Jul 04, 2025 2:32 PM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
All you stated shows a big misunderstanding about what agile really is. It does not surprise. It is when organizations buys the incorrect things and misunderstanding about agile that exists outside there. Agile is not about mindset, is not about method, is not about to use interactive-incremental life cycle. Agile is about enterprise architecture. Agile was born in manufacturing in 1990 trying to find an alternative to Lean. Then a group of people took the name and put it into software.
Sergio Luis Conte
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
I agree that there are indeed many misunderstandings about what it means to "be agile" — which is exactly why conversations like this are so valuable.
That said, I’d like to offer a different reading, based on widely recognized sources both within and beyond the PMI community.
1. On the Origins of Agile
While agile thinking has roots in various earlier influences (including Lean, TPS, and iterative design), the term “Agile” as we know it was formally established with the Agile Manifesto in 2001, focused on software development.
This doesn't deny its industrial ancestry — but the idea that Agile "was born in 1990 as an alternative to Lean" seems to conflate distinct historical paths.
2. Agile and Mindset
The very introduction to the Agile Manifesto emphasizes values and principles — in other words, mindset. Numerous authors and organizations (PMI, Scrum.org, ICAgile, McKinsey, and others) reinforce that Agile is both a mindset and a set of adaptive practices, meant to be tailored to the context in which they are applied.
3. Agile as Enterprise Architecture?
That’s an intriguing interpretation — and yes, there are approaches that explore Agile's role at the enterprise architecture level (such as SAFe or Disciplined Agile).
But to say that Agile is enterprise architecture — and not a mindset or method — feels overly reductive. These are complementary dimensions, not mutually exclusive ones.
4. Regarding This Conversation
The original post does not advocate for dogmatic Agile — quite the opposite.
It points to the friction that arises when frameworks are applied without contextual diagnosis.
The real merit lies in recognizing systemic misalignment and redesigning delivery models based on real-world learning.
To me, that is agility — in thinking, in culture, and in delivery.
I’d be genuinely interested if you could expand on your idea of “Agile as enterprise architecture.”
That could be a valuable contribution to deepen this discussion.
Closing Reflection:
In the end, what this thread may be showing us is that the real problem isn’t Agile — it’s when we use the same words to mean very different things.
I’m glad we have spaces like this to reflect, challenge, and learn together.
