You would think that, but swap manufacturing and parts logistics for user design and content, so a new feature is designed, then content is written for it, then it is implemented. Each step requires the one before it.
My angst with this (IMO tortured) metaphor, is each step is different every time. If we were knocking out exact clones of software systems this would work more like it is expected to.
Management seems to latch on this system since they understand it; it's getting both better and worse in that a lot of management now days has actually written code in smaller companies, but in bigger ones they still bring in their buddies who last coded at Uni and still go hard into this "fungible developer" assembly line process.
> but extending an existing service is a bit more like assembly line stuff
(IMO) only if most of the assembly line has to be at least partially retooled every time you do it. No software feature in any but the most basic of systems stands alone.
Which, tbf, a lot of Lean/Kanban software teachings do account for, but most management likes to gloss over.
