“Muda” is a technical term with a specific meaning. (Google it.) It originated in the Toyota Production System, then migrated to software development via the Poppendiecks’ “Lean Software Development.” It doesn’t mean “pointless” any more than legacy software means “an inheritance.”
If you're aware of Toyota's ７つのムダ sure. I expect the average person to think 無駄 as used in daily conversation. I don't think the analogy with "legacy software" is accurate; "legacy" has multiple definitions in modern English, whereas 無駄 has exactly one definition in modern Japanese.
One of the example sentences -- 時間を無駄にする -- is exactly what my mind thought when reading the article's explanation of "muda". (Also: the second entry does not apply to modern Japanese; dictionaries reference old literature for example sentences of obsolete definitions)
I think the confusion here is that you're treating "muda" as a Japanese word (at least I presume that's why you're transliterating it back into Japanese).
It's not. It's English technical jargon of Japanese origin. English is rather notorious for this sort of borrowing. In this case, it was borrowed over from Toyota as part of the Lean Software™ methodology[0], so ７つのムダ is in fact the intended reference.
This appears to be in agreement with my original comment:
> In order to eliminate waste, one should be able to recognize it. If some activity could be bypassed or the result could be achieved without it, it is waste. Partially done coding eventually abandoned during the development process is waste. Extra features like paperwork and features not often used by customers are waste. Switching people between tasks is waste (because of time spent, and often lost, by people involved in context-switching). Waiting for other activities, teams, processes is waste. Relearning requirements to complete work is waste. Defects and lower quality are waste. Managerial overhead not producing real value is waste.
Note what isn't included: Necessary but hidden things. In fact, one of the things included here is explicitly the opposite of what OP included - defects (bugs). They called fixing bugs a waste, while this is saying having bugs is a waste.
Everything I'm seeing from the responses I've gotten are just reinforcing that OP is wrong about this word, whether it be straight Japanese or altered English jargon originating from ７つのムダ.
“Defects: Having to discard or rework a product due to earlier defective work or components results in additional cost and delays.”
In TPS and Lean, you’re expected to build quality in. So, while fixing bugs is necessary, it’s considered a type of waste, to be eliminated by building software without bugs.
Which indeed I've never heard of. But from what I can find [0], the meaning here still matches what I said - these are things that can be safely removed to save time/money without harming the end product. Not "necessary but hidden" things.
