As the real gurus of Agile point-out,

most of the nuveau methods/processes were ideological,

but agile had engineering-requirements, too ( test-1st develoopment, e.g. )

Which makes it much superior to all the ideology-but-no-engineering-hardening methods.

As they also pointed-out, you NEED disciplined individuals & teams to make it work.

IF you don’t have effective & driven-by-quality/integrity-of-work teams, agile isn’t the right method for you.

I’d go further:

I’d say that both waterfall & agile ( Wysocki’s book on project-management identifies that Traditional is the poorest match for reality, Agile’s best, & Extreme is research whereas Emertxe is where you’ve got a solution, but don’t know what it’s for, yet ( like Post-it notes glue, before sticky-notes were invented ) )

both waterfall & agile are mis-apprehensions of what’s required.

Until you understand the required architecture, you can’t make the right architecture-choices, right?

So, why not make a prototype agilely, until one has a proper domain-model, an executable toy-prototype which demonstrates all the key functions, & then when you’ve got the working, executable model, then you understand the architecture required, and only then do you switch from agile-prototyping to building-out the real, hardened thing…

Just seems sane, to me, but I’m just some idiot with a bit of thinking, not a working … anything, really.