[RFC] I have asked GPT-4 to analyze "The Case for Agile 2"

"Analyse the 10 key statements in the following text and score them on a scale from 1 to 100 how well this is really true for corporate agile transformations:"

RFC means: Request for comments (in the spirit of IETF RFCs: https://www.ietf.org/standards/rfcs/)

Let's look at what GPT-4 responds - it's written in italic.

??"Large organizations that tried to use Agile often failed." - Score: 80

???True for many organizations, as applying Agile to large organizations is more complex than implementing it for individual teams. However, some organizations have succeeded with Agile transformation.

True story, Agile is not a software you can just "install" in your organisation. You can't copy culture (see the huge misunderstandings around the "Spotify-model"). You can't buy it ready-made (friendly reminder: you may need to challenge rigid procurement mindsets). You need to home-grow and cultivate it locally over time (without reinventing the wheel).

How? Re-read the agile values and principles. They are not dogmas - but change (adapt) something only if you are an expert (see Shu-Ha-Ri). Then check Agnostic Agile, Essence & unFIX. Kotter change model, insights from F. Laloux: Reinventing Organisations, Integral Agile Transformation, Albert Barabási's research, Management 3.0 concepts will come handy, too.

???"Today, organizations that want to use Agile methods at scale are stuck choosing one of several competing and divergent approaches." - Score: 90

???True, as there is no single, universally accepted approach for scaling Agile in large organizations.

Thankfully we have multiple frameworks for different scenarios. Let's avoid the "we have a silver bullet" fallacy.

???"Agile is broken." - Score: 50

???While some aspects of Agile may be flawed or misapplied, it has been successful for many organizations and teams. The statement is overly general and does not account for successful Agile implementations.

This is a clickbait sentence. Do you mean that transformation is rather difficult? Are you thinking about the "Agile industry", perhaps? "Framework shaming" or PM/AC/SM/etc. bashing? It's only truly broken if we don't do retrospectives, self-reflections on the value of agile experts, public feedback, agnostic agile... and even Agile2 itself :)

???"The largest defect in Agile thinking regards the role of leadership." - Score: 70

???True for many Agile implementations, as leadership is essential for organizational success. However, some Agile methodologies do address leadership roles, so this statement is not universally true.

???"The Agile Manifesto says little pertaining to leadership." - Score: 80

???The Agile Manifesto does not directly address leadership, focusing more on team collaboration and self-organization, which can be perceived as a gap in addressing the complexity of leadership.

It says also little about unicorns and quantum physics. What an argument! A manifesto is a "written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer" (Merriam-Webster), not a book. And even if it would be a book, leadership is just too general to have a definitive answer. Integral theory states that different types of leaders will be considered "successful", based on their context. We also know that training, mentoring and coaching help leaders to apply values and principles in daily life.

???"Extreme Programming (XP) sent shock waves through the IT industry." - Score: 85

???True, as XP introduced a new set of practices that challenged traditional software development methods, garnering significant attention and controversy.

???"The Agile movement began with built-in cognitive dissonance." - Score: 60

???While there may have been some contradictions and inconsistencies within the Agile movement, the statement is overly strong and may not fully capture the nuances of Agile's evolution.

???"The Agile community continued to amplify the extremes in a kind of race to be the most extreme." - Score: 70

???True for some members of the Agile community who pursued and promoted more extreme practices, but not universally true for all members or organizations implementing Agile.

"to be the most extreme" ... I could use some examples.

???"This dogma and linear intransigence is actually toxic." - Score: 65

???While rigidity and dogmatism can hinder progress and adaptation, this statement is overly strong and doesn't account for the Agile community members who are open to change and improvements.

???"It was this rigidity that led to the independent evolution of DevOps." - Score: 75

???Partially true, as DevOps emerged to address gaps and limitations in Agile practices, especially regarding software deployment and operations. However, other factors may have also contributed to DevOps' development.

What are the weak arguments in the text?

???"Instead, the community split into numerous factions which grew in influence." - This statement is weak because it does not account for the natural evolution of ideas and methodologies, which often leads to multiple approaches being developed.

???"Agile evangelists will be quick to respond, “The Agile that those people experienced was not real Agile – they did not do it right.” - This argument is weak because it oversimplifies the response of Agile evangelists and assumes they don't acknowledge any issues with Agile implementations.

???"The Agile movement arguably began with the release of the book Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, in 1999." - This argument is weak because it simplifies the origin of the Agile movement, which was influenced by multiple methodologies, not just Extreme Programming.

???"Thus, it was diametrically opposed to XP, which advocated all-in adoption of extreme methods instead of using judgement about choosing the right method." - This argument is weak because it assumes that XP and the Agile Manifesto cannot coexist or complement each other.

???"The statement “[We value] Working software over comprehensive documentation” was interpreted by many as, “We value working software, and documentation is not needed.” - This argument is weak because it assumes that all Agile practitioners interpret the statement in the same extreme way.

???"The “Agile team room” – an open room with everyone on a team sitting in close proximity – continued despite widespread criticism." - This argument is weak because it does not account for the fact that many teams find success and value in co-located workspaces and not all Agile practitioners ignore the criticism.

???"Many organizations tried these things. Google tried a flatter organization in 2002, but the experiment failed." - This argument is weak because it uses a single example to generalize the failure of flatter organizations in the Agile context.

???"It locked the Agile community into a rigid set of ideas, and prevented the community from doing what it itself recommends: trying something and then pivoting if necessary." - This statement is weak because it assumes the entire Agile community is inflexible, ignoring those who adapt and refine their Agile practices.

???"Today most DevOps experts do not know much about Agile, and vice versa." - This argument is weak because it assumes a complete lack of knowledge between the two communities, while in reality, many professionals are aware of both Agile and DevOps principles and practices.

***

In Hungarian, there is a saying "Ne ?ntsd ki a fürd?vízzel együtt a gyereket is." It translates to "don't spill the child (from the bathtub) along with the water". I think Agile2 has some "rough edges"or let's call it initial state.

Personally, I don't think that Agile is broken. However, there are some elephants in the room. So, for this reason I want to say thank you for the contributors Agile2.net for thinking about necessary improvements.

And it's not just about "the world of Agile". It's about collaboration in and between teams, organisations and countries all over the place. It's about us. And we need collaboration more than ever before.