[himynameisdom]

I would agree the word "sprint" can conjure up a bad picture, but the agile manifesto clearly states the team should work at a sustainable pace. Nowhere in the Scrum Guide does it say you must work at a breakneck speed.

Inputs for sprint planning include the relevant empirical data (velocity, burn down/up etc.) to help with planning. In my experience, these data points are used to measure productivity, which is dangerous. Companies end up measuring success by outputs, rather than outcomes.

Business units need to stop weaponizing Agile and realize they too need to change in order to inspect and adapt towards building things people want.

[jrochkind1]

I agree that it is not inherent to Agile. (I'm more suspicious of "scrum", but I'll believe you that it's not either).

Like I said, I've had GREAT experiences with agile practices, my _favorite_ workplaces have been using agile practices. Also terrible ones. Knowing that the terrible ones were "doing agile wrong" didn't make them less terrible.

I even said very explicitly "It turns into a process that is more like waterfall, but..." So I'm a bit perturbed by your response insisting that this is not inherent to agile. When I was pretty explicit in saying that too.

LOTS of companies _saying_ their doing agile result in misery, even worse than before they pretended to do agile. On the other hand, doing agile well can be wonderful. In order to figure out how to make more of the wonderful than the terrible, we have to get _beyond_ just pointing out that "the agile manifesto clearly states". Cause it's clearly stated that already, and it hasn't stopped the terrible.