> Does anyone see value in the huge emphasis on the "sprint" term?
What huge emphasis?
> Advocates promote the word as a new way of working, but I see it as just adding confusion for the audience it's trying to reach.
Not really: the term is a fairly precise metaphor for exactly what it is (nicely, moreso than the usual use of "sprint" as software development jargon -- if anything, its more confusing to people with experience in development with the use of the term for one in a series of continuous cycles that it would be for the target audience than it would be for people without that experience.)
> That is, if I'm a person entrenched in government and want to learn about this new way people are working, and I see the word SPRINT everywhere, I might assume it's some complex new idea.
Its used 8 times in the article, and the whole article explains how it works.
> But it's not -- it's just a time period with goals.
Not really; actually a key part was not having concrete goals going in (beyond deliver something that provides value in the timebox given) and defining specific goals by the team as part of the work effort. This actually is an important contrast to lots of other work styles, where a work effort, timeboxed or not, has very specific goals defined by people distant from the work effort before the team is gathered to execute.
> The real win in this short project came from having a cross-functional team in the room, in a working session with a clear short-term goal.
Arguably, the real win came from having a cross-functional team including the primary users in the room, in a working session, with a clear timebox and the freedom to define goals.
But the piece isn't about presenting conclusions as to why the effort worked, but to provide facts about how the effort was done and that it worked.