Anecdotal, but I've never been witness to a project where requirements changed so drastically it led to failure. I've seen MANY "Agile" projects where effective

Anecdotal, but I've never been witness to a project where requirements changed so drastically it led to failure. I've seen MANY "Agile" projects where effectively no analysis was done however. Which then reliably leads to failure. EDIT: To add: If the success metric you're using is: From the client's perspective, do they get what they asked for, when they were promised, for the price they agreed to? Then I've seen a majority of "Waterfall" like projects succeed. And the ones that don't typically "fail fast" in the analysis phase. I've never seen an Agile project meet that bar. By the time they're canned they're usually already way over budget and while a team might imagine they've "delivered value" the projects are (IME) canned specifically because it became evident they would most likely be handed over to another vendor and the delivered version scrapped entirely at some point. I also find it frustratingly comical that projects are routinely compared to assembly line work (Toyota assembly line philosophies) when they have a lot more in common with the design and development phases of car production. Agile in the small perhaps, but overall an incredibly structured process with a lot of planning and analysis. Unless you want a car launch 3 years late that costs 50% more than you promised. Nobody wants an "Agile" car (unless you've already set aside your deposit for a Tesla Model 3 I suppose ;-) ). If I were a client, there's no way I'd ever give a anything bigger than a low six figure project to an Agile shop. For a process intended to lower risk, I've only seen it do the opposite.