Skip to content

Foundational doctrine

Alignment beats methodology.

Agile fixed cadence and left the seams between product, architecture and engineering un-owned. The constraint is the three-way alignment of intent, not the ceremony.

Conventional wisdom

Better process — Agile, SAFe, Scrum — improves delivery.

Our position

Cadence was never the constraint; the un-owned seams between product, architecture and engineering are.

Why we believe it

Most delivery failures happen at the seams between product, architecture and engineering — not inside the sprint.

What we’ve observed

  1. 01Requirements-clarity research ties failure to unclear intent rather than slow cadence; Conway’s law means structure overrides the diagram.

Challenge the thinking

If your cadence improved but the seams between product, architecture and engineering stayed un-owned, alignment may be your real constraint. Tell us where you land — or where you’d push back.

Is it method, or alignment? →