Sometimes people get very territorial over ideas, ideals, philosophies, religion, politics, and even software development methodologies and intellectual property.
Sometime people are very sensitive around who references whom, and who is credited with what.
A reader of mine forwarded me a recent twitter arguement around the genesis of kanban and personal kanban from David J. Anderson and Michael Bolton.
The info-graphic to the right is ‘annotated’ with some pretty humorous anecdotes, but the main point remains the same:
- Who owns what?
- Who should reference whom?
- Is it unsafe to use methods without citing their genesis or beginning?
- What’s the big deal?
- Why the call out?
- Over sensitive?
- Twitter a good medium?
OK, NOW I UNDERSTAND
- I totally understand @agilemanager’s points (except the hanging out with American Agilists…).
- I also understand @michaelbolton’s points (handled the situation well).
So what’s the stink?
David is saying that the kanban and pkflow stuff is in the public domain – a priori. As a responsible journalist, or a researcher, it is expected that we reflect a priori or existing research that mirrors our own research. David and Jim both do this in their works reflecting the existing knowledge that they build and – and reflecting other movements that have indirectly influenced and informed their thinking. The argument is not that David invented something – but that Bolton and SQE have not following responsible journalism and research protocol.
All David asked Bolton to do was to reflect that the Alcatel Lucent work reflected what is going on in the industry around kanban and pkflow. And while apparently the Alcatel Lucent version evolved without direct influence of a kanban / pkflow coach, David is absolutely correct that it is inconceivable that this precise implementation evolved completely independently of the kanban / pkflow movement.