I agree, but I&#x27;d like to separate here Agile from Agile™.<p>I was at a number of the early Agile conferences, and the biggest critique at the time, a valid one, was it was mainly a revolt of programmers saying, &quot;Enough of this management bullshit, let&#x27;s create a method where work actually gets done.&quot; That&#x27;s why one of the points in the agile manifesto [1] is about valuing working software. It was an amazing group of people.<p>But what has become Agile™ is, in my view, the same managerial power structures co-opting the vocabulary and the energy for change into something so watered down that it has a lot of the same problems. [2] This works for many organizations because their actual priorities are less about getting things done or delivering customer value, and more about maintaining primate status hierarchies and letting people play out their office dramas.<p>So for those people who are at the rare organizations that would like to get something done, I encourage them to dig past the pile of Agile™ horseshit to find the perfectly serviceable horses.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;agilemanifesto.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;agilemanifesto.org&#x2F;</a><p>[2] I&#x27;ve written more about this here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;agilefocus.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;02&#x2F;21&#x2F;agiles-second-chasm-and-how-we-fell-in&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;agilefocus.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;02&#x2F;21&#x2F;agiles-second-chasm-and-how...</a>