>If you tried agile and it failed, it wasn't actually agile. When you show how it was actually agile, you didn't do it right. When you show you did it right - go back to argument 1. It's a really circular no true scotsman style of argument.
It'd be interested in seeing that argument in the wild. Mostly I see complaints like yours when people point out that an hour-long daily that the manager uses to harangue the developers isn't actually agile, and that is perfectly true. Or that a blame-assigning retro or measuring dev productivity using story points is not actually agile, which is at least true insofar that it clearly is forbidden in Scrum, and stupid in any case.
Though I find it interesting that you end with kanban -- an agile methodology. It seems you do like to use agile after all, just not scrum.
I agree, and I guess it should be clarified I'm mostly criticizing the "traditional" implementation of agile as I have seen it which is scrum with sprints, retrospectives, etc. I find it extraordinarily counterproductive, but obviously some have had success with it or it wouldn't be so widespread.
It'd be interested in seeing that argument in the wild. Mostly I see complaints like yours when people point out that an hour-long daily that the manager uses to harangue the developers isn't actually agile, and that is perfectly true. Or that a blame-assigning retro or measuring dev productivity using story points is not actually agile, which is at least true insofar that it clearly is forbidden in Scrum, and stupid in any case.
Though I find it interesting that you end with kanban -- an agile methodology. It seems you do like to use agile after all, just not scrum.