Remote Classrooms

Lean and Agile practices for hardware product development and engineering

Apply the relatively new Agile Way of Working to areas beyond software and learn how to harness the power of Agile/Lean methodologies to develop hardware products and products involving both software and hardware.


Request the online brochure

In the Agile for Hardware training, you will learn how to use the newest Lean/Agile methodologies to drastically reduce your time to market, acquire flexibility and respond to changes in requirements and markets with ease. You will also learn how to improve the quality of your products, ignite innovation, achieve predictability, boost close collaboration among technical and business people and increase employee engagement and satisfaction.

The training combines theory with real world cases to help the participants find out how they can apply the principles and methods in their own context.

What is Agile for Hardware? Read more about it here.

During this two-day course you will learn about:

  • The principles of Agile and Lean
    • Responding to Change
    • Fast Learning
    • Simplicity
    • Waste Reduction
    • Build in Quality
    • Continuous Improvement
  • Incremental and iterative product development, Kanban and Scrum
    • Learning how to apply them in non-software contexts.
  • Product agnostic
  • Designing for Agility
    • Modular Product Architecture
    • Set-Based Design
    • Model-Bases System Engineering
    • eXtreme Manufacturing
    • Hardware MVP development
  • Lean-Agile Project Management
  • Working with external vendors and suppliers
  • How to partner up with external and internal vendors and suppliers to develop complex products and solutions in an Lean-Agile manner
  • Agility and compliance and audits
    • Meeting regulatory and industry standards and delivering high-assurance systems
    • Agile quality assurance
  • Scaling up agility and managing complexity
    • Developing complex systems that need numerous teams to cooperate.
    • Implementing Lean Portfolio Management to harmonize the organization’s strategy, initiatives and teams.
    • Enabling the organization to apply Lean/Agile forecasting and capacity management to deliver with highest possible throughput.


Attendees who pass the certification exam will receive:


Certification for Certified Hardware Agilist (CHA) bestowed by Blinklane.


About the trainers – Agile for Hardware

Ali Hajou has experienced the advantages of iterative product development that include the development of hardware and software components in the pharmaceutical industry, the semiconductor industry, and more.  Ali helped them find their own Agile Way of Working, as ‘the standard practices’ do not always apply ‘right out-the-box’.



Davar Azarmi is a multidisciplinary professional with more than 16 years of experience in variety of IT and business roles. He is proficient in areas such as strategic management, IT management, change management, software engineering, lean and agile methodologies and data analytics. He has supported a microchip producer to adapt Agile way of working at scale. As a result, they improved their quality and time to market drastically and managed their budgets and resources better.


See also:

Watch the after movie of the Agile for Hardware Conference in 2019.


Each course day starts around 9:00 and ends at 17:00 hours, including lunch and intermission.


Day 1

  • Lean/Agile Fundamentals
  • Designing for Agility
  • Hardware MVP development
  • Agile Project Management

Day 2

  • Working with External Vendors and Suppliers
  • Lean/Agile and Compliance
  • Scaling Up Agility and Adding Complexity



No prior knowledge of Agile is required.


This course is intended for people who are involved in developing hardware products and products that combine both software and hardware. It includes, but is not limited to:

  • Engineers
  • Project managers
  • Line managers
  • Executives
  • Inventors and Innovators


Referred industries include, but are not limited to:

  • Automotive
  • Semiconductors
  • Aerospace
  • Home appliances
  • Consumer electronics
  • TypeTraining
  • Period 2 days
  • Maximum number of participants:18
  • Level:Awareness, Foundation, Advanced
  • Language:English
  • Lunch included:Yes
  • Exam:Yes
  • Incompany:Yes
  • Payment methods:Invoice, iDEAL, CreditCard
  • Examinator:Logo
  • Dina Guryn - Rating: 8/10
    Content of material was good, good examples. Time balance for breakout sessions also was better in the last 2 sessions (vs 1st one), so it was possible to discuss. Also the "concentration" of learning material was very good in the last 2-3 sessions (vs 1st one). Reference to different short videos was good: well fitting the scope and with something to learn from (especially the "resource utilization trap"). Was good that we received the PDF of the training in the very beginning (I used it throughout the training to go back-forth multiple times). Doing this training online in the approach how it was organized worked really well (can be a good learning for Melexis in the future). Only risk in some cases that people easier get distracted/do something else in parallel. At the same time possibility to check/respond to some more urgent mails and chats is helpful to reduce stress of catching up after the training. What can be improved: 1. keep the same people in the breakout rooms for exercises that are building up on prev breakout session: we had several stable people, but in some sessions people from other breakout rooms joined - this was not very efficient. 2. (minor) Seems not for everyone breakout rooms and going back-forth to main session worked smooth: I had a lot of issues in 1st session, heard some others got stuck in other sessions as well). 3. While we worked on the exercise around value stream due lack of time our value streams are not complete and in quite some aspects are not correct. It would be good to have a clean correct value stream example being worked out and presented after analysis of ours (and as reference for the future) - this can still be provided by the trainer even now: a complete good reference.
  • Alessandro Basili - Rating: 6/10
    I liked the organization of the course, the breakout rooms, the tools, the material. All was very well prepared and it was a fairly good level of introduction to Agile principles. I believe the breadth and depth of hardware related examples was a bit disappointing, I truly believed in more "meat" for hardware. Wikispeed is certainly interesting, but nothing compared to Toyota, which is just as Agile as Wikispeed and produces more than 10 million cars per year. Please improve on the examples related to semiconductor industry. I believe the exercises were a little shallow and didn't allow to even scratch the surface of the underlying content, leaving with something that I'd find difficult to carry on by myself (ex. value stream mapping).
  • Gaël Close - Rating: 6/10
    The trainer and the setup was generally good despite the remote conditions. The trainer was able to maintain a good level of interactivity thanks for the breakout rooms, and collaborative exercises. The training met my expectation of providing an overview of Agile techniques for hardware. It didn't exceed expectation because the treatment was mostly superficial. Of course given the limited time, I didn't expect a deep dive. But still, the training would benefit from covering in more details a few hardware techniques like fast prototyping, or system modeling. A convincing case study could be a good addition to the training. Overall, I give a 6/10 rating. I am satisfied but I would not recommend without reservations.
  • Kenneth Verstraete - Rating: 7/10
    What I liked is that we covered a broad range of topics in these 4 half days, with a lot of examples how other examples how other companies do it (lots of inspiration). What I did not like is that the discussions about how to implement it in Melexis did not go deep enough. I think the virtual setting impeded some good "constructive conflict around" ideas to come to some concrete implementation steps at Melexis. So here I still sit a but on my hunger. There were quite some exercises where it was not clear why we had to do this exercise. So a bit of more context would be helpful here.
  • Hans van Daele - Rating: 7/10
    Like: Interactivity, murals, breakout rooms Enthusiasm of Ali and Anett Videos Tips of good books Good overview To be improved: Too generic examples: not concrete enough to put things into practice. Unbalanced timing: too much time on generic intro, not enough time on exercises
  • Carolina Vigano - Rating: 7/10
    It helped me to think about some different ways of implementing Agile and how to make it effective over the all organization. I think the public was too mixed and trying to address people with different level of Agility understanding was maybe not the best choice
  • Stephen Doherty - Rating: 8/10
    Excellent trainer and facilitator Did not manage to complete the entire course content, however focus was kept on the more important points
  • Frank Klefenz - Rating: 8/10
    Trainer was very experienced and could refer to real world examples
  • Graham Brackley - Rating: 8/10
    Practical exercises for key points were very good. Learning objectives could be a little clearer defined perhaps and key features such as points instead of time units justified to help understanding/onboarding. Where Agile works, where it doesn't work so well. A clear method to develop costing and time needed when a project with unique features is being bid or started.
  • Auke Anema - Rating: 8/10
    During the course the other course takers had some questions on certain subjects with applying the material on hardware projects. But then again the majority of the course can be used for running hardware projects
  • Désirée Queren - Rating: 7/10
    It's very good to have expierences shared with exemplary companies. This was done good, of course considering that there are not soo many companies available yet specifically in hardware. There were different procedures on how to implement or transform or up to which degree changes could be implemented, especially considering early start of transformation vs later. This is a very helpful approach. Regarding managing external partners as well as budgeting the topics were covered very briefly only, of course also recommending literature. Of course this will be company dependent, but it would be great if there are more specific examples on how this could be achieved as a total. So not to only focus on the development (R&D) part only, but to consider the full business.
  • Scott Bogner - Rating: 9/10
    Overall it was great! There was a lot of data packed in the two days and I felt a bit overloaded the last hour or two of the last day.
  • Ben Ferguson - Rating: 9/10
    Overall excellent course. Very densely packed however, so by the end of the second day, could kind of tell that people were starting to struggle a bit. Maybe did need to be that densely packed just to get all the info in. Feedback that we already talked a bit about during the course was surrounding the exercises - it did put quite a bit of pressure on one person that the value mapping was based around. Could a pre-defined example be used - so all people can concentrate on learning the agile concepts rather than having to think up the detail to put on the post-its? Pros and cons are clearly there as we discussed. But worth recording somewhere. Some examples were used to try to help describe concepts (experience from NXP or ASML or whoever) which at certain times were good - but sometimes didn't quite hit the mark and maybe went into too specific details or too specific people even which made it almost harder to understand what was trying to be explained without the full picture that you guys have. Discussions which arose were all pretty good.