[gedy]

> "This project was a fixed cost, fixed scope with a fixed deadline - if we didn't launch this new site in 4 months, the current live site was going to be taken offline by the previous agency, due to their contract and hosting ending."

Author mentions this, but there is really no point to use agile methods for such a project. Agile is not for task tracking.

With that said, if the project has uncertainty about what's wanted, UX is still researching or whatever, I'd still probably have dev-driven increments and demos to pin people down on making decisions. No external mgmt running that though.

[bunderbunder]

This is probably the most damning thing about capital-A Agile. If you try to talk to a certified Agile practitioner about what kinds of projects aren't appropriate for an Agile process, you might get dismissiveness, you might get hostility, but you'll never get a frank and engaged conversation.

Heck, if you ask an Agile coach when another agile methodology like Kanban or Shape Up! or Lean-CMMI might be preferable to Scrum, they'll act like a Free Evangelist preacher who just heard a member of their congregation say something nice about Methodists.

[nicholasjarnold]

Very true, but the agency does benefit from the current state of affairs: You can load up an engagement with more people...whom are there to help facilitate the process. These people add to the bottom line engagement revenue. When all your competitors are doing the same then the buyers of your services have no choice but to pony up. As someone who builds and enjoys building, it saddens me. We can do better, but how do we convince the deciders of this?

We're busy building when others are busy convincing the deciders they need Agile Scrum or Lean Agile or whatever flavor is cool in <year>. It's like Baskin Robbins - 31 flavors and each will make you fat and sick with enough exposure!