Kanban is also fine, for the reasons you mentioned. I wonder if TFA favors this methodology?

Do note Kanban can devolve into "do everything, all at once, and we need right now. Stop doing what you're doing, do this thing instead!". It happened to my team, and we had to ditch it because the stakeholders weren't onboard with no fixed cadence of deliveries.

This is what we've been using for some years now, despite the general Scrum-y pressure in the organization I work in. (It is not a mandate, note we get no blowback for what we do as it is under our control, I'm just saying most of the rest of the teams definitely do something more Scrum-y.)

I am a big believer in "true agile", since "Agile" (note capital letter) has become heavily corrupted. "True agile" can really be summed up as "try some different things, keep what works for you". My team has a large number of independent projects, more than one per person. Because of that we tend to have one person working on a given project at a time, as that is a cheap way to avoid coordination overhead if you are able to get away with it.

What we found for "sprints" is that we couldn't plan anything with them, because the variance in how much time we were actually going to have to work on a project was too high. We might have the full two weeks to work on what we said we were going to work on. We might have a fire on another system that pulled that person away for literally 3/4ths of that "sprint". We might have an emergency feature request that could do the same thing. We found this variance to dominate the rest of our time planning, which resulted in our "sprint planning" being a bad joke. Nor could we just "git gud" at sprint planning, because the variance in the amount of time we had to spend on it was far, far too pathological.

I do not present this as evidence that "Sprints" are bad for everyone, only that there are cases where they really don't based on my experience as well. This has been my personal working mode for most of the last 10 years, and they've never worked for me. We've switched to a much more Kanban style of planning, which gives us the flexibility to deal with our issues without wrecking all our plans. I personally take the brunt of a lot of the highest frequency switching in our team, and my primary goal is that on a given day, I am working on one project, with a secondary goal of trying to keep it chunked up by week. That latter often fails, but I definitely try to avoid switching projects mid-day. (Which also fails, sometimes due to fires, but I've noticeably improved on this metric in the past couple of years.)

We've tried at least twice to switch to a more Sprint-y method of organization to better match the rest of the organization, but failed both times. I'm fine with the attempt, I'm just very glad we've also retained the flexibility to admit it was a failure, and that it isn't mandated from above that we must do the Sprint approach.

The vast bulk of teams in the rest of the organization I work in does have 3-7 person teams all working on one particular system, and while nobody ever escapes from the possibility of fires, they have a lower variance on the impact on that for all sorts of reasons. (Most notable being that 3/4ths of a week for one person out of 3-7 is a lower impact than 3/4ths of a week out of what was effectively zero people, which means it was actively drawing against what was nominally another project's time. That's a really big difference.) Sprints work much better for them. I'm sure they fail them sometimes but they generally seem to work for them.

Plan enough is sometimes 3 months of work. "Here's all the stuff we need to do to create a MVP." After 3 months, its not done and you are trying to do the last 90% on a task you thought was already 90% done. The hard things were put off till the end and now the optimistic "it should be done in 3 months" is getting up to directors that you don't have anything that runs at all.

The sprint forces a "this is what we're doing in these 2 weeks" with a deliverable at the end. If, at the end of the first sprint, you only got half the things done because of challenges, ok that's what it is. Next sprint you pick up only half as much work and you get that done.

Now, the PM can look at all the work that needs to be done and the rate of work that needs to be done and the amount of work and realizes that instead of the initial "yea, we can do this MVP in 3 months" that you're closer to having it out in 8 months if everything remains the same rate.

That is something actionable for project management to say "nope, can't have the MVP in 3 months with this scope" after only 4 weeks and the project can get canceled earlier.

Sprints try to make management realize overly optimistic estimates and timelines and either have things get adjusted (staff, scope, or time) or have it canceled sooner. Having a sprint based project canceled after 4 weeks rather than embarrassed and dragging out at 12 weeks is good for the organization to not spend resources on things that won't get done in the required timeframe.

The goal of the short framed boundaries is to force this decision sooner.

That can be seen as a large enough sprint that encompasses "the thing". If, like in the scenario I was describing, the team lacks good planners, lead devs and people with the "big picture", what you are describing is a recipe for disaster. What will happen is that at the end of the long stretch, they won't have achieved much or worse, built the wrong thing.

When done well, any iterative method is meant to provide early stakeholder feedback at each stage, provide some measure of progress, and have earlier warning signs that the wrong thing is being built.

> What the hell is the point of the short time framed boundaries?

It's easier to estimate a simpler and smaller thing than a larger and more complex thing. If you cannot achieve the small thing, you absolutely won't be able to do the larger one.