It's remarkable how ridiculous "agile" is when applied to any other field. In fact what's remarkable is that this ridiculousness isn't immediately obvious to otherwise-intelligent programmers.
Is it the programmers that push for it, though, usually? I think management (at least mine) likes the fine-grained control + reporting (and the /name/!), and the rest is catch as catch can.
Agile does not necessitate pair-programming.
XP does, XP is more of a religion.
Accountants, like almost all service businesses, deal directly with customers and tend to have relative short iterations because you can't delay paying your taxes for ever.
So "user stories" and iteration are in fact very common things you can find not just in agile software development, but almost anywhere.
It's not that Agile is that great, it's that it is that much better then Waterfall.
The "agile software principles" look fairly similar to what I know of other creative cooperative endeavors, like filmmaking or modern music.
Is it a fault that programming turns out to be more like a creative cooperative art rather than a hard science? This seems far less ridiculous than pretending it has the rigor of "engineering". My old manager would seriously tell Oliver Stone he needed to be CMMI level 5 by the end of the year.
P.S., try to keep your comments on-topic: agile methods, not the intelligence of those who agree or disagree with them.
