In general I agree with you, but that assumes that you have people (and management) with the sufficient big picture thinking. I have found that it is usually sa

In general I agree with you, but that assumes that you have people (and management) with the sufficient big picture thinking. I have found that it is usually safer to follow methodologies even if they aren't perfect because the alternatives are worse when dealing with average or worst teams/management (and by definition that is like...half the world!.) For example, consider the concept of MVP (Minimal Viable Product). I once had a boss who kept re-defining the scope of the MVP until 18months in, we still had not completed the ever-expanding MVP. In light of these experiences, i'd rather follow methodologies to the letter just to avoid extreme abuse. For example, following some silly hard rule driven by methodology X that MVPs must be completed in 3mo would be helpful, even if arbitrary.