As my other comment in the post said. Agile is just a set of ideas. It is not a tool or process. It's basically "it does not matter how you want to work, but we think that these 4 ideas should be leading."
The agile ideas are to counter problems with waterfall, and other rigid processes. In those there is the assumption that earlier steps had perfect outcome for the follow-up steps. So the created plans, designs, and specifications (which are forms of communication) are efficient and effective. Something which time has proven rarely is the case.
Another part is that the customer might have failed to properly convey the problem. A clear failure in efficient communication. Engaging with the customer more often can result in all parties properly understanding the problem at hand.
You could say that the agile manifesto says that we suck at efficient communication. So we need to do it more.
I think ideas can be tools, so I'm unable to split that hair any further. I also think there is no such thing as "no process" (even being agile in response to an obstacle is a process- just not an inflexible one), so I also can't go further down that hole today:D
What it seems like is that we both agree humans do not communicate well. You think Agile helps this. I also think Agile can help this: however...
I think Agile is often misused and misunderstood and cannot help unless the right mentality for communication is set.
You either understand Agile or you don't. I agree with the OP that teams using Agile can fail to actually be agile. Because I've seen folks repeat the phrases from their agile courses and just not have the understanding to actually implement the philosophy behind them, O understand where the OP is coming from.
But nudged with good support and open communication, I've seen Agile thrive as well. It needed the nudge though.
As my other comment in the post said. Agile is just a set of ideas. It is not a tool or process. It's basically "it does not matter how you want to work, but we think that these 4 ideas should be leading."
The agile ideas are to counter problems with waterfall, and other rigid processes. In those there is the assumption that earlier steps had perfect outcome for the follow-up steps. So the created plans, designs, and specifications (which are forms of communication) are efficient and effective. Something which time has proven rarely is the case.
Another part is that the customer might have failed to properly convey the problem. A clear failure in efficient communication. Engaging with the customer more often can result in all parties properly understanding the problem at hand.
You could say that the agile manifesto says that we suck at efficient communication. So we need to do it more.
Thanks for the feedback.
I think ideas can be tools, so I'm unable to split that hair any further. I also think there is no such thing as "no process" (even being agile in response to an obstacle is a process- just not an inflexible one), so I also can't go further down that hole today:D
What it seems like is that we both agree humans do not communicate well. You think Agile helps this. I also think Agile can help this: however...
I think Agile is often misused and misunderstood and cannot help unless the right mentality for communication is set.
You either understand Agile or you don't. I agree with the OP that teams using Agile can fail to actually be agile. Because I've seen folks repeat the phrases from their agile courses and just not have the understanding to actually implement the philosophy behind them, O understand where the OP is coming from.
But nudged with good support and open communication, I've seen Agile thrive as well. It needed the nudge though.
Read another of your comments about scrum v agile and tools. Good point.
I still think Agile is a tool (only bc ideas are tools for me), but I hear your pov. Thanks for the insights.