Introduction
In the 21st-century business environment of continuous and disruptive change, project delivery, including project management, can’t escape from the buzzwords, and we can see Agile frameworks and established practices often travelling far from their origins. Two of the most influential concepts—Agile and Kanban—have been widely adopted, adapted, and, at times, misunderstood outside their intended contexts. This blog post explores the ethical implications and risks of using the term “Agile Manifesto” as a generic label for Agility and avoiding recognising Kanban as an over 50 years old Lean Six Sigma practice, rebranded the knowledge work implementation as “Lean Kanban” without acknowledging their roots. We’ll reflect on these issues through the lens of PMI’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, the Agile Practice Guide (2026), the Agile Manufacturing Forum (1991), Manifesto for Enterprise Agility (2026), and the original Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001) itself.
Challenges
Misrepresentation of Origins and Intent
The Manifesto for Agile Software Development was crafted by software developers for software development. Its values and principles are rooted in the challenges and culture of that specific discipline. When organizations refer to “the Agile Manifesto” as a universal principle for all types of work, they risk distorting its intent, potentially violating PMI’s ethical value of responsibility—which demands honesty and accuracy in representation.
Similarly, “Kanban” in its pure form is a Lean Six Sigma manufacturing tool, while “Lean Kanban” is a knowledge work adaptation. Treating “Lean Kanban” as something else than Kanban can mislead stakeholders. The term Lean in front of an established practice potentially violating the ethical value of respect by failing to honour the history and contributions of the practitioners who developed these adaptations
Erosion of Professional Integrity
The PMI Code of Ethics emphasizes fairness and honesty. Presenting the Manifesto for Agile Software Development or Lean Kanban as universal tools for any context undermines professional integrity. It suggests a one-size-fits-all mentality that can lead to failed implementations, disenfranchisement of teams, and a loss of trust.
The Agile Practice Guide and PMBOK both stress tailoring methods to context. Ignoring the original intent of these frameworks can cause project managers to violate the ethical value of responsibility—by not exercising due care in their professional duties.
Risks of Oversimplification
When “Agile” or “Kanban” are thrown around as buzzwords, organizations may ignore the need for real cultural change and the discipline required for successful implementation. Scientific articles published in the 1990s by the Agile Manufacturing Forum, the Manifesto for Enterprise Agility, and PMBOK indicate that successful Agile transformation requires deep understanding, respect for context, and continuous learning. Oversimplification can result in failed transformations, wasted resources, and diminished value delivery—contradicting the ethical value of responsibility and respect for stakeholders.
Impact on Stakeholders
The PMI Code of Ethics underscores the importance of respect and fairness toward all stakeholders. By misapplying frameworks, organizations risk creating confusion and setting unrealistic expectations among teams, leaders, and customers. This can lead to disengagement, frustration, and even project failure.
Recommendations
Honor the Origins
Acknowledge that the Manifesto for Agile Software Development was written by and for software developers. When applying Agile principles outside software, draw from sources such as the Manifesto for Enterprise Agility, which intentionally adapts Agile thinking to broader contexts. Similarly, acknowledge the roots of Lean Kanban (as applied in knowledge work) in the original Kanban in manufacturing.
Tailor with Integrity
Follow the guidance of the PMBOK and Agile Practice Guide: tailor your approach to fit the context. This means being honest about the limitations and applicability of each framework. When communicating with stakeholders, clarify what version or adaptation of Agile or Kanban you are using—and why.
Educate Stakeholders
Invest time in stakeholder education. Ensure teams, leaders, and clients understand the source and intent of the practices being used. This supports responsibility and respect, and aligns with the PMI value of serving the public interest.
Reflect on Ethical Values
Use PMI’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct as a compass. Ask yourself: Are you being honest about what you are implementing? Are you respecting the contributions of those who developed these frameworks? Are you treating stakeholders fairly by setting realistic expectations?
Continuous Improvement
Adopt a mindset of learning and humility. Just as the Manifesto for Agile Software Development calls for continuous reflection, so too should organizations regularly review their practices in light of ethical standards and evolving contexts.
The Bottom Line
Using the Manifesto for Agile Software Development (aka “Agile Manifesto”) as a blanket term for all things Agile or treating Lean Kanban as something other than the Lean Six Sigma practice of kanban risks misrepresentation, confusion, and ethical lapses. By honouring the origins, tailoring with integrity, educating stakeholders, and reflecting on ethical values, project managers and organizations can uphold the ethical values of responsibility, respect, fairness, and honesty. This not only avoids ethical pitfalls, but also increases the likelihood of real, sustainable transformation and value delivery.
Question for Readers: Have you experienced challenges when Agile or Kanban were applied outside their original context?
