[asplake]

Agile's crisis (which is real) is because despite the generativity of the manifesto, the frameworks it spawned largely ignore how change happens in a healthy and sustainable way. It is deeply ironic how much the Agile industry leans into 1990's models of change (solution-driven, imposed, etc).

That explains an awful lot. When people think that it's enough that they're right, bad things happen. Agile doesn't actually need a theory of society to understand that, just a little humility.

[nradov]

The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) includes review and change cycles driven by teams at the grass roots level. Of course some organizations skip that part, but you can't blame agile frameworks for management choices.

[asplake]

Every framework has some kind of inspect-and-adapt thing going, nothing special about SAFe in that regard. The bigger question is how the organisation is supposed to get from zero (not using the framework) to the point where it is working at every scale, necessary if claims of business agility etc are to be realised. If the answer is a rollout project, then the dissonance there (not to mention the pain) should not be underestimated.

[nradov]

Organizations starting from zero typically hire experienced trainers and consultants to guide them through the initial implementation and then a few cycles. That's expensive, but cheaper than failing. Of course if senior leadership isn't truly committed then it still won't work, but that's not the fault of the framework.