We started this series in 2013 with an article called “Waterfall isn’t the enemy.” Nearly a decade later, we’re glad to report that the argument has mostly run out of steam. Conference talks that once pitted agile against waterfall now spend their time on how to combine them. It’s time to retire the methodology wars for good, and to be clear about what should replace them.

Judge by outcomes, not loyalty

The wars were never about method. They were about identity. People who had built careers on one approach heard criticism of it as criticism of themselves, and consultants discovered that a strong allegiance sells. But a method is a tool. The test of a tool is whether it produces the result you need, in the time and at the cost you can afford.

So ask outcome questions. Did the product reach users? Did the regulatory milestone hold? Did the team learn fast enough to change course? Were the people doing the work able to sustain it? If an approach delivers these, it’s working, whatever it’s called. If it doesn’t, no label will save it.

Stop selling one true method

This one is aimed at us, and at other consultants. A firm that arrives with a single framework will find every problem fits it. We’ve seen the result: heavy rollouts to teams that needed light touch, and light touch to teams that needed more discipline. A good advisor starts with the client’s work, asks what’s fixed and what’s uncertain, and recommends accordingly. That sometimes means saying that a framework you’ve invested in isn’t the right answer here.

Picture a company that has just spent a year standardizing on one scaled framework. A new project arrives with a hard contractual date and a well-understood scope. Forcing it through the framework adds ceremony and no value. A sensible leader notices, and has the permission to adapt.

Build judgment in teams

Tailoring depends on people who can weigh trade-offs. That means teaching teams why practices exist, not just how to perform them. A retrospective, a stage gate, and a risk register each solve a specific problem. Someone who understands the problem can decide when the practice is worth its cost. Invest in coaching, in postmortems that ask what we’d do differently, and in letting experienced practitioners explain their choices to newer colleagues.

None of this means anything goes. Pragmatism needs standards: clear outcomes, honest measurement, and the willingness to change course. Try this at your next planning session. When someone proposes a method, ask what result it should produce and how you’ll know. If your team keeps arguing labels instead, that’s a signal that the conversation needs to change. We’re always glad to help.