4 ms·

But the same can be said about waterfall, every buzzword process have one success story and that one story will then be used to invalidate every failure, which

But the same can be said about waterfall, every buzzword process have one success story and that one story will then be used to invalidate every failure, which is not really an useful way to look at it. The problem is that by now more people have failed at agile then succeeded and instead of going back and modifying or challenging the universality of agile they way it happened with waterfall, people keep doubling down on the universality of "The Agile Manifesto" by discounting any failure as "no true agile".

mpweiher 3y ago
> But the same can be said about waterfall Not really. Waterfall was never a serious process. > one success story It's not "one" success story, but an extremely consistent pattern. > any failure as "no true agile". Again not so. If you're burning down Epics specified in Jira from your one year plan while doing daily standup status meetings, but not following any of the technical practices, you simply really aren't being agile at all. And that seems to be the vast majority. The technical practices are the meat, and the heart of the matter. Most of the rest is Fauxgile and somewhere between worthless and harmful.