I still think agile has a place as a focus for discussion when you're taking a large organization from a waterfall model (or any model that tries to commit to d

I still think agile has a place as a focus for discussion when you're taking a large organization from a waterfall model (or any model that tries to commit to delivering a set of uncertain features by a specific deadline) to a more reasonable and effective process for software development. In this situation, you'd get shot down for following rigid Agile, because the process gets in the way of delivering value. What you end up doing is using the concept of "agility" to sell some agile-lean-hybrid-involve-the-stakeholders-think-small-and-demonstrate-the-value-of-delivering-value. It's not about the Method, it's about the outcome. No one needs to go black-and-white rigid Agile, that's where it went wrong. But agility is a good way to describe the concept of efficiently changing (and handling change). I just feel that every article about capital "a" Agile immediately sinks to level of pedantry that is a complete waste of time, so... I didn't read the OP.