This is a good question. First, one lifecycle clearly does not fit all. Teams find themselves in a unique situation: team members are unique individuals with their own skills and preferences for working, let alone the scaling/tailoring factors such as team size, geographic distribution, domain complexity, organizational culture, and so on which vary by team. Because teams find themselves in a wide variety of situations shouldn’t a framework such as DA support several lifecycles? Furthermore, just from the raging debates on various agile discussion forums, in agile user groups, at agile conferences, and even within organizations themselves it’s very easy to empirically observe that agile teams are in fact following different types of lifecycles.
Sustain: (Shitsuke) This is by far the most difficult “S” to implement and achieve. Human nature is to resist change. More than a few organizations have found themselves with a dirty, cluttered shop a few months following their 5S implementation. The tendency is to return to the status quo and the comfort zone of the “old way” of doing things. Sustain focuses on defining a new status quo and standard of work place organization. Once fully implemented, the 5S process can increase morale, create positive impressions on customers, and increase efficiency and organization. The 5S Visual Workplace pays for itself in the time and money saved hunting for necessary supplies, tools, and equipment. The 5S system will give benefits that are quickly visible in the workspace and the bottom line.