Thread by @RonJeffries

So i’d like to gently argue that “Agile” [sometimes] fails to meet the needs of its users in two important ways:

First, the organization expects “Twice the work in half the time” and does not get it. It may get some benefit, but not what was “promised”.

Second, those working inside these “Agile” organizations new and expected that their work would become more self-directed, more effective, and therefore more fulfilling.

To some degree, I think smaller for #1 and larger for #2, “Agile” can fail to meet needs.

Looking forward, if there’s much truth to this, “Agile” has a big problem: it will be condemned to the trash heap of ideas that seemed not to deliver.

I emphasize /seemed/, because so many of those past “fads” were, like “Agile”, good ideas poorly implemented.

I think it’s not too late, and that there is one main focus that’s needed: “Agile” has to include improving the ability of developers to build the “increment”, and the ability of the organization to insist upon it, and use it to guide and improve the product and the process.

One way, and my preferred one, would be for the “Agile”-pushing companies to really get behind improving development capability and agility. I, and many others, who know how to develop in that fashion, would love to help.

Another way, perhaps better, would be for some innovator to enter the field, disrupting the business-agile-as-usual field, and truly changing the way work is done.

Since the need for improvement is largely (80/20?) localized to “development”, this just might be possible.

To do this second way I think developers have to abandon “Agile” to do this new thing (RealAgile™️?), and that’s a long difficult path to sail. That’s why I favor the first path.

But I’d far prefer the second to no path at all. I think the fate of RealAgile™️ depends on change.