4 ms·
> I'm just not sure I'd agree that that means "agile has failed". I think that's because you're disagreeing with what Agile has failed at. You're interpreting
by amyjess 11y ago
> I'm just not sure I'd agree that that means "agile has failed".
I think that's because you're disagreeing with what Agile has failed at. You're interpreting it as "Agile has failed to be an effective process", while GP and the article are interpreting it as "Agile has failed to achieve widespread adoption".
Agile can certainly be an effective process, but that doesn't matter if 90% of the companies that claim they use Agile are actually using something very un-Agile that they happen to call Agile. This actually raises the barrier to Agile being adopted by more companies, because now everyone hears "Agile" and automatically thinks of it as this... thing that's adopted by MBAs instead of what it actually is, so they reject it.
- derefr 11y agoI think there's a third interpretation: "Agile has failed to spread the spirit of its message to its followers without being corrupted in the process." 'Agile' has achieved widespread adoption. Agile techniques have not. Thus, if 'Agile' were a person—the founder and namesake of a religion, say—they would be ashamed at what their followers were doing in their name.
- mindcrime 11y agoFair enough. I think we're basically in agreement.