> Yes, but note that the client is inside the circle, not an external force, in Agile Indeed, and this is one of the points Agile gets furthest from real world

> Yes, but note that the client is inside the circle, not an external force, in Agile Indeed, and this is one of the points Agile gets furthest from real world. Anecdote: I've worked for an average-sized bank with users who were cooperative but not that much. One day we were faced by an urgent legal requirement and the bank had to choose: either to halt operations or to adapt the software, otherwise our equivalent of a CFO would be arrested. The customer became an integral part of the team, we had extremely fast iterations and that was my first Agile project, and I didn't know it because I was going to hear first time about Agile only three years after that. As soon as the legal requirement was met, things got back to normal. That's what I talk about methodologies having to subject themselves to the environment. Agilists seem to dream about inverting things in this regard. > The biggest problem (though far from only) problem of Agile is that the authors of the Manifesto underestimated the degree to which people would misread “over” as “instead of”, even given an explicit admonition that that reading was incorrect, making the Manifesto terse and catchy, but ineffective in communicating it's core ideas I agree, but even avoiding the "instead of" interpretation, I believe the ideas in the Manifesto are only actionable under special conditions. Each project is a different case and demands a different combination of agile/non-agile variables, it all depends on the environment it presents (customer behavior, team's maturity, project complexity etc)