Doctrinaire Agile
From a distance, most Agile approaches are characterized by
Yet some implementations are ineffective because of an unquestioning belief in the chosen approach. This doctrinaire[1] interpretation is identified by a stated belief in the enduring efficacy of the current Agile approach, or the absence of practices to assess and improve it. In other words, the absence of second loop learning.
Even worse is when there is absence of an assessment whether Agile is the right approach in the first place. Agile is most effective for work where there is a plausible hypothesis for the investment, changeable requirements and priorities, and unknown but knowable resources. When there are ambiguous or conflicting hypotheses, parallel safe-to-fail experiments may be more effective than the typically linear iterative Agile approach. When the requirements and priorities are known and relatively stable but it is not yet known how much capacity is needed, a timeboxing approach may be better. Finally, when the requirements and priorities are known and stable, and there is also enough experience to predict how much capacity is required, a waterfall approach could be surprisingly effective.[2]
[1] Stubbornly or excessively devoted to a doctrine or theory without regard to practical considerations (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
[2] Dave Snowden, frequently posited at Agile conferences