I think a large part of the problem across industry, and I say this having worked from startups to software companies to DoD, is that "agile" has co-opted the

I think a large part of the problem across industry, and I say this having worked from startups to software companies to DoD, is that "agile" has co-opted the definition of the word "agile", at least in-part with Google's help turning everyday words into weaponized cliches which is too long a subject for this writing. Thus, "define: agile" gives: Characterized by quickness, lightness, and ease of movement; nimble. Mentally quick or alert. My personal definition stems from reading a combination of Alistair Cockburn laced with Alan Holub. Combining: Teams that are alert, light, nimble, and quick. My experience has been that there were two teams I've been part of that had those qualities: 1) Pre-Y2K teams that arrived at the agile manifesto having no jargon, only action and insight. 2) Teams that had the luxury of agility because they were size-constrained by finance. I'd emphasize that you don't do agile. Doing agile is part of the problem of cliched cargo cults. Rather, you either are or not agile as evidenced by your results or outcomes repeated on a regular cycle followed by the gold standard of sensemaking: retrospective. The problem is not scaling technology. The problem is scaling agile humans since communication does not scale linearly when it leaves a single skull. What we are missing is an order of approximation (Big-O) for teams. The closest I've seen is maybe this: https://getsturdy.com/blog/2021-11-29-scaling-teams https://getsturdy.com/blog/2021-11-29-scaling-teams I find little evidence that there is emergent research around this.