We don't either and I do not get the fuss. It is just a very formal and robotic performance that cannot possibly address all the needs, cannot be the centerpiec

We don't either and I do not get the fuss. It is just a very formal and robotic performance that cannot possibly address all the needs, cannot be the centerpiece of an organization, as it is pretended so many times nowadays. Including the so called sprints. The work we do differ in size and complexity and schedule and workforce requirement therefore our interactions adapt to the situation. And not the work adapt to a mechanistic interaction style. When we need frequent feedback we do frequent feedback. When we need deep group planing we do group planing periods. When we need intensive coding we do intensive coding with occasional follow ups. We track progress, we monitor workforce. When someone hit the wall that person cries for help and we do something about it - depends on the trouble what and how. In one position we used it but was sooo mechanistic and insufficient to address the varying needs that it died off quickly. I believe it cold be great for certain situations. Simple repetitive ones? But otherwise looks like yet another holy grail management method people hype for a while and might join the club of all other holy grail management techniques being praised to the heavens in their time throughout the history so the world was adjusted to those not the other way around. Then found yet another holy grail out of disappointment. Not to mention that seemingly no one knows what it is exactly and how it should be used, some do this was, some do that way. And so we are back to the adaptive management now. : ) It must be good for a certain set of situations but it is odd that this is a crucial bit in interviews if someone have experience in it or not, like if it was impossible to adapt to the management style of the task at hand and it would require special skills or capabilities requiring preexisting abilities or formal training....