The problem is that if, when faced with example after example of something labelled 'Agile' not working, one discounts each as not 'truly Agile', then once one subtracts all those examples of Agile not working from the Agile literature there's nothing concrete left to prescribe other than "keep trying stuff until you find something that works for you."
There's no true agile process, because agile is not a methodology.
So when people say I've worked on a true agile team, and then go on criticizing their team's process, you know instantly they're not criticizing the agile core values and principles, but are actually complaining about scrum or whatever made up methodology their management invented and then likened to make everyone believe that because of it the company shares, supports and lives by the agile values and principles.
All you're saying there is that people have started using the term 'agile' too much, and applying it to processes or methodologies that aren't agile in the sense it was originally defined. I can totally agree with that idea, but it's a different problem – not "agile doesn't work", more "people consistently lie about being agile".
There are some basic practices that are required for an organization to adhere to an agile process. Transparency, accountability, introspection... it really is basic stuff. And either they're doing them, or they're not.
If they're violating the definition of the process, they're not implementing the process.
If someone got into a car accident and didn't have a license, and I said "Yeah, but they aren't a qualified driver", you wouldn't invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy, would you?
These are concepts, not practices. And 'introspection', while arguably being a practice, is really, really not basic stuff. Introspection with actionable outcome is about as basic a practice as "finding inner peace" is.
> If they're violating the definition of the process, they're not implementing the process.
As seen even in just the comments on this submission, if someone follows the definition of the process as laid out in the literature, they are dismissed as being too process-focused and not truly Agile. If someone doesn't exactly follow the definition of the process as laid out in the literature, they are dismissed as not following the rules of Agile.
Agile has no "process as laid out in the literature".
I'm not even sure where this idea comes from.
The Agile manifesto is extremely basic. It contains a few core principles, and everything else is elaboration on them.
This organization is violating even those very basic tenants.
It's possible that, over and above the manifesto they're trying to implement Scrum or Kanban or some other process, and heck, they may be failing to adhere to those processes as well
But if they're not at a bare minimum attempting to live and breathe the values encapsulated in the manifesto, they are by definition not executing an Agile process, since the manifesto defines what "Agile" is.
Living and breathing values and principles entails putting something in to practice which means you need to put a stake in the ground as to "how", instead of just repeating platitudes. If you can't find three people who all agree on what "living and breathing the Agile values" means, then you can't practice Agile at team scale.