by Stefan Wolpers|FeaturedAgile and ScrumAgile Transition
TL; DR: Why the Brand Failed While the Ideas Won
Your LinkedIn feed is full of it: Agile is dead. They’re right. And, at the same time, they’re entirely wrong.
The word is dead. The brand is almost toxic in many circles; check the usual subreddits. But the principles? They’re spreading faster than ever. They just dropped the name that became synonymous with consultants, certifications, transformation failures, and the enforcement of rituals.
You all know organizations that loudly rejected “Agile” and now quietly practice its core ideas more effectively than any companies running certified transformation programs. The brand failed. The ideas won.
What if your organization’s “Agility” dysfunction isn’t an implementation problem but a missing-conditions problem that switching to, say, a product operating model cannot solve? This article identifies the success factors for agility that are absent in your organization. It gives you concrete Monday-morning actions to test what’s actually possible within your sphere of influence to drive change, because agility matters.
Organizations seem to fail their AI transformation using the same patterns that killed their Agile transformations: Performing demos instead of solving problems, buying tools before identifying needs, celebrating pilots that can’t scale, and measuring activity instead of outcomes.
These aren’t technology failures; they are organizational patterns of performing change instead of actually changing. Your advantage isn’t AI expertise; it’s pattern recognition from surviving Agile. Use it to spot theater, demand real problems before tools, insist on integration from day one, and measure actual value delivered.
Many companies adopt Agile practices like Scrum but fail to achieve true transformation. This “Agile Paradox” occurs because they implement tactical processes without changing their underlying command-and-control structure, culture, and leadership style.
True agility requires profound systemic changes to organizational design, leadership, and technical practices, not just performing rituals. Without this fundamental shift from “doing” to “being” agile, transformations stall, and the promised benefits remain unrealized.
TL; DR: Is There a Need for the Scrum Guide Expansion Pack?
The Scrum Guide Expansion Pack represents a fascinating contradiction in the agile world. While attempting to cure Scrum’s reputation crisis, it may actually amplify the very problems it seeks to solve. Let me explain what this means for practitioners dealing with the aftermath of failed Scrum implementations.
The data couldn’t be more supportive: Despite 25 years of the Agile Manifesto, countless books, a certification industry, conferences, and armies of consultants, we’re collectively struggling to make Agile work. My recent survey, although not targeting Agile failure, still reveals systemic dysfunctions that persist across organizations attempting to implement Agile practices:
