Let Agile Die — Gracefully.

Originally published on Medium on 25-Nov-2024.

A few days ago, many LinkedIn feeds — including mine — were flooded with posts proclaiming, “Agile is Dead!” Not long after, counter-posts emerged passionately arguing the opposite. The whole debate escalated faster than the time it takes to clip your finger nails (for me, that’s every two weeks — oddly the same as the favourite Sprint duration of many teams for no good reason). And just like that, LinkedIn turned into a multiversal war: some staunchly declaring Agile’s demise, others defending its integrity, and a third faction swearing allegiance to frameworks (hence the multiverse analogy). Meanwhile, many remained as confused as ever — debating whether Agile is Scrum and somewhere in the mix, the conversation shifted to “Agile is dissolving” and “Agile is evolving”.

I of course joined the rally as well with a post of my own, and I meant every word of it:

This debate isn’t new. Back in 2014, the same idea started gaining traction, with Dave Thomas delivering the first-ever talk on the topic at the GOTO Conference in 2015. He probably even coined the mantra “Long Live Agility,”which mostly sparked an entirely new movement (read, Business Model) around Business Agility. So why, nearly a decade later, has this debate flared up again? And more importantly — should we even care?

Here’s where my thoughts align with my earlier post: it doesn’t matter. No one is really asking for this debate. It’s just a flood of posts, videos, and blogs trying to justify something no one questioned in the first place. But if this is the trend, then I might as well join in and address the elephant in the room.

Let Agile die — gracefully.

And here’s why —

1. It should never have been in the first place.

Let’s wind the clocks back to 1970 when Dr. Winston Royce presented his famous paper, “Managing the Development of Large Software Systems”. Arguably credited as the birthplace of waterfall, the model we learnt in our textbooks and the same that’s often held up as the ultimate reason to adopt Agile. But the reality is far more nuanced.

The “Manifesto for Agile Software Development” didn’t have to be created to counter waterfall, that was already addressed with numerous methods that came long before Agile — V-models, iterative models, spiral models, and even XP and Scrum. In fact, Dr. Royce himself openly acknowledged the risks of waterfall in 1970 and he advocated for adjustments, including (wait for it…) “Involving the Customer”.

So, even if the Agile Manifesto had never been written, we would have continued to evolve — improving software development methods and businesses alike. And we have! Over the years, both before and after 2001, we’ve embraced fantastic new approaches to boost productivity and drive better outcomes — many of which go beyond Agile. Which brings me to my next point …

2. If it is what it claims to be, we’ll be just fine.

The Agile Manifesto makes a subtle, yet profound claim:

Given that Agile wasn’t the first attempt at finding better ways to develop software, it certainly won’t be the last. Zoom out for a moment, and you’ll see countless methods — some excelling the craft of software development, others SAFely dismantling it. And this will continue to happen, call it evolution if you want, but this cycle has always existed and always will.

So if the claims are correct, why get hung up on nomenclature? Of course there’s value in documentation (as Dr. Royce acknowledged that as well) but that’s a flawed process. For all we know, there’s a team out there delivering phenomenal products but lacking the discipline of documentation, leaving their methods hidden from the world. And that’s okay. Someone else will eventually uncover something better, and the cycle will continue.

Even the art of documentation has changed dramatically over time. Every school of thought swears by its favorite approach (mine happens to be user stories with acceptance tests). But at the end of the day, if the hypothesis is true — that we’re developing better ways and helping others do it — then we’re going to be just fine. Which brings me to my final point …

3. Nothing is meant to be permanent.

Here’s where I circle back to my LinkedIn post:

If agility’s survival is the question, hasn’t it taught us to adapt rather than defend? This defence seems counter-intuitive. And if it’s about education, it feels like a global outrage against flat-earthers (pun intended).

A few years ago, I floated an idea that I’ll share again: What if we stopped trying to sell agility? (my talk at Agile India Conference 2019). Maybe by doing this, the organisations that thrive will be the ones that are inherently agile — the ones that are the real great places to work. It’s not about being agile, it’s about creating environments where the benefits and improvements naturally arise.

So let’s allow Agile to die — gracefully. This is a message not just for the practitioners but also for the OGs of the manifesto, many of whom are now fighting tooth and nail against its perceived demise. It’s okay. Let the next generations take the reins (and no, that’s not even me). Let natural selection take its course while you evolve into the sounding boards we need — not the knights in shining armour fighting an unnecessary battle.

Surely, we can do better than endless, unnecessary arguments online.