Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
As organizations seek to scale agile practices across large enterprises, many adopt ‘scaled Agile’ frameworks. At the same time, there is a growing trend of incorporating tools and methods from traditional Project, Portfolio, Program Management, and Lean Six Sigma into Agile programs. While cross-pollination of good ideas can be valuable, there are important ethical concerns when traditional practices and content are copied and presented as new agile practices, metrics, or tools—especially when these adaptations misalign with the core values of the Manifesto for Agile Software Development.
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Using practices from other approaches is not really the problem. What becomes difficult is when organizations add more governance, reporting, and structure while still presenting everything as Agile, even when teams feel less adaptable in practice.
Sometimes the terminology changes faster than the mindset or leadership behaviors behind it.
...
1 reply by Stelian ROMAN
Sep 07, 2026 9:48 PM
Stelian ROMAN
...
When the "framework" is explained in a few books, and you need long training courses, it is unlikely that it is a true Agile framework.
Saving Changes...
Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa I believe that the problem is not adding governance, reporting, etc., but the fact that management (and some consultants) try to force current/old processes and tools in Agile. Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
This is an important ethical issue.
Cross-pollination between Agile, Lean, Lean Six Sigma, Project Management, Portfolio Management, and quality disciplines can create real value when it is done transparently and with contextual judgment.
The problem is not adaptation itself.
The problem begins when existing practices are rebranded as “new Agile” without proper attribution, without explaining their origin, and without clarifying why they are appropriate in a specific context.
That creates confusion, weakens professional trust, and can distort the intent of Agile itself.
In my view, the key question is not whether Agile can learn from other disciplines. It clearly can.
The key question is whether those practices preserve Agile’s core orientation toward collaboration, adaptation, customer value, learning, and responsiveness to change.
Some structure can support agility at scale.
But when structure becomes control, when metrics become compliance, and when frameworks become commercial products detached from their intellectual origins, authenticity is at risk.
This is not only a methodological issue.
It is a question of professional integrity.
(Unfortunately, I could not access the full article through the link provided, so my reflection is based on the post excerpt above.)
...
1 reply by Stelian ROMAN
Sep 07, 2026 9:54 PM
Stelian ROMAN
...
"The problem begins when existing practices are rebranded as “new Agile” without proper attribution, without explaining their origin, and without clarifying why they are appropriate in a specific context." I tried to find out what other metrics are used by Agile teams. The fact that pure Lean Six Sigma metrics used in manufacturing for decades are now "Agile" is not a concern; Lean brings efficiency. The surprise was the quasi-absence of new metrics, Agile or not, and the use of metrics that were created to eliminate waste- "waste" that, IMHO, is mandatory in Agile. Focusing on speed and quality instead of responding to change quickly and efficiently is not a sign of Agility
Saving Changes...
Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
May 19, 2026 9:01 AM
Replying to Lissette Indhira Pimentel Sosa
...
Using practices from other approaches is not really the problem. What becomes difficult is when organizations add more governance, reporting, and structure while still presenting everything as Agile, even when teams feel less adaptable in practice.
Sometimes the terminology changes faster than the mindset or leadership behaviors behind it.
When the "framework" is explained in a few books, and you need long training courses, it is unlikely that it is a true Agile framework. Saving Changes...
Stelian ROMANProject Manager| MicroSafetyCarlingford, New South Wales, Australia
May 20, 2026 5:43 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
This is an important ethical issue.
Cross-pollination between Agile, Lean, Lean Six Sigma, Project Management, Portfolio Management, and quality disciplines can create real value when it is done transparently and with contextual judgment.
The problem is not adaptation itself.
The problem begins when existing practices are rebranded as “new Agile” without proper attribution, without explaining their origin, and without clarifying why they are appropriate in a specific context.
That creates confusion, weakens professional trust, and can distort the intent of Agile itself.
In my view, the key question is not whether Agile can learn from other disciplines. It clearly can.
The key question is whether those practices preserve Agile’s core orientation toward collaboration, adaptation, customer value, learning, and responsiveness to change.
Some structure can support agility at scale.
But when structure becomes control, when metrics become compliance, and when frameworks become commercial products detached from their intellectual origins, authenticity is at risk.
This is not only a methodological issue.
It is a question of professional integrity.
(Unfortunately, I could not access the full article through the link provided, so my reflection is based on the post excerpt above.)
"The problem begins when existing practices are rebranded as “new Agile” without proper attribution, without explaining their origin, and without clarifying why they are appropriate in a specific context." I tried to find out what other metrics are used by Agile teams. The fact that pure Lean Six Sigma metrics used in manufacturing for decades are now "Agile" is not a concern; Lean brings efficiency. The surprise was the quasi-absence of new metrics, Agile or not, and the use of metrics that were created to eliminate waste- "waste" that, IMHO, is mandatory in Agile. Focusing on speed and quality instead of responding to change quickly and efficiently is not a sign of Agility Saving Changes...
"This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."
Community Champion
