Confounding variables. It's possible that riskier projects use agile because they're less well defined to begin with.
The stats I'd really like to see is how many people, how many months, how much money. Hypothetically, one successful waterfall project could perhaps fund 3 failed and one successful agile one with comparable output.
My takeaway from the article (which has a "people before process" feel to it):
> Projects where engineers felt they had the freedom to discuss and address problems were 87 percent more likely to succeed.
Also beware capital-A "Agile", it defines a process devoid of project characteristics, making it not.
The stats I'd really like to see is how many people, how many months, how much money. Hypothetically, one successful waterfall project could perhaps fund 3 failed and one successful agile one with comparable output.
My takeaway from the article (which has a "people before process" feel to it):
> Projects where engineers felt they had the freedom to discuss and address problems were 87 percent more likely to succeed.
Also beware capital-A "Agile", it defines a process devoid of project characteristics, making it not.