increment at the end of a Sprint that's a minimum. Inspection, adaption and delivery of the product should happen throughout the Sprint, in pursuit of a Sprint Goal. That Sprint Goal should be about (business) outcomes for the organisation and it's users, so that everyone understands the (measurable) value being created. The time box is the cycle where we close off one "mini-project" and determine whether or not we should invest (or speculate?) further, based on the value we have obtained and that we may obtain in the future.

A ideia do Scrum é entregas menores ao final de tudo. Ao utilizar sprints, é possível acompanhar e monitorar melhor os resultados. E consequentemente ter base para a realização de feedback e reuniões de alinhamento das sprints conforme necessidade.

Sometimes I explain Scrum Team is like a buffet kitchen and Kanban like an à la carte kitchen. Scrum is like a buffet menu dinner service, where the chefs work in fixed intervals (sprints) to prepare a specific number of dishes (sprint backlog) designed in advance. There are specific roles (head chef, waiters). Once they start cooking a course, they don't change the menu until the next service. Kanban, on the other hand, is like an à la carte kitchen. The chefs cook dishes as orders come in. No set menu. The kitchen focuses on the flow of dishes order (work items) and ensuring each dish (task) moves smoothly from order to delivery, measuring success by how quickly and efficiently each dish is prepared and served (cycle time, throughput).

Kanban is NOT an agile method, it can be used outside of agile. Its origins are in car manufacturing. The Scrum versus Kanban show gross misunderstanding and misinformation and the people that think this is a thing are just exhibiting they have no idea of the subject. This entire post is an embarrassment by both AI and the ‘experts’ that are far from expert.

Kanban and Scrum are both popular agile methodologies, but they have some key differences: Workflow Management Planning and Flexibility Roles and Responsibilities Cadence Continuous Improvement Both Kanban and Scrum have their strengths and are suited to different contexts and team preferences. Kanban offers more flexibility and is well-suited to environments with changing priorities and unpredictable workloads, while Scrum provides a more structured framework for teams that prefer fixed iterations and ceremonies.

🔄 Kanban and Scrum, both agile methods, diverge in their approach. Kanban flows with work, while Scrum adheres to sprint timeboxing. Kanban lacks predefined roles/ceremonies; Scrum has specific ones. Kanban permits backlog changes anytime; Scrum allows them only between sprints. Kanban measures cycle time and throughput; Scrum gauges velocity and burndown. 📊🕒 #AgileComparison

In Kanban, flexibility is key, you adjust priorities as tasks come in, which makes it great for teams that need to adapt quickly. On the other hand, Scrum offers predictability through fixed sprints and regular planning sessions, so you know what's coming in a set timeframe. Kanban flows continuously, while Scrum works in time-boxed iterations. Both have their strength, but from myperspective Kanban is all about adaptability, and Scrum is about sticking to a plan and delivering in chunks.

Here’s the main thing: Kanban lets you adjust on the fly, while Scrum locks you into a set plan for each sprint. With Kanban, you pull tasks when you have the capacity, so it’s easy to handle new stuff as it comes up. Scrum, on the other hand, is all about planning upfront, once you’re in a sprint, you’re focused on what you committed to. Kanban’s more about managing the flow of work, while Scrum is better for teams that need clear deadlines and structured cycles.

Kanban typically works better than Scrum in environments with high variability in tasks, continuous delivery, and where prioritization is fluid.

In Kanban, tasks flow continuously through stages without fixed time frames, adapting to changing priorities. Example: a school project where stages like research, experimentation, and presentation evolve fluidly. In Scrum, work is divided into fixed time-boxed sprints, encouraging focused bursts of productivity. Example: students plan and complete weekly sprints with specific goals, ensuring regular progress updates.

Scrum is timeboxed (iteration-based). Kanban is flow-based. While that may seemingly look like a choice is required. You can use Kanban to optimize flow within the timebox. Would point out that many Scrum teams using kanban are only scratching the surface and leveraging only the "visual management" aspects and not truly using it to "optimize flow". They are missing out... Kanban boards are extremely powerful to visual/manage flow at all levels. This is not *just* about "planning" but also sequencing how the work is done (execution).

These differences are largely superficial. I'd suggest that one core difference is that a Scrum team requires product autonomy. The Product Owner is the person on the team - in discussion with the stakeholders and customers - who identifies where value lies. In that sense a Product Owner is just a Product Manager who is working with a Scrum Team. The second core difference is that Scrum is focussed on advancing business outcomes (the Sprint Goal) rather than optimising the delivering work and making that predictable. There's a few other howlers here too - velocity and burndowns are not part of Scrum, for example. They are XP approaches, and while they might add value you don't have to use them

In my experience, Scrum and Kanban both are tools to achieve Mastery of Value identification, Creation, and delivery. It's like different health and fitness regimes still aim for the same goal of health and fitness. You may join a yoga or pilates class running every week to achieve results in a more structured way or you may decide to take an open gym membership wherever you can go to the gym any time based on your needs and another variable in your life. Common Ground is that both will help you become a better version of yourself in terms of your health and fitness goals. Same way kanban or Scrum will help you deliver value to customers better than you may be doing right now.

Podemos colocar que funcionam muito bem juntos.. Quando colocamos kanban utilizando o empirismo como o Scrum e o foco de entregas conforme um fluxo sem gargalos. Isso é um funcionamento perfeito. A visualização do trabalho também é parte se similaridade pois um da visualização e outro com a transparência. Também falar de Coragem e execução do kanban são similares e trazem benefícios juntos.

Both Kanban and Scrum emphasize transparency, collaboration, and the importance of delivering value to the customer. They both encourage continuous improvement through regular retrospectives or reviews.

Na verdade eu não concordo com o "Scrum X Kanban", mas, sim, acredito no "Scrum + Kanban", pois eles se complementam, e é onde surge o terreno comum, onde pode-se alcançar ganhos que geram valor ao cliente final e ao negócio.

Both Kanban and Scrum are agile methodologies aimed at improving productivity, efficiency, and flexibility in project management. They both emphasize visualizing work, continuous improvement, and collaboration within teams. Additionally, both methodologies prioritize delivering value to customers and stakeholders by focusing on completing tasks effectively and efficiently.

Even though Kanban and Scrum seem pretty different, they’ve got some things in common. Both use visual tools, Kanban boards, Scrum boards, to keep everyone in the loop on what’s going on. They’re both big on transparency, making it easy for the team to see progress and identify bottlenecks. Plus, both methods encourage teams to keep improving, whether it’s through Kanban’s continuous tweaks or Scrum’s retrospectives after each sprint.

Balancing flexibility and predictability in Kanban and Scrum involves clear goal-setting and adapting to change within structured frameworks. In Kanban, visualize workflow stages and set WIP limits for flexibility, while introducing predictability through SLAs. In Scrum, use fixed sprints for flexibility, planning specific goals for predictability. Open communication and continuous improvement are essential for effective project management in both methodologies.

There's nothing stopping you: - using Kanban as a pull-based work system - using Sprint Goals within a time box to control risk That is to say Scrum and Kanban approaches are entirely compatible, perhaps mutually beneficial.

Scrum: Offers predictability through fixed-duration sprints, allowing regular delivery and review. To add flexibility, be open to adjusting the backlog during sprint planning and refine tasks as needed. Use retrospectives to evolve processes. Kanban: Prioritizes flexibility by allowing work to be pulled as capacity permits, adapting to changing priorities. To maintain predictability, use WIP (Work in Progress) limits to ensure steady flow and throughput. Regularly review cycle times and adjust WIP limits for predictable delivery times. Both require clear backlog management and regular team communication to balance these aspects effectively.

Choosing between Kanban and Scrum really depends on what fits best for your company. There's no one-size-fits-all solution, and sometimes mixing both can give you the best of both worlds. If you need flexibility to handle changing requirements, Kanban is a great choice. But if you prefer more structure and predictability, Scrum might be the better option. You can even combine them—use Scrum to organize your work into sprints and Kanban to manage work in progress and ensure a smooth flow. Don't fall into the trap of sticking to "this is how we've always done it." If you're in a constantly changing environment, it's okay to embrace Kanban. If you're in a more predictable setting, it's okay to embrace Scrum.

Some teams combine the best of both worlds by using Scrumban - a hybrid approach that leverages the time-boxed sprints of Scrum with the continuous flow and flexibility of Kanban: Using Sprints with WIP Limits: Scrum-like sprints are implemented while using WIP limits to ensure the team doesn’t overload. Dynamic Sprint Lengths: Allow sprint lengths to vary depending on the complexity or volume of work. Pull-Based Sprints: Use a Kanban-style pull system within Scrum sprints. Once work is completed in the sprint, team members can pull in new tasks from the backlog without disrupting overall sprint goals.

Regardless of approach- whether Scrum, Kanban or hybrid- I recommend maintaining a great focus on experimentation and continuous improvement. If using Scrum, don't let your only adaptation occur at the spring boundary. If championing Kanban, don't let a focus on flow mean you don't pause to inspect & adapt. With either approach, you need both predictability AND flexibility. If either is lacking, your customers and organization will be worse off for it. A framework isn't a magic wand to give you these things, but a tool kit to help you start. Start small, iterate, and ensure experimentation and improvement is ever-present.

Finding that sweet spot between flexibility, It’s all about what you need. Kanban is super flexible, letting you adjust as things change, but still gives you some predictability through metrics like cycle time. Scrum, though, is all about predictability with its fixed sprints. If your team needs both, you can even mix them, use Scrum for the planned work, and Kanban to handle any surprises or last-minute stuff that comes your way.

Scrum's philosophy is to produce a "production ready" body of work after each sprint. If your project has complex components, it may be better off using kanban in between scrum sprints, instead of pushing unnecessarily for defined sprint cycles. It should be delivery, technical debt, and quality goals that drive the use and balance of one or both methodologies. (Among other factors, such as team capacity and work culture).

Kanban and Scrum are agile frameworks that balance flexibility and predictability, with Kanban emphasizing continuous adaptation and workflow visualization while Scrum focuses on fixed-length sprints and structured roles. Kanban allows for quick responses to changing priorities, whereas Scrum provides a disciplined approach with regular planning and feedback loops. Both frameworks aim to improve productivity and deliver customer value but cater to different team needs—Kanban for adaptability and Scrum for structured progress.

You can make it much simpler. Your forecasting horizon should not extend beyond what is predictable. The further you move away from "Here and Now," the more unpredictable things are. Locking in things that might just not be true by the time they (do not) occur creates evitable risk. Not looking foward enough also creates evitable risk. Predictability isn't about creating an illusion of low risk, but about understanding what the risks are. Flexibility is not about constantly turning risks into escalations, then dealing with these gung-ho, but it is about adjusting your approach to deal with risks effectively as you uncover them. If your risks are too high and your planning horizon too short, that tells you something. Agile or not.

The balance is between predictability and productivity. Flexibility is orthogonal. There is uncertainty in development work. The choice is either to expose the uncertainty and maximize productivity (we work as efficiently as possible but it's uncertain when we will be done) or alternatively to maximize predictability - predict delivery by a date that's readily achievable, and ensure you deliver then even though that implies lower productivity. Optimizing for productivity is preferable in most ways, and we can best achieve both by saying "we will deliver on or before <readily achievable date>". Up-front work to predict better also cuts productivity. Flexibility helps us optimize productivity, it isn't traded off against predictability.

Zwischen Prozesssicherheit und Innovation ist die Brücke zu schlagen. Dabei können agile Methoden für beide Seiten eingesetzt werden. In der Praxis werden Qualitätskomponenten wie PDCA Zyklen in Prozesssicherheit gerne gesehen, währenddessen Kanban Boards für Ideen- und Produktentwicklung genutzt werden.

Use both, together, if that fits your purpose. If your team has no direct involvement in value or priority - or indeed whether to continue working on this thing or pivot to something else - then start looking at the Kanban Method, as Scrum won't serve you well.

When deciding between Kanban and Scrum, one important aspect is what is required when they are introduced. Kanban does not need organizational changes, it does not create new roles and responsibilities, and it doesn't call for new processes. One of Kanban's principles is to start with what you do today, so simply visualize the current workflow. Kanban then offers techniques through which the workflow can be continuously optimized. Introducing Scrum needs more preparation. That's why an organization or a team may be more open to start with Kanban and if for some reason it turns out that it's not suitable for their context they will be more willing to switch to other approaches.

At the end of the day, whether you go with Kanban or Scrum depends on what your team needs. If you’re constantly dealing with changing priorities, Kanban’s flexibility might be your best friend. But if your team works better with clear deadlines and structure, Scrum’s time-boxed sprints are probably a better fit. And hey, don’t be afraid to mix and match! Some teams use a combo of both to handle planned work and unexpected tasks that come up. It’s all about what works best for you.

Balancing flexibility and predictability isn’t about choosing Kanban or Scrum, it’s actually about questioning why you need balance in the first place. Kanban thrives on adaptability with WIP limits and flow metrics, while Scrum imposes structure with sprints and roles for predictability. But here’s the twist: neither works perfectly alone. Combining Scrum’s cadence for planning with Kanban’s fluidity for unexpected changes isn’t just effective—it’s essential. The real challenge? Stop following frameworks blindly and tailor them to your team’s actual needs and goals.