> In that: if it fails, it is only considered evidence that you were not doing it enough.

> The solution can never be at fault, it's your execution, or your devotion to the process (in this case) that was faulty.

This isn't some religious premise, it's the lesson of bitter experience. It's like how when two trains crash into each other the inspectors start by looking for which one went through a danger signal, rather than questioning whether signalling systems work.

▲

UnreachableCode 2 days ago | parent [-]

Isn't this type of reasoning okay to an extent until you (or in more humbling cases, someone else) points out it's no longer working?

	▲	lmm 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sure. Occasionally there really is a problem in your signalling system. Even more rarely there's a fundamental design flaw. If and when I see actually-doing-agile fail, I'll change my mind. But so far I've seen a direct correlation between the extent to which an organisation was actually-doing-agile and the effectiveness of that organisation, across a wide range of industries/environments/countries.