This month is the 25th anniversary of the Agile Manifesto, my LinkedIn feed is full of birthday posts from the people who built the certification industry around it. The pattern is remarkable: everyone acknowledges what went wrong, nobody stops doing it.
So here's the version nobody asked for. From someone who spent 25 years building banking systems while Agile happened around me.
The manifesto was never the problem
Four values. 68 words. Written at a ski lodge in Utah by people who actually built software.
- Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.
- Working software over comprehensive documentation.
- Customer collaboration over contract negotiation.
- Responding to change over following a plan.
That was it. And for about 18 months, it gave teams permission to do what they already knew was right: stop pretending that documentation was more important than shipping.
Then the industry arrived.
How 68 words became a billion-dollar machine
If "interactions" mattered, you needed someone to facilitate them. Enter the Scrum Master — a role that didn't exist before, created by a framework that was supposed to reduce overhead.
If teams needed to "respond to change," they needed a process for responding. Enter sprint planning, backlog refinement, sprint review, retrospective, daily standup. Five ceremonies minimum, every two weeks, forever.
If collaboration mattered, you needed artifacts. Enter backlog, burndown charts, velocity metrics, story points, Definition of Done.
Each addition made sense alone. Together they built exactly what the manifesto warned against: a process-heavy system that valued tools and documentation over people and working software.
The manifesto said "individuals and interactions over processes and tools."
The industry heard "here's a new process with new tools."
The numbers
- Scrum Alliance: 1.4 million certified Scrum Masters at ~$1,000 each = $1.4 billion in cert revenue alone
- SAFe documentation: 800+ pages
- Original manifesto: 68 words
- PMI stat shared this week: 85% of executives say agility is critical, only 32% are satisfied with implementation
That's a 53-point gap between "we need this" and "this works." PMI's proposed solution? Another manifesto. The Manifesto for Enterprise Agility, launching March 3rd. Built from 700 CEO voices.
More words to solve a problem created by too many words.
The apology loop
Here's what I found remarkable today. The people who built this industry are publicly apologizing for what it became:
- "We turned agile into a certification ladder"
- "Ceremony without intent"
- "Packaged mediocrity"
These aren't quotes from critics. These are from people with CSM, SAFe SPC, PMP, and RTE in their titles. They see the problem. They name it. And tomorrow they'll run another sprint planning workshop and sell another certification.
The apology is genuine. The business model isn't apologizing.
It's a retrospective with no action items. Which is exactly the dysfunction they're describing.
What the manifesto actually killed
The manifesto didn't fail because the ideas were wrong. It failed because it succeeded.
It succeeded so completely that it created a market. And markets don't optimize for the original intent. They optimize for revenue.
Today most teams practicing "Agile" have never read the manifesto. They know Scrum. They know Jira. They know story points and velocity. They don't know the 68 words that started it all. And if they read them, they'd notice the manifesto describes the opposite of what they do every day.
What actually works
25 years. Banking systems. The best teams I've worked with shared these traits:
Technical leadership that understood the work. Not facilitators. Not coaches. People who could evaluate an architecture decision, debug production, and tell stakeholders why a shortcut would cost more than it saved.
Clear ownership. One person who could say "we're doing this" without scheduling a meeting to discuss it.
Short feedback loops. Not because a framework required them. Because the team wanted to know if what they built worked.
Minimal overhead. Meetings that served a purpose. When a meeting stopped being useful, it died. No ceremony survived on tradition.
None of this required a certification or a framework or a manifesto.
The uncomfortable truth
The ideas were always good. Simple, honest, human.
But the industry spent 25 years proving that you can take any good idea, package it, certify it, scale it, and sell it until the original intent is unrecognizable.
Happy birthday, Agile. The manifesto was 68 words. The industry turned it into 800 pages, 1.4 million certifications, and a 53-point gap between intent and reality.
The words were never the problem. We were.
If you're wondering how much of your team's process is real agility vs. framework theater, I built a diagnostic that measures exactly that: Risk Management Theater Self-Check
What's your experience? Have you seen Agile work as intended, or did the framework get in the way? Drop your stories below.
Top comments (0)