In the need of scientific proof

I was reviewing the feedback sheets from a course I finished two days ago and one of them called my attention. There was a comment indicating I should've given scientific evidence to explain why lean and Kanban work. I understand how compelling it is to count with scientific proof; however, no having scientific proof of something is not sufficient to say something didn't work.

Most things that work are followed by a scientific explanation and not the other way around. Even when no scientific proof is available, should we stop doing something that works?

Lean and Kanban work because they tackle projects from a systems perspective and because they also pay attention to the human factor. That is, they go beyond just the project to find opportunities for improvement and do root-cause analysis. They see projects and people as complex adaptive systems better than other approaches.

The longer professionals demand solutions that are heavily rooted on scientific proof the longer it will take them to realize the huge potential they are missing and will continue to struggle with projects more than is necessary.

Btw, that same person gave me a low score on "being on time" even though I was there 30 minutes before start time every day of the course and kept the lunch break times as agreed. Oh!... wait, maybe my score would've been higher if I had allowed more time for lunch.

Improving People and Processes

Improving People and Processes: Lean-Agile, Systems Thinking, and the System of Profound Knowledge

by Masa K. Maeda, Senior Consultant, Cutter Consortium

Click here for the full executive summary

Click here for the full executive report 

Organizations deal with pressure on a daily basis. Executive and managerial pressure frequently comes in the form of on-time delivery, cost cuts, and scope coverage; customer pressure usually comes in the form of feature requests and better quality; employee pressure continually asks for more time to finish tasks, fewer work hours, and better guidance.
Some organizations consider those kinds of pressures to be part of the daily corporate life and end up just bearing with them. Most of those organizations eventually collapse because lack of improvement puts them further behind over time. Other organizations take a proactive approach to better the organization. Some of those actions could be localized to focusing on ailing areas or could be of global scope and higher impact, such as replacing the organization's governance standard or model or adopting one if the organization didn't come with it already. Or it might mean replacing entire teams or migrating entire operations to other countries. In the accompanying Executive Report, I present, in detail, a better means to improve your organization through the improvement of people and processes, taking into account excellence, quality, and value through the application of lean-agile thinking, systems thinking, and the system of profound knowledge (SOPK).

The term "improving the whole" is not an if-you-only-have-a-hammer approach but rather the acknowledgement that we can acquire a way of thinking that broadens our perspective to look at our organization, processes, and people. It allows us to understand the kind of tools we need to continually better them.

Analytical thinking focuses on knowledge of the parts, properties, and behaviors of an object. Systems thinking focuses on the understanding of the properties and behaviors of an object, its parts, and the system under which it operates. This means that analytical thinking takes us levels inward with respect to the object, whereas systems thinking takes us levels outward with respect to the object because explanations always lie outside and not inside the system being studied. Systems thinking is very effective in solving even very difficult challenges and problems because the understanding acquired makes it easier to determine the root cause or causes of issues we encounter.
The SOPK is a management framework that has four parts: (1) willingness to change the management style, (2) transforming the individual, (3) fully applying its principles to all interaction with other people and decision making, and (4) transforming the organization.