I don’t believe in sprints

Right, this is exactly what GP is talking about. When you prioritize "doing predictable sprints" and a stable point velocity over releasing features to production, you reduce your team's throughput and productivity. When you prioritize shipping features to production over "predictable sprints", then things can be successful. You're proving GPs point, not contradicting it.

Disagree. In one of the companies I worked for. Management decided to adopt safe agile. We had a dedicated agile coach for the whole department. Each team went to learn the safe agile principles and framework. The main focus was how do three teams get more aligned when building a solution: edge software, cloud software, application layer. I can say after 3 months of sprints. The productivity improved, people were happier and now we know which feature is used by whom. The requirements were forced to become clear so it be translated into designs and then dev work with the definition of done. When properly applied with the right intentions it is transformative.

You're supposed to be integrating everything and evaluating the big picture every sprint. You run into the mindless sub tasks if you don't look at the big picture, sprints or not.

Plan enough is sometimes 3 months of work. "Here's all the stuff we need to do to create a MVP." After 3 months, its not done and you are trying to do the last 90% on a task you thought was already 90% done. The hard things were put off till the end and now the optimistic "it should be done in 3 months" is getting up to directors that you don't have anything that runs at all.

The sprint forces a "this is what we're doing in these 2 weeks" with a deliverable at the end. If, at the end of the first sprint, you only got half the things done because of challenges, ok that's what it is. Next sprint you pick up only half as much work and you get that done.

Now, the PM can look at all the work that needs to be done and the rate of work that needs to be done and the amount of work and realizes that instead of the initial "yea, we can do this MVP in 3 months" that you're closer to having it out in 8 months if everything remains the same rate.

That is something actionable for project management to say "nope, can't have the MVP in 3 months with this scope" after only 4 weeks and the project can get canceled earlier.

Sprints try to make management realize overly optimistic estimates and timelines and either have things get adjusted (staff, scope, or time) or have it canceled sooner. Having a sprint based project canceled after 4 weeks rather than embarrassed and dragging out at 12 weeks is good for the organization to not spend resources on things that won't get done in the required timeframe.

The goal of the short framed boundaries is to force this decision sooner.

I reject most of the agile rituals, including daily check-ins and weekly or two week sprints.

If I personally have to check with someone, each day, to get good work from them, then my preference is to fire that person and hire someone else who I can trust. If I need to check in with a person every day, then I'm micro-managing this person, and I have to wonder why they need to be micro-managed.

This is different from me being available, every day, to help them, when they need some specific help. If they are being blocked by something, they should feel free to reach out to me and ask for my help. But a daily standup assumes that they won't ask for my help when they need it, and therefore I need to force a moment of conversation each day. Again, it is easier to fire such people and hire someone else who I can trust. I'm working in the USA where it is easy to fire people. If I was working in Europe, where it can be difficult to fire someone, then I would instead seek to get people traded away from my team, and I'd see if there were others in the organization that I could get to move to my team.

With senior level software developers I find it is often enough to meet with them on Monday and ask "What will you accomplish this week?" and then chat with them as needed during the week, and then on Friday check in with them and ask "What did you accomplish this week?" If they didn't accomplish what they thought they would during the week, then we can talk about why. With junior level software developers, I usually have to check in with them more often, which is fine. Usually, with each person, I figure out what is the ideal level of support that is needed. Every human being is a unique individual with unique needs, which is why the daily standup is a bad idea. It's important to figure out who is working for you and tailor your support to the needs of that individual.

Direct, honest communication cuts down on the need for rituals and ceremonies such as a daily standup meeting, or grouping work in two week batches.

Often, when I speak to managers of tech teams, they say the main point of two week sprints is to offer transparency to the leadership above them about what progress can be made during those two week sprints. But again, direct, honest communication with the top leadership typically does a better job of explaining what to expect, as well as to explain why something is delayed, if something is delayed.

To the extent that two week sprints serve a mostly political goal, I'd rather address the politics directly. I expect people below to reach out directly when they have something to say, and I do the same to the folks above me.

None of this precludes tracking how much work is being done every week, or every two weeks. If the work is being tracked in a tool such as Jira, it is still possible to add up the number of points that are being done each week. Nothing that I say here suggests that I'm against gathering metrics and trying to improve those metrics. But many of the rituals that are currently advocated for Agile development processes waste time on meetings that could more easily be worked out informally in a series of quick one-on-one conversations -- a style that is actually agile, rather than burdensome and officially Agile.

In general, meetings that waste time should be reduced to a minimum. Conversations that have specific purposes should be encouraged. Large group meetings should be reduced, and one on one meetings should be favored. This style has worked well me over the last 20 years that I've been doing this. As to the details, and nuances, of getting the most from one on one conversations, I develop this theme in my book "One on one meetings are underrated, group meetings waste time."