Hybrid Methods: What Does “Agile + X” Really Mean for Delivery and Operations?

Executive Summary

Agile remains essential, but on its own it is not enough. As enterprises scale, integrate infrastructure with software and face regulatory demands, they inevitably evolve toward hybrids – Agile combined with DevOps, portfolio management, governance, or even traditional practices from Waterfall. Hybrids can make organizations more resilient, but they carry risks of confusion, diluted accountability and “Frankenstein” frameworks that collapse under complexity. Leaders must focus on clarity, preserve ownership and provide consistent sponsorship to ensure hybrids bridge strategy and execution rather than adding more layers of bureaucracy. 

Why Pure Agile Has Its Limits 

When the Agile Manifesto was written in 2001, it offered a breakthrough for teams building software in uncertain conditions. Two decades later, executives still expect Agile to transform entire organizations at scale. But discover that Agile alone cannot carry the full weight of operations in current organizational, technical setups. 

“Barely anything pure exists,” information technology transformation leader Šarūnas Dargelis notes. “Whether it’s Agile, Waterfall, or Lean Six Sigma practices – none of them match organizations identically even if one worked perfectly previously. Agile is one ingredient, but not enough to make a “delicious soup”. You need to add other ingredients as needed – most likely DevOps for technical excellence and ITIL for operational, governance practices for large programs and portfolios, and other specific practices e.g.  risk management that already exists in traditional delivery  – to make it sustainable and fit for purpose in your organization.” 

In his view, Agile remains powerful within its intended scope. “Agile is a great umbrella of frameworks and practices for building,” he says, “but not necessarily for running it. That’s where technical excellence from DevOps comes in – continuous integration, continuous deployments (CI/CD), test-driven development (TDD), ownership of what you build.” 

For executives, the lesson is clear: Agile is necessary but not sufficient. It provides the engine for delivery, but it does not provide the all-in-on solution for sustainable operations. 

Why Hybrids Emerged 

Hybrid methods are not an accident or a management fad. They are the product of organizational evolution. 

“Even before Agile manifesto was written in 2001 people were already building on infrastructure utilizing Lean which we can call grandfather of Agile e.g. Toyota manufacturing taking lead in the market at that time” Dargelis reflects. “If you’re building software, you have to think about infrastructure too. And once systems are at scale with cyber-physical elements: hardware+software, human aspects, multiple vendors – no single framework could cover it. That’s where hybrid becomes a need. There’s no one book that describes your unique situation.” 

In other words, complexity forced the hand. Hybrids are not evidence that Agile failed – they are evidence that organizations have outgrown any single methodology. 

When Hybrids Work – and When They Fail 

The difference between success and failure, in Šarūnas Dargelis’ experience, is clarity. Hybrids succeed when leaders in the organization and teams make deliberate, transparent choices about where and how each method applies. They fail when methods are stitched together without discipline or knowledge backed up with experience. 

He recalls a Canadian aerospace client: “They were building plane engines. For them, we couldn’t just say ‘fail fast, fail cheap’ like in software. If a plane engine fails, people die. They needed waterfall discipline for certain streams with extensive practice of risk management and so on. But they also wanted Agile speed for software components and new engine programs. If we had forced one side to ‘be Agile’ or the other to ‘be Waterfall,’ it would have collapsed. The only way was clarity – defining where each approach applied, keeping both up to date and making sure teams understood the why.” 

Without that clarity, hybrids confuse not only teams but clients too. “One should not much care if you use Scrum, SAFe, or PMI Waterfall practices,” Dargelis warns. “but intensive care starts when it is not working e.g. failing to deliver on promise, stability issues, overruns on budgets and other challenges.” 

That’s when hybrids collapse into what he calls “Frankenstein frameworks” – a patchwork of rituals and tools that look sophisticated on paper but fail in practice. 

The Hidden Risks of Blending 

Executives must recognize that hybrids carry predictable risks: 

• Diluted focus as teams juggle conflicting practices. 

• Blurred accountability when roles are not clear. 

• Decision bottlenecks when leaders dictate frameworks instead of empowering ownership of teams. 

• Tool overload that creates unnecessary friction. 

  
  

Technology transformation leader Šarūnas illustrates the last point: “If I’m building a system and suddenly I have to switch from Jira to Microsoft Project or vice versa because someone wants a different flavor, that creates unnecessary friction. It confuses engineers and it confuses clients. Focus on people first so they can focus on Project and/or Product being worked on.” 

For executives, this means hybrids should simplify work, not complicate it. Supporting people must take precedence over layering on methods or tools. 

Back to Basics 

Paradoxically, some organizations may declare that Agile or other practice “does not work” and rush into hybrids not because Agile or that practice failed, but because they never practiced it properly in the first place. 

“People think they’ve tried Agile, but often they didn’t even run the basics,” Dargelis observes. “No reviews, no retros, no standups or half-baked events without the solid content e.g. review event without showing working software, infrastructure or service you are currently working on. Then they say Agile doesn’t work and look for something else – maybe a hybrid, maybe AI. Nine out of ten times, it’s not Agile or other practice that failed. It’s the solid try from the basics and practice for the right situation - else we have a hammer for every problem looking like a nail.” 

This distinction matters especially at scale. If foundational Agile practices are missing, introducing a hybrid will only multiply dysfunction. For example, an enterprise that skips retrospectives will find it nearly impossible to identify which parts of a hybrid are working and which need adjustment. Similarly, a lack of consistent review and demos makes it harder for team and stakeholders, executives stay on track with most important handing it to clients for validated learning, feedback and actual value delivery. 

The implication for leaders in the organization and teams is clear: before adding layers of frameworks or governance, they must ensure that the basics of Agile are institutionalized. Hybrids are not a shortcut around weak discipline. They are only effective when built on strong foundations. 

Moving at Scale and the Thin Ice of Hybrids 

Scale is the point at which pure frameworks give way to possible hybrids. Small organizations can operate with Agile or Waterfall alone. Beyond about 150 people, however, complexity may makes hybrids inevitable. 

“Very few initiatives are pure Agile or pure Waterfall,” Dargelis explains. “Hybrid is the thin ice we walk on. Balance is everything. As an example what successfully worked in German insurance company won’t necessarily work in Swedish telecom transformation like to like, because the industry, complexity is different. You can’t just copy-paste frameworks. You have to adopt and then adapt them underpinning organization - people & culture.” 

He describes another Canadian client that moved gradually and successfully at scale: “They started with Scrum teams. Then Scrum of Scrums. Then a portfolio level. It was beautiful because it was natural & organic – not imposed by any book. It took two years, but it fit them.” 

Most enterprises, however, do not take that time. They import SAFe, Spotify, or PMI wholesale and hope for results. “Frameworks and especially hybrids are thin ice,” Dargelis warns. “You must know the foundations before stepping on them and starting to mix it.” 

Preserving Accountability 

One the most dangerous risks of hybrids is the erosion of accountability. 

“Ideally, the same team builds and owns,” Dargelis stresses. “Where that’s not possible, seamless integration is critical – not throwing what you have built over the wall. I’ve seen organizations hire one vendor to build and another to run, without them even talking. That’s where things break.” 

Mechanisms such as continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD), test automation, integrated release teams and product owner empowered releases can help preserve accountability. But for Šarūnas, one principle is key: “You build it, you own it.” 

The Leadership Imperative 

In his experience, leadership alignment is the deciding factor in hybrid success. 

“I’ve seen transformations stall because the CIO supported it, but the rest of the C-suite didn’t. You can only go so far before hitting walls in contracting, sales, or operations. On the other hand, when the COO or CEO is aligned, it becomes unstoppable – as long as teams also buy in from the bottom up. It has to meet in the middle.” 

This makes hybrids less about frameworks and more about people and how it can be organized around them. It usually becomes organizational transformation that require consistent sponsorship & support across the C-suite, tackling the impediments for long run organization success. 

The Trade-Offs Leaders Must Manage 

Hybrids inevitably involve trade-offs. Startups that adopt too many or heavy frameworks at an early stage may lose agility - ability to maneuver like “speed boats”. Large organizations in contrary lacking unifying framework to connect different parts risk to loose alignment and create chaos across teams and/or team of teams - known as tribes, release trains in different frameworks at scale. Too heavy central governance as well may stagnate organization chances of innovation turning in to heavy “tanker ship” as opposed to autonomously aligned speed boats to common goal. 

The signals of success and failure are visible. “If clients see impact & value to their business, if teams understand strategy to their day to day deliveries, if product is stable – the hybrid is working,” Dargelis notes. “If escalations rise, if people complain of tool, process overload, if leadership support fades – the hybrid is failing.” 

AI as an Accelerator 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is often presented as a solution to complexity. For Dargelis, it plays a team-role. 

“AI is a catalyst – for starters it may be like an energy drink,” he says. “It helps a lot when you you are at fresh start to new challenge. It points you in the likely right direction, validates assumptions, gives perspectives to loads of data. But you need to take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes it beautifies things and points to wrong turns hence it’s your great side buddy, not your “silver-bullet” savior.” 

At scale, this distinction becomes critical. AI can surface insights across thousands of projects, highlight risks hidden in delivery data, or suggest optimizations. But if executives treat AI outputs as gospel, they risk making strategic bets on “beautified” information that may not reflect operational reality. 

The lesson for leaders: AI can accelerate decision-making in hybrid environments, but it cannot replace leadership and team judgment. It is best deployed as a sense-checker, a way to reduce cognitive load and validate direction – not as the sole architect of the hybrid itself. 

Conclusion: Evolution of the Hybrid 

Hybrid delivery is not optional. It is the organizational reality of modern enterprises. Done well, hybrids bridge strategy and execution. Done poorly, they fracture both. 

“Hybrid is inevitable, like the need to continuously reinvent it meeting today's challenges” Šarūnas Dargelis concludes. “The question is whether you have an understanding of all parts and which ones to keep, update or remove.” 

---

Executive Imperatives: Three Questions for Leaders 

Before hybridizing, executives should ask: 

1. Have we mastered the basics? 

   Are Agile events and feedback loops consistent and realizing business value, else hybrid will only magnify dysfunction. 

   
   

2. Are we designing deliberately or creating a “Frankenstein”? 

   Leaders in the organization and teams must define where each practice applies and why, rather than stitching frameworks together reactively. Ensure taking organization size, complexity, people & culture into consideration to keep it Lean. 

   
   

3. Is ownership preserved? 

   Hybrids must reinforce the principle of “you build it, you own it.” Fragmented accountability will undermine any framework end result to help produce expected business value outcome whether it is a project or product your organization is working on. 

   
   

---

About Šarūnas Dargelis 

An information technology leader with more than two decades of experience driving large-scale organizational transformations and delivering complex projects and products. 

He is recognized for building high-performing teams and navigating diverse delivery models – Traditional (ITIL, PMI, Prince2), Agile (Scrum, Kanban, Spotify, SAFe, LeSS) and Hybrid. His expertise extends to embedding AI in business processes to streamline service delivery and simplify operations. 

Šarūnas holds an MSc in Business Informatics and brings deep experience across industries including financial services, insurance, manufacturing, telecommunications, transportation, healthcare and life sciences, aerospace, and defense. 

He is certified as CSP-SM/PO, PMP, ITIL, CSPO, CSM, MSP, SAFe SPC, RTE, LPM and LeSS.