You can't do what you want, and I'm not aware of any plugins that enable the functionality. The columns in the Kanban board are supposed to be an abstraction of the workflow, especially over all of the different workflows for all the different issue types on the board. Each status can only be in one column. I'd say that your more detailed workflow steps should probably be states for the issue and work on having less granular columns.

TL;DR It really just depends on what information you're trying to communicate. In the end, the kanban is simply yielding data points. It's up to you and your organization to collaboratively determine whether you're visualizing the right data, although I would suggest the current representation lacks queuing time as a visualized data point. It's up to your organization's working agreements to determine how you will calculate, value, or use the data represented on the board. In other words, what performance indicators, objectives, or key results is this representation meant to measure or convey? How will that data be used to improve the overall process? How will changing the process improve the value stream? Only you and your stakeholders can answer these questions in a meaningful way. Analysis and Possible Approaches I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to represent here. If Widget 1 and and Widget 2 are separate swim lanes that share a common column (in this case Step 3) that always takes five hours, that's one way to look at the data: just treat Step 3 as a constant additive value that adds to the overall lead time rather than to each widget's individual cycle time. On the other hand, if it's a single batch of widgets with a variable number of swim lanes, then you can have an aggregate value for all swim lanes, or represent the cycle time as a range depending on the number of widgets. In that case, Step 3 is a constant additive value for the cycle time of the entire batch of widgets. In other words, you might do one or more of the following: Aggregate your two swim lanes with a total cycle time of 15 hours, assuming you never have more than two swim lanes and that they're relatively steady-state. You calculate Widget 1 as 6 hours and Widget 2 as 4 hours, plus any additional widgets you might have. Then add 5 hours for Step 3. That yields your total cycle time for all widgets, assuming you are treating the entire board as a single cycle. With only two widgets, it's still 15 hours, but the details are a little conceptually different. You add wait queues between steps 2 and 3 to all swim lanes to represent the average or aggregate hold time until Step 3, since that 5 hours in "Step 3" is a constant time value. You can then estimate the average or aggregate lead time for what we'll call Step 2.5 for our immediate purposes, and add that to your cycle time. If each column varies except for Step 3, then you can estimate your mean cycle time excluding Step 3, then add 5 hours to the cycle time for each swim lane. That will allow you to calculate your cycle times for each lane as a range of cycle times or to calculate the statistical mean. For example: Widget 1 has a current cycle time of 11 hours. Widget 2 has a current cycle time of 9 hours. Your average cycle time for these two widgets is 10 hours. Your range is 9-11 hours of cycle time for the represented widgets. In the end, it doesn't really mater how you calculate or communicate your information so long as it's useful and meaningful within your organization's process. Ultimately, it should feed your continuous integration process, or help the company determine if working agreements are being met. So long as everyone agrees on what the data means and how to use it constructively, the actual data itself is simply a means to an end. With that in mind, how you calculate the cycle time simply needs to accurately reflect your process flows, help identify potential bottlenecks, and provide input to the kaizen process.

Kanban is all about visualization of work in progress, its limits (because of queue theory) and optimization of lead and cycle times, so feedback can be gathered. The meaning of each column in a Kanban board is contextual - the team defines what is the structure and the rules for each column. Wikpedia explains well what is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban_(development)#Kanban_boards and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban_(development)#Managing_workflow .

I don't think the problem is the automated steps, but the overall process flow. A few things to consider: It's not entirely clear on the differences between "Reviewing" and "Verification". It seems like you are developing in branches, so why can't the code review process account for ensuring that the changes satisfy the team's Definition of Done? It seems like in both steps, another developer is looking at the work. By combining these two steps and making sure the work satisfies the Definition of Done before merging, you're eliminating a handoff. Instead of coder -> reviewer -> CI tool -> reviewer, you have coder -> reviewer -> CI tool. Why does the merging process take 4-8 hours? If you're truly practicing continuous integration, the tests should run in minutes. There are a few things to think about. If you have a lot of very focused tests, consider making your tests more sociable and reducing the overall number of tests - https://martinfowler.com/bliki/UnitTest.html . Reducing external dependencies may also speed up tests. If you're running the whole test suite, consider running more target tests that focus on the changes or on high-risk pieces of the system to get the test feedback faster. At a running time of 4-8 hours, consider running your full test suite on the main branch either after a merge or every night, depending on how frequently you are merging into the main branch, to get feedback to the developers. Delaying writing test cases until so late in the process seems inefficient. The isolated SQA team is also probably unnecessary, outside of a handful of cases involving critical software or regulatory processes. If you do need an independent SQA team, they don't need to wait until after the merge is complete to start. They can begin writing their test cases and getting ready as soon as the requirement or change is understood - often, this is in parallel with development. Consider "Ready for X" steps that do not have WIP limits or have more appropriate WIP limits. For example, after "Implementing", you can have a "Ready for Review" column or after "Merging", have a "Ready for Verification". You may find that it's best to have a low WIP limit in Implementing, but a higher or no limit on what is in Ready for Review. Counting time-in-stage, along with work item aging and cycle time will help you identify bottlenecks in the process. If things sit in a "Ready for X" column for a while, you can inspect your workflow for find how to get things through the following stage faster so people can pull work from Ready. As far as moving things backwards, I don't think that's a concern, especially in a software project. Kanban originally came from a manufacturing process where it was much more difficult, if not impossible, to move things backwards. If an error was made, it may have rendered the part obsolete. Alternatively, the part would have to go into a different process to be made viable for input again. None of this is truly applicable in a software development context, so feel free to move cards backwards one or more steps as necessary. Having "Ready for X" or "Waiting for X" columns can help facilitate this by giving a placeholder for rejected work.

Here is the link to https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/boards/boards/kanban-quickstart?view=azure-devops As for your concern, "items with estimates that vary in size from 4 hours to 14 days, or 2 to 55 story points". I think it would be better if we could sub-item i.e. create a separate user story rather than one big chunk else, the big user story could be taken as Epic and then divided into user stories.

There aren't any Kanban-specific rules for how to run a standup. The concept of a regular - often daily - synchronization meeting exists in a number of methodologies and frameworks, and the same techniques can be applied to a team using Kanban. I do have three recommendations for improving the standups: First, don't go "around the table". Walking the board techniques, in my experience, tend to be more effective. Start with the work that is furthest "right" - or closest to being done - on the board. Figure out how the team can get those items done. Then, work backwards, figuring out the best way for the team to progress those items forward and identify anything blocking progress. Second, find a way to stay out of the messy details. Chances are, even if people are interested in those details, they aren't going to be involved. Bring up the issues, identify who needs to be involved in getting the work progressed closer to done, and coordinate getting the people together and problems solved. Get together and solve the problem outside of the standup. Third, find a way to get to one standup a day. Even if it's at the end of one day for one team, that team can plan their next day. Reducing the number of meetings like this will reduce context switches in the day and give the team a little more focus time to get work to done.

If you really want to do this, you could base the swim lanes on queries. And use either a label or the flagged field to decide if something should be in the On Hold swimlane or not.

In Kanban, how can we break down work? You first need to answer In Kanban, why do I break down work? Is there any specific reasons to break down the work? How would this help your team? Then, for each reason, you might want to answer: How can I restructure my Kanban so that I can cope with this problem? Can I address this specific problem instead of work around it? As a side note, the approach might slightly diverge if you're using a physical Kanban or a Virtual one.

I have dealt with this issue when coaching hardware testing teams, and the solution was to borrow the concept of an "epic" from Agile methods for iterative development. The definition of "epic" I am using is simply a requirement or "user story" that provides customer value, but for legitimate reasons it cannot be completed in a single iteration. It then gets broken into component user stories. Each delivers a measurable output you could theoretically show a customer, but the customer might not care about until the epic is done. (However, each completed user story answers the typical customer concern about whether anything is being done. That is, you can demonstrate progress using the stories.) For example, a test of a utility meter in an outdoor test bed might last eight weeks. A test under new parameters would be an epic. Story 1 would be configuring the new parameters and starting the test; they could demonstrate to a "customer" (an internal HW design engineer in this case) that the test was properly configured and under way. Each interim check to gather and communicate interim data was a story. And then the final story was final data gathering, analysis, and report. Each story fit within the WIP limit and got "done." However, the epic was not done until all stories were done. All software dashboard tools I've used had a method for creating epics and connecting stories to them. If you are using paper cards, you could simply note the epic number in a corner and keep an "Active Epics" backlog somewhere near your board. When the last story is done, pull the epic card from it and archive it with the story cards.

TL;DR Yes. There is no issue with this at all. Discussion Points The concept of Epics are pretty amorphous and undefined. You can find descriptions of Epics as large user stories that need broken down and in that regard, it is common for some to try and squeeze them into a release train window. For instance an Epic may be a container for a specific measurable outcome Implement the Mastercard API Which is then comprised of multiple or even dozens of user stories. Personally, my teams have always treated Epics as containers for things of a similar nature. For instance AWS IAM Security In this regard, we might deploy some stories in Release 1 and add additional functionality or patches or upgrades in 3 or 10 or 20 releases from now. So the Epic is never done. If you take this approach then the Epic is never done because it is just used to group functionality. Other teams use the Epic field to represent an entire feature or mini project on a scaled board showing other features or projects. This view is akin to a roadmap stored on a kanban board in your ticket tracker. So while the Epic will be marked as Done eventually, it will certainly not be within a single release. Why is There a Divergence in the Force? The truth is, the Epic field became divorced from the original idea of an Epic when Jira became the industry standard tool for tracking and visualising work in an Agile environment. Prior to that, most Agile practitioners had a fairly standard view of Epics. The reason for the evolution is that Epics were aligned to Themes as a concept and Jira did not originally allow teams to track Themes. So in time, the Epics field then became used for anything that teams really needed that was slightly large, whether it be a series of user stories, a complete scope for a feature or to represent work in a project or anything else. Themes as a concept really died out and very few people ever refer to Themes as an idea. Some teams still use Themes and several PMSE posters could give you case studies I am certain but the majority of organisations have never been exposed to Themes and Epics. Golden Rule If you are in doubt, return to the golden rule. The primary measure of progress is working software So set up your Epics and use them in a way that supports transparency and ease of communications in your team. Organisational thinking always evolves so do what works for your team as long as you are not covering up an anti-pattern. Don't be forced into the idea some things have to be released in a certain way to be agile. Note Will add in 4-5 hyperlinked references when I get back from my daily stand-up

After a little google search, I found one that should please you, given that the answer of https://pt.stackoverflow.com/users/112285/flavio didn't like it.I found it on the site https://www.bootsnipp.com , with this https://bootsnipp.com/snippets/featured/kanban-board .

Scrum is an agile development method that has characteristic components such as:the division of development time in sprints where stragues are made in both gradual and independent ways of each other.A team member (Product Owner) must have the function of integrating the customer demands of the application/business area with the development team and Scrum Master.A team member (Scrum Master) is responsible for the development team and Product Owners, and must know the skills and limitations of their team, assist in the most effective development possible and avoid interference.Kanban is nothing more than a way to organize development, originally made with post-its and nowadays also in digital media. Separating columns that represent the stages of development and post-its with the name of the task or the written sprint.For example: There are other agile models and companies adapt the agile methods to fit your context. An example of another method is Extreme Programming(XP)

I will respond based on own experience, because I currently work on this model. And also using Book "Shape Up: Stop Running in Circles and Ship Work that Matters" as a reference.Shape UpThe Shape Up is the way Basecamp, the company from which the Ruby on Rails framework arose, develops digital products. They define as a toolbox with techniques to apply in their own process. To understand the Shape Up one must understand the company Basecamp and its way of thinking, opinative and countercurrent.This process of making products is based on three main phases. Definition, bet, and construction.Definition or shapingThis first phase is not of execution, but of defining what will be built. People with more experience and different areas usually participate: developers, designers, business. Here will be defined what will be done, but not fully how. It should be enough concrete, so that the team knows what to do, but not impositive, so that it does not restrict the team to discover the details by themselves.BetIt is at this stage that functionality or project will be presented to managers and other decision makers. Along with the team that made the settings in the previous phase, they will make decisions of the projects that will be executed, or that will be cut.ConstructionThis is where the team of developers, designers and others will actually build the design or functionality. The six-week cycle begins at this stage, and at the end of the cycle, the project is finished or discarded. Extensions of this cycle do not happen often and is discouraged.Framework? Agile? Scrum? Kanban?What I can say is that Shape Up is quite different from Scrum and Kanban. There is no backlog here, cycles are 6 weeks, there is no retro meeting, refinement happens outside of most of the team, as well as discovery. If you define how agile is to be within the premises of https://www.atlassian.com/agile/manifesto You can say it's agile.The Shape Up is also not a framework, but a series of recommendations on how you can work that way, and adjust the way you understand. The book explains the tools Basecamp uses, and compiled them by calling Shape Up. You can choose those that make sense for your context.By experience, what I find different from this method of working, is that the definitions of new features come to measure. Not so definite, not so vague. That is, developers are part of the product creation process, and do not simply act as "workers" in fully defined projects. Here is the developer's responsibility to define the details of the functionality.

Kanban is a method for developing products with an emphasis on just-in-time delivery while not overloading the developers. It emphasizes that developers pull work from a queue, and the process, from definition of a task to its delivery to the customer, is displayed for participants to see. 5 core properties: visualize the workflow limit work in progress manage the flow Make Process Policies Explicit Improve Collaboratively (using models & the scientific method) Personally, I think this mini-book is one of the best and fastest introductions to Scrum and Kanban. Here is an example of a whiteboard to be used in Kanban

IMHO the "Super Sticky Notes" by 3M are the best. They may not be the cheapest but they are worth the price. You can find them here: http://solutions.3m.co.uk/wps/portal/3M/en_GB/Post-Its/Post-It/Products/StickyNotes/

There are two canonical books on Kanban: David Anderson's Kanban, Successful Evolutionary Change for Your Technology Business Henrik Kinberg's and Mattias Skarin's Kanban and Scrum - making the most of both (updated) Henrik Kniberg's Lean from the Trenches is great both at describing how to scale Kanban up but also as a practical guide to Kanban implementation. You can also find answers to this question useful although it is definitely broader. One of sources which is definitely worth recommending is Limited WIP Society site. There is also a great set of resources on Lean-Kanban University site.

You might try personalkanban.com. The site is dedicated to applying Kanban in personal life.

This is a good question... Not sure I have a good answer, but here ya go... Can you adopt the concept of a timebox and goal/question to answer to help the research tasks complete and move the project forward? You will never get the "best" answer" but spending a fixed amount of time for something like "see if there is existing code that will..." can help move it forward. Phrase it as "Decide to build from scratch or include a 3rd party library into the product to solve X, Y and Z" and give the activity 4 hours to make the call. Someone can grab the card, do the 4 hours of research and then make the decision. Once made, the next task should be to size the result of the decision (maybe that is included on the card? I've seen it both ways...) Continuing the example... If you decide to build from scratch but don't know how to implements it, then similarly create a first task that is "create design sketch, 2 hours" Keep the timebox small and focus on moving to building something as soon as possible. If your team really doesn't know how to approach something, nothing teaches like experience. Once you are progressing toward building and someone realizes "hey, I just read on Bob Loblow's Blog that there is already a solution to this..." then you can evaluate with the new information if it is cheaper/easier to switch or continue building from scratch. So... There is never such a thing as the perfect answer Build something ASAP Change direction when you have new information that compels you to But I'm interested to hear more thoughts!

Most organizations, according to Gartner, are solidly cemented at low levels of BPM maturity. At these low levels, these organizations are barely aware of the processes it uses to get work done. There is typically a lot of work being performed that offers little to no value; work performed is often redundant, i.e., several roles or divisions performing the same work; ownership of a process or capability does not exist; and no one knows really what the other person is doing. Jeff is right, in that the approach to begin scoping process and capability areas should be very simple and consistent with where they are in their maturity level. Nothing works better at this stage then facilitating small, well represented teams using nothing more than sticky notes and a big wall. Inundating your working team with a sophisticated modeling and simulating tool is a non starter. They will got lost and overwhelmed by the tool and make no progress. By definition, the value stream level is a process map at a very high level. Therefore, begin decomposing your organization's capabilities top down. To help to deconstruct your capability breakdown structure, work right to left, i.e., identify the outputs first, then identify the capability needed to create the output, then identify the inputs (raw materials) needed. People naturally navigate left to right, but this proves to be a mistake. The best way to identify value added work, and thus non value added work, is to work in the opposite direction. You will quickly find a ton of work costing a lot of money that produces something no one uses anymore. Use verb-noun descriptions of your capabilities. Instead of "customer service", use "service customers." This will help you avoid breaking down your processes by organization structure and help identify capabilities that are shared across organizations. Define a capability as the combination of "process, people, tools, and information." These four enablers create a capability. Before beginning, adopt a mapping method. Adopt a single way of capturing the work flow in terms of the symbols you will use. Train the team before beginning the work. This will help minimize re-work. And keep it simple. Remember that the value maps are a means to an end, not the end. So adopt a method and mapping style that resonates with the people who are going to do something with it versus trying to be totally technically correct from some official standard. HOWEVER, as your organization matures, you may end up deploying a rather sophisticated BPM tool; you would want the work you produce today to easily map to the tool's capabilities. It is a balancing act between reasonableness and your future BPM strategy. Finally, use a strong facilitator with known skills, someone who knows how to read and control the room.

We have used this in Agile adoption. Here are a couple of anecdotes: An organization was looking to create a strategy for their Agile adoption. We used ritual dissent, an open source facilitation technique from Cognitive Edge, to help the executives and management create an overall strategy with specific objectives that they want to attain through the use of an Agile method and associated practices/techniques. Worked with another organization that was trying to figure out what the landscape of their projects were and where they could best leverage Agile. They wanted to figure out how to isolate a group and allow them freedom to implement Agile methods effectively. We used the Cynefin model to identify those that were towards simple, complicated, complex and also found 1 in chaos and another 2 in disorder domains. The complex projects seemed like a good fit. Many folks don't know that there are more pieces of the Cynefin model as you zoom into the boundaries between domains and that can provide more guidance to those trying to understand what approaches will tend to be more effective in context. For those that are truly complex the use of "probe, sense, and respond" or "inspect and adapt" is a better fit than "analyze, sense, and respond" which is better for complicated issues. Those are just a couple. We are huge advocates for Cynefin and the open source techniques they provide.