The problem is that those are a really vague and metaphorical 4-5 lines so it's hard to argue against somebody projecting whatever the hell meaning they want on to it.

I'd argue that "agile" where I have done it and it worked well is at its core about tightening up OODA loops - with code (refactoring+tests+iterative improvements), with customer interaction (frequent interaction/experiment driven tests), with team organization (retros, adapting team processes).

Feedback loops are, however, not mentioned once in the philosophy and neither are any concrete examples of "agile" or "not agile".

Agile as a concept will stop being broken when people stop saying "to me, agile means X". Which will probably never happen - I suspect people will just stop talking about it one day and start using different terms for all the concrete steps that are sometimes filed under "agile" but which actually work.

That's a bit misleading. agilemanifesto.org also hosts a (still short, but way more concrete) Twelve Principles of Agile Software: https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html

(Also worth noting that scrum and most of the best known agile methodologies predate the manifesto; the manifesto was formed from guiding principles of those methodologies, not the other way around: https://agilemanifesto.org/history.html)

It's not Scrum. Scrum wasn't even the first. (I think it was XP.)

The problem is all the "Agile methodologies". Every single one.

(Also, notice that "Agile methodology" as an idea is already against the first principle there.)

Yes. As soon as you're conducting ritual ceremonies such as daily standups, you're no longer agile.

It is the pseudoscience of Taylorism and 'Scientific management', not the manifesto, which is really just a repackaged form of modern organization theory.

The DOD agile BS PDF covers most of it.

https://media.defense.gov/2018/oct/09/2002049591/-1/-1/0/dib...

Once the consultant forms start to monetize the GAO's agile assessment guide things should get better IMHO.

Unless that gets co-oped somehow, which is possible.

How GM screwed up on the NUMMI plant shows how it is a Taylorism problem if you want something outside of tech.

But even TOGAF and ITIL are adjusting because the feds will require it.

Taylor measured people loading pig iron into train cars, faked a lot of things and the BCG/McKinsey types packaged and solid it.

It has always been BS, is part of why the US manufacturing sector failed as well as why the USSR failed.

Pretty hard to kill but it needs to die.

How unsurprising, than, that every little town and village has their own folk religion built around those 4-5 sentences. No wonder this topic is a holy war.