Less is more agile
I'm seeing a lot of people making Agile something it isn't/shouldn't be. There's a difference between core Agile (as in Agile Manifesto) and one of the many commercial imagination of it.<p>Agile wasn't meant for project management but instead as as a tool to organize work in development teams and respond to situation arising in such landscape. It was "weaponized" by business but (at least from my experience) everything that is wrong with it was brought to the table by those business practices.<p>Agile isn't for planning long term projects or managing projects portfolios. It isn't a communication method not a risk management one. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of PM methods implementing full scope of PMBOK's areas of concern that one should use for those. Some even use Agile as an internal process, but still plan using other tools.<p>Yet, I understand many of comments here. In many places I've seen Agile is misused if not bastardized to a level where I hated it.<p>But just to show the contrast: I've worked recently in an environment where there was no scrum, no sprints, no agile points, and environment was really allergic to any mention of Agile (Oh no, we don't use it HERE). There was a lead who talked to everyone on Monday and said "we want to have X by the end of the week, can you do it?". Every single person had their X and everyone worked toward that goal. That planning usually worked and each week ended with deploying next iterative version of the software. It was the most Agile place I ever saw.