I could empathize more with Dave Thomas on this, and it seems Dave Farley whom I have been following closely for a couple years now, may benefit from emphasizing and exploring the concept of ‘Agility applying to itself’ further.
Deep enough thinking would reveal that both Waterfall and Agile (Agility) approaches are always present in any process — primarily because the definitions are subjective and contextual.
For simpler illustration, draw any process diagram (with whatever shapes and segments — circles, spirals, lines, ), and there’s always room for ‘straightness’ and ‘curvature,’ respectively, subjective Waterfall and subjective Agility.
The only meaningful question is to explore what (or who) should be in control.
The practitioner (the human beings? :) ) must be in control of the process. And that’s why ‘Agility’ is a much better option and it’s only because it applies to itself.
If one tries ‘Waterfall’ and dismisses it once and for all (either deciding not to opt for it without re-analyzing it in terms of most/all future contexts), then it’s far from Agile.
“Waterfall -> Agile -> Agile -> Agile…” — this is a higher-order waterfall process.
It’s a tricky situation, of course.
I agree and empathize with Dave T on ‘Agility applies to itself’ — Or in other words ‘Practicing Agility means having contextual acceptance and opportunity for its counterparts: Waterfall and other stuff’.
Agile became or could become the ‘dominant’ strategy only by incorporating/lending itself to/facilitating ‘all’ possibilities .
