[kitotik]

> do something small,

> analyze how that affected your environment

> learn from that, and

> respond/repeat.

I could be missing your point, but this is precisely a core tenet of Lean - Plan, Do, Check, Act

Agile speaks nothing of these sorts of processes(aside from the cargo cult enterprise scrum nonsense of course)

[dragonwriter]

> Agile speaks nothing of these sorts of processes

Agile is less specific about the how, but is very much centered on team-led adaptation of concrete process to specific circumstances.

Lean does the same thing, but actually talks about how to achieve that.

(Lean and Agile are mostly built on the same ideas, but the Lean literature comes at the ideas from an engineering mindset, while Agile literature does it from a fuzzier and more touchy-feely mindset.)

[evolve2k]

The pissing match above has at its root a global namespace conflict around the term “Lean”.

To clarify, the underlying heirachy is:

Shewhart cycle “PDCA” (1939)

Lean manufacturing “Lean” (1988)

Agile Manifesto “Agile” (2001)

The Lean Startup [subset of lean] (2011)

Lean around here often handwaves to mean the Lean startup with Lean manufacturing under that. Technically I’d suggest Lean on its own is really a reference back to Lean manufacturing and the principals of Lean developed by Toyota in the 1960-1980’s in what they later named “The Toyota Way”

[marcosdumay]

You seem to have missed the point of Agile.

But then, that's normal.

[dragonwriter]

To be fair, its largely because the Agile literature as a whole is vaguely written on the most important points.

[kitotik]

Did I?

Where does the manifesto talk about a process of any sort? It’s a set of values. It doesn’t mention anything about iterations, breaking things down, etc