If it's more efficient than some alternative, then it IS saving me money and time. Having NOTHING in place is clearly not an alternative. We must always have so

If it's more efficient than some alternative, then it IS saving me money and time. Having NOTHING in place is clearly not an alternative. We must always have something. Therefore, whether it's saving money or time is relative as to the alternatives, or relative to whatever processes we had before the introduction of agile. What did you have in mind that you consider to be more efficient than agile? (Btw, I noticed you snuck the word "directly" in there, as in "agile doesn't directly help you make money…". This makes the rule of thumb nearly useless as the only people who directly make money is sales. Very nearly everything else that goes on in an organisation is in indirect support of them, one way or another.)