IT Managers

I have been observing organizations' choice of agile software development methodologies for several years now. The iterative way of delivering value and the ability to respond to changes and business needs were quickly appreciated. Initially, Scrum was seen as a remedy for most problems related to waterfall methodologies. Over time, it has been shown that implementing the full spectrum of artifacts related to Scrum in an organization's life is not necessarily simple and justified. Agile transformation can take several years. Perhaps this is the reason for the high position of other Agile methodologies in the report. I suspect that in line with the principle "Scrum is for people, not people for Scrum," organizations are looking for a way of developing software that matches their current capabilities, goals, and way of collaboration between business and technical departments. They do not approach methodologies in an orthodox way.

There has been talk of a hybrid Scrumban approach or ScrumBut, which involved working in the Scrum methodology but excluding some of its elements. The specifics of some projects fundamentally exclude the possibility of working in agile methodologies. Having a predefined scope, time, and project cost, we were not left with much flexibility. 23% of respondents declare working in the Waterfall methodology. This still represents a significant percentage of projects being conducted. These are probably large, complex projects with multimillion-dollar budgets. Such projects, of course, do not impose a working methodology and a waterfall approach from the outset. Hence, probably a significant percentage of respondents work in the SAFE framework - 13.3%. SAFE is a framework developed with the implementation of Agile practices at the corporate scale in mind.

I find the distinction between Waterfall methodologies and PRINCE2 a bit puzzling.

Surprisingly, Kanban ranked low (1.9%), whose metrics and principles are the closest to me.