Perhaps the most important facet of agile software development is its innate ability to satisfy user requirements better, more accurately, more consistently, than what is considered ‘traditional’ software development. Where ‘traditional’ software development begs the user for all necessary information upfront and then reluctantly for feedback at the end of a project, agile development never lets the user out of sight.
This one differentiation separates traditional and nontraditional, slow and fast, waterfall and agile, 50% requirements satisfied and 100% requirements satisfied. The iterative nature of agile development forces engineers to go back to the user regularly, but more importantly, forces them to think of the user continuously. This interaction, and its psychological properties, is at the discretion of the platform employed.
While there are thousands of sales people that will graciously explain why one platform is more worthy than another, I will for once stay software agnostic and comment solely on the significance of the decision. As with any methodology, one platform may lend itself more appropriately to agile development (and the notion of continuous user involvement).
The stand ups, stories, and acceptance tests keep engineers in cadence with each other and the end user they aim to satisfy. Those very same end users that willingly provide their continuous feedback and involvement are under the direction of the decision maker responsible for your project. Your feedback loop with your end user is therefore their feedback loop with their supervisor.
So as the gears of your agile team continue to turn, they propel the internal gears of your client’s team, creating a centralized dependency on the accuracy, clarity, and knowledge of your end user. This person has a very good reason to be involved in your project, as you have a very good reason to keep them involved. The end result: software that satisfies the requirements of its users.
In office dialect: technology that satisfies the needs of the business.
By no means am I original in saying that the software development world has accepted agile development as a recognized response to decades of wasted time, sunken investments and fruitless skills. History (as unpredictable as it can be) tells us that steady adoption of new, speedier methodologies in young, innovative companies precedes its penetration into organizations of more portly proportions. In effect, the companies who adopt agile last are those who need it most.