From Agile fatigue to experimentation: finding a better path for software development
There is no doubt that each of these methods has contributed to improving organizational performance across many sectors. However, when organizations apply tools without a clear understanding of the problem they need to solve, or use them merely on principle, in a rigid way, their effectiveness can be quickly lost.
Dogmatic adherence to a process, rather than careful adaptation, can turn what was once a powerful solution into an empty ritual. The secret to lasting success lies not in the blind use of a tool, but in critically assessing its fit with the organization's unique context and, from there, shaping it to solve real challenges.
For this publication, we explored the current state of Agile — the main management method in software development — in conversations with experienced and respected leaders and practitioners in the technology sector. In short, they are increasingly concerned about the way Agile is being practiced today. Empty rituals, obscure and meaningless jargon, combined with questionable applications promoted by consultants overly committed to the approach, have turned agile practices into a lifeless shadow of what they once set out to be. As a consequence, many practitioners in the community feel frustrated and disillusioned, and have begun a journey of experimentation and discovery in a genuine attempt to find a better way. And that is a good thing. In fact, it is a very good thing.
But the problem is not Agile itself. It is worth remembering that Agile (and Extreme Programming) emerged as a brilliant countermeasure to the waterfall process — ineffective and exhausting — that preceded it. The real problem lies in the way Agile has been implemented thoughtlessly and, often, overly dogmatically. Some organizations treat it as an automatic update to be installed, others as a kind of cult that demands an oath of eternal loyalty. Frankly, the same can be said of methodologies such as Lean, TQM, design thinking and so many other powerful technologies and approaches. When these practices are championed by people who are overly attached to a single toolset, who often have no experience in design, development or manufacturing and who have never led teams in these contexts, there is a real risk that the method becomes both the means and the end in itself. Worse still, overly dogmatic approaches can, in practice: reinforce organizational silos, widen the differences between areas and inhibit the cross-functional collaboration and communication that are essential to developing excellent products.
For me, all of this reminds me of a Bruce Lee quote (possibly inspired by Buddhism) in the movie Enter the Dragon. Lee tells his student, while giving him a light slap on the head: "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory." Even the best masters and teachings are only fingers pointing the way. It is up to the practitioner to walk their own path.
A little less dogma and a little more reflection may be exactly what keeps you from taking a beating.
Sorry to keep using martial arts as an analogy. But much of what I read these days from fervent advocates of different methodologies reminds me of the pointless arguments I used to hear as a kid when I boxed — debates about which fighting style was best in hand-to-hand combat. One said karate, another said boxing, yet another championed wrestling or Muay Thai. Since practitioners of one art almost never faced those of another, the arguments were as endless as they were useless. Then came the UFC and the Gracie family, who practiced Vale-Tudo in Brazil — a form of no-holds-barred fighting that truly put each fighter's skills to the test. When they faced opponents limited by dogmatic beliefs about their own style, there was no real contest. Royce Gracie regularly defeated bigger and stronger opponents, because what mattered was not the style, nor the degree of the black belt. What mattered was actual performance in a highly competitive environment.
Fortunately, over time, fighters realized they needed to be prepared to fight in every kind of situation — standing, exchanging strikes; in takedowns or on the ground, grappling. They developed a skill set and a flexible system, adapted to the context of the fight and also to each fighter's physical and mental characteristics. A slower fighter weighing more than 110 kilos will need a completely different strategy from that of a super-fast lightweight. The best fighters did not just copy the Gracies — they learned from them. And then they adapted what they learned, combined it with techniques from other styles and created their own path.
And in industry
The first time I came across something like this was when I was working as an engineering director at Ford. I had just returned from three years of research on Toyota's product development system, on top of several years as a senior leader at a tier-one supplier. I was full of ideas about how to improve Ford's performance. That was when I first heard: "This Toyota stuff won't work here." At first, I thought it was just another variation of the classic "that's not how we do things here" or a typical ‘not invented here’ attitude. But after a lot of self-reflection and a few failed experiments, I realized it would be necessary to adapt those powerful ideas to that specific reality. That has been my approach ever since. I understood that this work is not a simple copy and paste. Much less an automatic installation as if it were software. Adapting these concepts and implementing them in a truly effective way, in that organization, at that moment, was the real work — and, interestingly, also the real learning.
As COO of Rivian, I experienced something similar — albeit in a somewhat more subtle way. We were fortunate to attract brilliant professionals from many organizations, such as Apple, Tesla, Ford, Toyota and McLaren, to name just a few. And, since we had very limited operational infrastructure, there was no clear or standardized way of doing practically anything. Naturally, people began to fall back on what they had done at their previous companies. This created chaos. It would have been faster and more convenient to simply pick an existing model. After all, these were all successful companies. But, based on my previous experience, I knew we had to resist that temptation. Even if it took longer, we needed to go back to first principles. We needed to use our previous experiences as a reference, yes — but to create the “Rivian way” of doing things. And that started with critical thinking about who we were and who we wanted to be.
Critical thinking, experimentation and learning
An effective improvement plan starts with a “study period” to deeply understand the current situation. What is the gap between where you are and where you want to go? You need to make a careful assessment, contrasting your reality with the vision of what is possible to achieve. This leads to a preliminary diagnosis, which should come before the prescription. Based on this knowledge, draw up your initial plan. Then — yes, absolutely — look for external references: read, study other organizations and methods, seek out teachers and experts who can help. Work to fill your knowledge gaps. This knowledge and guidance will be essential for you and your team on this journey.
Like MMA fighters, don't copy — learn. Learn from experiences outside your organization, but, above all, learn from the experiments inside your own organization. What works for your team? What generates real new value for your customers? What creates the best possible environment for people? In other words: what is the tailor-made strategy for your organization, given the challenges you face? What will lead you and your team to the best possible solutions?
One last thing: it may seem obvious, but I feel obliged to point out that this is not a one-off. It is a continuous process. You need to constantly evolve and improve to stay competitive. As a wise person once told me: "The thing about this continuous improvement business is that... it never seems to end." And indeed, it doesn't.
(...)
I think I will close this text with one more Bruce Lee quote, which applies as much to what I teach as to any other field. It is a phrase I often use at the end of my talks: "Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own." That is precisely the challenge: discovering your own path, learning from others, experimenting with proven principles and practices, but, at the end of the day, creating something that is truly your own. Embark on a journey of honest inquiry, experimentation and learning.
Do it your way. And good luck!
