Here's an example of why I still can't take writing about Agile seriously. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of process improvements under the banner of Agile

Here's an example of why I still can't take writing about Agile seriously. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of process improvements under the banner of Agile (and plenty more that Agile is retroactively claiming credit for), but writing like this turns me off: >Henrich still had a process where success was measured by reports, not outcomes. It was the same reporting process used to measure projects that used linear, step-by-step Waterfall. What are reports, if not documentation of outcomes? What are outcomes without evidence that those outcomes happened? I can see what he's saying, but the more accurate description of the problem "the reports included unnecessary and distracting information." But that doesn't make as good of a blog post as casting it as "paperwork vs understanding outcomes." The whole thing feels like it needs to invent a "paperwork = evil" boogieman just to allow a process change that throws away useless paperwork and allow a team to focus on the paperwork that you just don't call paperwork anymore. Email is paperwork. Version control is paperwork. Change management is paperwork. It doesn't matter if it's software updating a database instead of a secretary updating 3-ring binders. Most of development is paperwork. In fact, online databases mean we do way more paperwork. If we were bottlenecked by that sea of file cabinets in the basement containing all our the legacy projects, we would have way less paperwork just out of necessity. Standups are paperwork that just happen to not use paper.