Martyn Rhisiart Jones

Bruxelles, 28^th May 2019

To begin at the beginning

To paraphrase the great Bob Hoffman. Just when you feared that Agile evangelists might produce even more nonsense, they surprise you. What do they do? Exceed expectations.

And how did they do that? Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Agile at Scale. It comes with all the miscellaneous, spiced-up, and vainglorious crap-on-the-side that accompanies it.

Yes, Agile at Scale is taking IT bullshit to an entirely new level. It’s happening in a new dimension and on a completely different planet. This change is not a good look.

Historically speaking, Agile at Scale has originated from the same idea-mangling factory. This factory is cult-ridden and learning-averse. It was constructed as an offshoot of IT. This was done by the same ignoramuses, egomaniacs, and code-bodgers. They brought you extravagant claims about the power, sophistication, and cost-effectiveness of HTML, Java, and Hadoop, etc.

Just look at it! Agile at Scale is immature, ill-conceived and supercilious. It has ostensibly not learned from anything that came before it. Yes, there are references to history in some of the slide decks and posters, but that’s it. Nothing from the past that worked is actually included in this lame excuse for a universal method.

In my view there are three main areas of concern regarding Agile at Scale:

1. It’s not agile.
2. It’s like kryptonite to effective communication.
3. Criticism of the cult is worse than heresy.

It’s not agile

I would be quite wealthy. I would have a euro for every mug who has told me that they are doing Agile. Many people claim they are doing Agile. If I had a euro for each of them, I would be quite wealthy. I might have even been able to buy a villa in Cannes. This would be possible on the proceeds. In reality, they are referring to fire-fighting bodges. They ignore reality. They also make it up as they go along.

Take a look at any Agile at Scale method and start asking questions about it.

1. How do you manage requirements in the process?
2. How do you manage change in the process?
3. How do you manage quality in the process?
4. How do you manage data in the process?
5. How do you attain and maintain an overview of the process in each real case?
6. How do you manage the process?
7. How do you ensure coherence of the process model?
8. How do you ensure usability of the process model?
9. How do you ensure auditability of the process model?
10. How do you model the non-linear triggering of events in the process model?

Asking these types of questions will inevitably highlight significant gaps, contradictions and inherent failings of the approach. It will demonstrate that the process is in far too many aspects structurally unsound, procedurally incomplete and business incompatible.

It’s like kryptonite to effective communication

I am convinced, that in communication, as with many other things, that simplicity is power. Maybe this is due to the fact that one of my academic loves is philosophy.

Much has been written and discussed about the importance of terms. More importantly, the intentional and accidental abuse of terms has also been examined. Chomsky, Adorno, and others have contributed to this discussion.

I have had a lot of exposure to this. Working in IT for a long time, I have seen that the term abuse has always been there. But in the last decade the bullshit jargon bingo has gone supernova pro, big time.

I have heard people use various terms. These include vision, strategy, and learning journey. They also mention by design, operating model, and data dictionary. In addition, support points, roadmaps, GDPR and data privacy, and lean-agile mind-set are used, amongst others.

Sometimes, out of idle curiosity, I have asked things like “so, for you, what is data by design?” These questions arise when these terms have come up in conversation. I have also asked, “from your perspective, what is this learning journey lark all about?” and in return have received that sort of look some dogs give you when you talk to them. When it comes to humans, you might think, “this person doesn’t have a clue.” You might feel they don’t know what they’re talking about. You know, that moment when you realise that the name of the game is bullshit; no understanding required?

Take “data by design” for example. It’s a classic bullshit term. A term used to pretend that something is new when it isn’t. A term used to build credibility for a new fad. In fact, it’s just a new label for something borrowed from an old fad. What did we do before data-by-design? Data-by-accident? Data-by-implication? Data-less-apps?

Total bullshit. All of it.

Worst of all, this term abuse hurts effective communication. No one knows what they are talking about.

Everyone pretends they know what they are talking about.

The proof that bullshit pervades every aspect of communication within Agile at Scale is clear. It is evident in the inability to actually deliver what might be required. The requirements are so mixed up with the bullshit of deceit that they are barely discernible. They are frequently unrecognisable and therefore don’t get implemented.

Criticism of the cult is worse than heresy

This is an aspect that I have touched on elsewhere in other blog posts.

If Agile was a cult, then Agile at Scale is like pieces of Scientology and the Vatican. It also includes parts of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Church of England. All of these are rolled into one handy but extremely complex take-away.

As an aside, there is a great take-down of Agile here. It is titled 10 ways Agile feels like a fucking cult. Therefore, I won’t simply repeat Agile Anon’s points.

What I simply want to do here is emphasise a number of proselytising behaviours and quirks found with some examples of Agile at Scale that I have seen up-close and intimate:

1. Delusions of grandeur
2. The worship of half-baked ideas
3. The sycophantic adoration of the Führer and the Führerprinzip
4. The bullying tyranny of the Agile at Scale mob
5. Fixation with liturgy and fetish
6. Belief that data is oil
7. Commitment to the data driven enterprise

One might suggest that if Agile at Scale were seen as political, it could resemble a party with controversial ideologies.

That’s all, folks

Again I’ll reference Bob Hoffman’s words. These Agile at Scale folk are so monumentally full of shit. Their nonsense makes bozos like me seem sensible in comparison. You get the picture? Knowing is one thing, but thinking you know when you don’t now is self-deceit. Saying or implying that you know when you know you don’t know is borderline deceit and fraud.

You know, there are two kinds of people: people who simplify things and people who complicate them. The Agile at Scale crowd love to complicate things, I’m of a very different view. For me, the simpler it is, the better it is. Many years ago I embraced the philosophy of Mies van der Rohe, “less is more.” I have used that to great success wherever I have gone. It hasn’t worked in places that indulge in Agile at Scale. People who really know, know how to simplify. People who don’t know how to simplify need to bullshit, otherwise they are exposed as wanting.

So, remember folks! When you say something that isn’t true and no one believes, you are wasting time, money, and patience. You are also undermining your credibility and the credibility of your colleagues. All the spurious PowerPoint “support points” won’t make your absurd claims believable. The “roadmaps” in the world won’t make them useful either.

Many thanks for reading.

All the best,

Martyn

Acknowledgements:

Many thanks to Bob Hoffman and Dave Trott for some great inspirational material.

“It is true that humans are not logic machines. But, remember, emotion is a response. Not a stimulus.”

Revisit – 2026

Seven years have passed since that fiery Brussels rant in May 2019. I channeled Bob Hoffman’s spirit to declare Agile at Scale the next level of IT bullshit. It was immature and ill-conceived. I found it supercilious and not truly agile. It became a communication killer and was cult-like in its intolerance of criticism. Now, it’s time for a clear-eyed look back. I argued it mangled history. It ignored proven practices. It complicated everything unnecessarily. It abused jargon to obscure meaning. It turned criticism into heresy. Was I just venting, or did the evidence vindicate the scepticism?

From 2026, the picture is mixed but leans heavily toward vindication on the core flaws. Agile at Scale, especially frameworks like SAFe, hasn’t collapsed the solar system in explosive bullshit. However, it has plateaued. It has fragmented and often underdelivered amid persistent bureaucracy, overcomplication, and cultural resistance. The hype has cooled; many organisations have moved on or hybridised. Let’s revisit the three main concerns I raised.

It’s Not Agile

I hammered that scaled methods failed basic questions on requirements, change, and quality. They also failed in data, overview, coherence, usability, auditability, and non-linear events. This revealed structural gaps, contradictions, and business incompatibility.

In 2026: This critique holds strong. Scaled Agile often reintroduces Waterfall-like governance under an “agile” banner, prioritising predictability and ceremonies over true adaptability. SAFe, the dominant player, faces ongoing criticism for bureaucracy that stifles innovation and slows decision-making. Case studies from the mid-2020s (e.g., Nokia’s decline linked to SAFe rigidity, US Bank’s “agile theatre” delivering no real value) echo my warnings. Broader data shows scaling remains tough. 25% of organisations cite challenges. Many report inconsistent processes. There is also resistance to change and insufficient leadership buy-in.

Recent studies add fuel. One 2024 analysis found Agile projects with 268% higher failure rates than no methodology at all. These failures are often tied to poor requirements engineering and lack of upfront specification. These are precisely the gaps I flagged. While pure small-team Agile boasts 75% success rates (vs. ~56% for traditional), scaling dilutes this: transformations fail at 47% or higher, often due to misimplementation or cultural mismatch. Hybrid models now dominate. They are anticipated to account for 74% by 2025 reports. Custom or homegrown approaches are overtaking rigid frameworks. This suggests the “universal method” I derided never truly scaled without heavy adaptation.

SAFe usage dipped sharply to 26% in one 2024–2025 snapshot. It rebounded somewhat to ~44% in hybrids. Organizations favor lighter alternatives like LeSS, Scrum@Scale, or bespoke setups. The State of Agile reports highlight the shift in Agile’s top goal. It moved from “accelerate delivery” to “deliver customer value.” This change underscores that pure speed-at-scale often sacrificed substance.

It’s Like Kryptonite to Effective Communication

I railed against jargon abuse. Terms like “data by design,” “learning journey,” and “lean-agile mindset” pretended novelty. They eroded shared understanding, leading to mixed-up requirements. This resulted in unrecognisable needs and undelivered value.2026 verdict: Spot-on and enduring. The “bullshit jargon bingo” supernova continues in scaled environments. Layers of roles, ceremonies, and artefacts (PI planning, ARTs, RTEs) add to the opacity. Terms get weaponised for credibility without depth, fostering pretence over clarity. In large orgs, this manifests as “agile theatre”, teams performing rituals while business value lags.

The cultish element persists. Proselytising behaviours like delusions of grandeur are prevalent. There is also a sycophantic adherence to framework “Führers.” Bullying of doubters remains common. Criticism still feels heretical in SAFe-heavy shops, where questioning the liturgy risks ostracism. Yet, the tide turns. AI integration becomes more significant. The focus in 2025–2026 reports pushes back toward simplicity. Organizations are ditching dogma for outcomes. “Less is more” (Mies van der Rohe style) wins where frameworks complicate.

Criticism of the Cult is Worse Than Heresy

I likened Agile at Scale to a mega-cult. It blends Scientology, Vatican pomp, and Nazi-like elements. It worships half-baked ideas, fixates on liturgy, and equates data to oil in a “data-driven” fetish.

Hindsight: The cult comparison was hyperbolic but captured real dynamics. SAFe’s certification industry ($100M+), mandatory training, and dogmatic implementations bred sycophancy and resistance to critique. High-profile failures (e.g., stalled transformations, backsliding after initial gains) fuelled memes and takedowns, labelling it “agile cancer” or “industrialised complexity.”

By 2026, the cult has lost steam. State of Agile surveys show diversification: fewer mandated frameworks, more hybrids emphasising principles over process. AI’s rise reframes agility around autonomous value delivery rather than rigid scaling. Many now see frameworks as starting points, not endpoints, avoiding the plateau I implied.

That’s All, Folks, Almost

My 2019 post was a blunt antidote to vainglorious hype. Agile at Scale didn’t explode the solar system, but it didn’t deliver the promised revolution either. It was complicated where simplicity reigned. It bureaucratised agility. It often failed to adapt. This led to fatigue, hybrids, and a return to value over velocity.

Winners simplify, question relentlessly, and prioritise evidence over evangelism. In 2026, with AI reshaping delivery, the lesson endures: less dogma, more outcomes. People who know simplify; those who don’t complicate, and bullshit to cover it.

Thanks for the read. Simplicity still wins.

Many thanks for reading.