Dave's lays out his core criticism thusly:
The gist of the article appears to be that we can effect organizational improvement in a large company by driving change from the level of individual software development teams.
He spends the rest of his article elaborating on this point, and particularly making the point that most software is built in IT (rather than product) organizations, where software teams have little ability to drive change.
It's a well-made argument, and I agree with it. Organizational change does require top-down support, and software teams in IT do have little ability to drive bottom-up change.
Just one problem: I don't see why Dave presents this as a criticism. Our article isn't about using software teams to drive organizational change.
Our essay describes how teams progress through stages of Agile fluency. It's based on what we've seen in 13 years of applying Agile and observing others' Agile efforts. We've developed the fluency model over the last year and a half. Along the way, we've reviewed it with dozens of people in all sorts of roles--team members, managers, executives, and consultants. The feedback has been clear: the model reflects their experiences. I doubt it's perfect, but the fluency model reflects reality to the best of our ability.
This model isn't about how organizations grow. It's about how teams grow. (There's probably room for an article about organizational Agile fluency, but that's for another time.) And this is what we see:
1. Teams learning Agile first get good at focusing on the business perspective. User stories and the like. (That's not to say that every team using user stories is successfully focusing on the business perspective!) This requires some cultural changes at the team level.
2. If the team has been working on improving their development skills, they get good at this next. It takes longer than the first stage because there's a lot to learn. I'm talking TDD, refactoring, and so forth. Some teams don't bother.
3. Typically, by this point, the team has been feeling the pain of poor business involvement for a while. Sometimes, in organizations that support it, the team gets good at the business side of things next. It takes longer than the previous stage because "getting good at it" means involving people outside the team. Most organizations are set up with "business" and "software" in different parts of the org chart, and this "third star" of fluency typically (but not always) requires them to be merged into cross-functional teams.
We don't say how to make this happen, just that it's a prerequisite for three-star fluency, and that these sorts of changes to organizational structure are difficult and require spending organizational capital. It can be top-down or bottom-up. (Really, it has to be both.) We also say that it may not be worth making this investment. Two-star fluency could be enough.
4. Finally, in a few companies, the team's focus extends beyond its product/projects to helping to optimize the overall system. This requires an organizational culture that likes its teams to advise on whole-company issues. Again, we don't say how to achieve this, just that it's a prerequisite for four-star fluency, and that we've only seen it happen in small companies, and typically companies that have this as an organizational value from the beginning. We again emphasize that more stars aren't necessarily worth the investment.
So, to recap: Dave argues that the individual software teams in IT cannot drive bottom-up organizational change. I agree. Organizational change must occur if you want to achieve three- or four-star fluency, but our article doesn't describe how to do so. It just says it's necessary.