I shared this on all networks as it was a good read, but just now thought I should perhaps comment here and say just that: good read! Thanks! :)

I think it can turn really dangerous still, when agencies “do agile” in what in all reality actually is based on Waterfall, thus creating a “scrummyfall” or “watile”, which to the project team mainly can be likened with waterboarding, where they end up with the drawbacks of two opposite methodologies and the benefits if neither.

As so correctly pointed out, if there isn’t a client-side product owner it is still very likely to be a rough ride that still can turn into a blame-throwing game. In those cases I usually steer clear of Agile to such a degree I prefer people not saying “scrum” or “agile” in relation to the project, as it will go wrong and the blame will end on their perception of a wrongly executed (and thereby innocent) methodology.

However, properly done agile, with a clued up client and a productive high-performing team is nirvana-ish.

I can also just say that this is a great post. I can reflect on the point that a lot of people talk about “doing agile” but have no clue on what this really means in regards to the project and involvement and risk for the client.
As I do work in an agency for a couple of years and as much as we would love to do more agile work, we are still bound to the waterfall process.
There is still a long way to go until we can work like the agile process and people around us actually understand it. Especially clients, new business folks and the management team. It is a great chance, but obviously also includes a number of risks which should not be forgotten.

Really good article, great work Charlie.