I'm willing to believe that a particular implementation of the Agile manifesto has failed, but agile is really just a set of common sense tenants which do not enforce a particular way of doing things. The alternatives are stultified bureaucracy or chaos... and Agile will always be able to run circles around that.
I agree. Agile seems to be widely successful, both in practical terms (it's widespread and the dominant methodology in the industry) and in formal terms (it's specified as requirements in institutional organizations in place of waterfall).
Claiming that Agile failed has vibes of Yogi Berra's "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
I see this over and over again with agile, scrum, basically any framework. If there is ever a failure of the system, it’s never agile or scrum’s fault. You’re just doing it wrong. But also apparently there is no right way to do it either, so if you can’t figure it out that sucks and is also your fault.
I think my main criticisms are 1) that any specific component from agile is consistent in the success of teams who do it and 2) that it’s reproducible across teams. You may be doing something that works well. You may call it agile. It may work. But it’s like saying I’ve had so much success driving because I use Michelin tires. Sure, it’s a core component of the system, but I if I hold all other context the same and use something else, I’m more than likely going to be successful despite it.
If you have a high performing team, it doesn’t matter if you use agile or not. You’re going to find success. If your team is not high performing, it also doesn’t matter, you’re going to be worse off than a high performing one, regardless if you use agile.
https://medium.com/developer-rants/agile-has-failed-official...