In 2001, a very interesting document was published that caught the attention of entrepreneurs, executives, academics and students: The Agile Manifesto, which was proposed by a group of software programmers who were looking for a more fluid, faster and more flexible dynamic to operate businesses. All these ideas that captivated at that time, that aroused so much curiosity and generated avant-garde, today have received a death sentence. What happened? These proposals that seemed to be universal truths did not stand the test of time, a critical analysis failed and it is necessary to understand the causes of their decline and relevance in the present.

The Agile methodology, so celebrated for project development and management, has seen its luster fade. At the time, it was an alternative since it was a response to traditional project management approaches that lost opportunity after so much analysis. Those were the times when the phrase: "analysis = paralysis" became fashionable. The Agile methodology promised flexibility, speed, and greater collaboration. However, Agile went to the extreme of putting the failure on track in analysis and faced substantial criticism and challenges that question its relevance and effectiveness in today's business world.

Not everything was bad. In its origins, it sought to combat the slowness and heaviness of companies that did not react with the required speed to the challenges of bureaucratic processes. In that condition, the fundamental principles of Agile presented below sounded very attractive:

  1. Individuals and interactions about processes and tools.

  2. Software running on extensive documentation.

  3. Collaboration with the client on contract negotiation.

  4. Responding to change about following a plan.

These principles sought to humanize the software development process and make it more responsive to changing customer and market needs. This legitimate proposal contributed to the rise of the methodology. During the first decade of the 21st century, Agile was rapidly adopted around the world. Companies were eager to move away from rigid and bureaucratic approaches to software development and enthusiastically embraced this new methodology.

Scrum, one of the most popular variants of Agile, which is based on a collection of best practices for working collaboratively, has become the de facto standard in many organizations. Cross-functional teams, sprints, and daily stand-up meetings became the norm, promising to deliver value faster and more efficiently. However, as more companies adopted Agile, problems began to arise. Among the most prominent were the following:

  • Misunderstandings and mis-implementation: many organizations adopted Agile superficially without understanding its core principles. This led to faulty implementations and frustration for teams.

  • Scalability: as companies grew, it became apparent that Agile didn't always scale well. Coordination between multiple teams and large projects was often chaotic and disorganized.

  • Pressure and burnout: the iterative nature and need for constant deliveries led many teams to face relentless pressure, resulting in burnout and decreased morale.

  • Deviation from the original principles: over time, Agile became a buzzword, and many companies began using the term without truly adhering to the principles of the Agile Manifesto.

The Agile debacle occurred as these problems accumulated, so many companies began to look for alternatives. Many have returned to more traditional approaches, while others have adopted new methodologies such as the growing adoption of automated tools and artificial intelligence has changed the dynamics of software development, making some of the Agile practices less relevant.

There are those who think that despite the challenges and criticism, it is too early to declare Agile's death. The truth is that many of Agile's practices and principles have been absorbed by other methodologies and approaches. Rather than being a single, defined methodology, Agile has become part of the toolkit that teams can use based on their specific needs.

The real lesson is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and adaptability is still key. The Agile methodology, while no longer the precious gem it was once believed to be, still has many fans in the project management world. They argue that its decline is not so much a death as a transformation, an evolution toward more hybrid and adaptive approaches.

Companies and their executives need to understand and apply the fundamental principles of Agile, without rigidly clinging to its practices as they will continue to find value in its flexibility and responsiveness. If this is so, if true agility lies in the ability to adapt and evolve, then in that sense, Agile is still very much alive.

The relevant reflection around the declaration – increasingly repeated – of the death of Agile, is that we cannot do without strategic analysis. I am afraid that in the application of the methodology, many went to the other extreme. It is true what they said: excessive analysis can generate paralysis. But the lack of a thorough analysis leads to chaos. This is a universal truth that endures over time.