I'm not sure I agree that anything is a glass cannon because it could work but you could also do it wrong so it could fail. If a team can't pull off agile what do they think would have been a safer strategy?
It's designed to mitigate _delivery_ risk, not _organisational_ risk.
> If a team can't pull off agile what do they think would have been a safer strategy?
I would probably argue that Scrum (which I barely consider to be "agile") is more resilient to inexperience, and therefore lower risk. It's the McDonalds of processes. You're not going to get amazing results, but it will still operate despite hiring a bunch of inexperienced people into it.
Previous companies? Oh boy...
LMAO :) Im going to steal that!
But you can't have processes, after all its "individuals and interactions over processes and tools".
That doesn’t mean no processes and tools, you need to have those. It means the processes and tools aren’t canned processes and tools imposed on the team, it means they serve the team and the way they work, are owned by the team, and that the team is free to adjust them according to its developing understanding of its needs. (And, ideally, that the team is frequently checking in and evaluating whether and how it should be changing them.)