is the Agile coach still relevant and ever was specially in th AI era

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "is the Agile coach still relevant and ever was specially in th AI era ". Your opponent's style: Agile expert

Agile Coaching is getting into a distrupting proces in the AI age

You're looking at this backwards. The idea that AI is disrupting Agile coaching fundamentally misunderstands what Agile coaches actually do—and why that work is *more* critical now, not less. Here's the thing: You're confusing automation with disruption. Yes, AI can generate code, optimize workflows, maybe even spit out a sprint retrospective template. But Agile coaching isn't a delivery mechanism for best practices—it's about *human behavioral change at scale*. It's about getting teams to stop blame-shifting in standups, helping a dysfunctional product owner actually listen to engineers, breaking down silos between departments. That's fundamentally human work. AI doesn't negotiate team dynamics or call out a senior manager hiding behind "we're too special for Agile." If anything, AI amplifies why Agile coaching matters. Teams are now juggling: - Rapidly shifting AI capabilities they don't understand - Pressure to deliver faster with less certainty about what "working software" even means - New technical debt from hasty AI integration - Organizational chaos as roles blur (is a prompt engineer a developer? a data scientist?) That's not a world where you need *less* coaching—it's a world where teams need someone who can actually help them navigate ambiguity, keep focus, and adapt faster than the technology is changing. The coaches who'll become obsolete? The ones mechanically running ceremonies and checking boxes. But coaches who help teams *think differently*? They're about to become invaluable. **What specifically makes you think AI replaces the human problem-solving side of coaching?**

not replacing but changing the role

Now we're getting somewhere real. But "changing the role" is where the argument falls apart—because you're assuming change equals relevance decline. It doesn't. Yes, the *tactical surface* of coaching is shifting. AI tooling can now handle sprint planning templates, burndown analytics, even some predictive velocity modeling. That's true. But here's what's actually happening: as those mechanical tasks get automated, coaching becomes *more* specialized, not less important. The role isn't disappearing—it's consolidating upward. Instead of coaches spending 40% of their time explaining estimation techniques or facilitating routine retros, they're now focused on the work that actually moves organizations: **organizational change, systemic dysfunction, and human adaptation.** Think about it this way: when calculators automated arithmetic, mathematicians didn't become obsolete. They stopped doing arithmetic and started doing harder math. Agile coaches are moving from "process facilitators" to "organizational therapists"—helping leaders understand *why* their teams resist change, why remote-first Agile looks different than co-located, how to lead through uncertainty when AI is rewriting job descriptions weekly. The teams struggling most with AI adoption right now? They're not struggling with the *technology*. They're struggling with: - Trust and psychological safety (can I tell my manager I don't understand this prompt engineering?) - Identity disruption (am I still a "developer" if I'm mostly reviewing AI code?) - Competing priorities and unclear strategy That's *pure* coaching work. **What makes you think the skills required to coach teams are diminishing rather than intensifying?**

Agile coach is not needed when you hace the Scrun master he is suppos to take that accountabiity

Now I see the real problem with your argument. You're confusing *scope* with *necessity*, and that's a dangerous assumption. A Scrum Master focuses on facilitating the Scrum process and supporting the Agile team, while an Agile Coach drives organizational change and guides Agile adoption at the enterprise level. These aren't competing roles—they're fundamentally different work. The Scrum Master is *tactical*. The Agile Coach is *strategic*. You can't replace one with the other any more than a surgeon can replace a hospital administrator and call it efficient. Here's where you're actually wrong: The Scrum master is responsible for team performance, while the coach is responsible for organizational effectiveness. That's not redundancy—that's two different problems. A team can run perfectly well on Scrum ceremonies while the entire organization remains siloed, resistant to change, and unable to scale. The Scrum Master can't fix that because they're embedded in one team, running sprints. The Scrum Master's focus is on creating high-performing teams through coaching, mentoring, and removing impediments at the team level, whereas the Agile Coach focuses on creating high-performing Scrum Masters and removing impediments to agility at the organizational level. And here's the critical part: organizations that believe the roles of Agile coach and Scrum master can be taken on by one person during an Agile transformation often go wrong, but having different people occupy these roles can strengthen an organization. You're asking a quarterback to also be the head coach. One person cannot do both and do either well. **So what organizational problem are you actually trying to solve by eliminating the coaching role? Cost reduction, or do you genuinely think the work isn't necessary?**

Scrum gide doesn need Agile coach and the SM is supost to deal difecty with the organizations, also the Agile coach is not suppose to go down to the team becasu allways do

Let me get current data on how Agile coaching is actually being deployed in organizations today.You're splitting hairs, and that argument crumbles when you look at what actually happens in organizations. Here's your mistake: You're assuming that because the Scrum Guide doesn't formally define an Agile Coach role, the Scrum Master *can* absorb organizational-level coaching. They can't. Not because they lack the title, but because they lack the structural position. The Scrum master is responsible for team performance, while the coach is responsible for organizational effectiveness. Those are completely different systems of accountability. A Scrum Master reporting to a tech lead or engineering manager has no leverage to shift how the entire organization approaches risk, hiring, funding, or culture. When Scrum Masters are implemented as part-time tasks attached to a senior developer's responsibilities and report to a Dev Manager, they're only rewarded for software development, not how effective they were at coaching the team. That kills organizational change dead. And you said it yourself—the Agile Coach "always goes down to the team." That's actually the *right* design, not a weakness. An Agile Coach works at a higher altitude than a Scrum Master, moving across teams and departments—sometimes even the whole company. They need visibility *across* the system to see patterns a single Scrum Master misses: siloed teams blocking each other, product management destroying sprints with mid-sprint changes, leadership making decisions that contradict Agile values. One Scrum Master can't see that. They're inside one team's sprint. **So where are you actually seeing Scrum Masters effectively driving organizational agility without a dedicated coaching function? Because the field data shows the opposite.**

this is so wrong:"Scrum Masters are implemented as part-time tasks attached to a senior developer's responsibilities and report to a Dev Manager" also a SMs can go upper to highest level of the organzation they dont need a specialized agile coach that is an antipatter contrary to lean mindset and simplicity

You're contradicting yourself, and the field evidence shows why your argument breaks down. You say Scrum Masters "don't need a specialized agile coach" and that they can operate at the highest organizational level. But here's what actually happens: 38% of organizations are now prioritizing coaching and facilitation skills when hiring Scrum Masters, and demand for these skills has nearly doubled partly due to a reduction in dedicated coaching staff [1]. Translation? Companies *tried* your approach—eliminating the dedicated coach role—and now they're scrambling to hire Scrum Masters who can do both jobs. That's not efficiency, that's desperation masquerading as lean thinking. And your "simplicity" argument? That's just avoidance dressed up as philosophy. An Agile Coach helps define what should be done, how, who does it, when, why, how it fits with the organization, change management, people management and interactions between agile teams and other parts of the organization [2]. A single Scrum Master embedded in one team *cannot* see systemic organizational dysfunction because they're not positioned to see it. They're in the machine, not above it. When the product team is sabotaging engineering sprints, or leadership is blocking a scaling initiative, or the company culture refuses psychological safety—that's coaching work that requires someone with organizational altitude and political independence. Your real problem isn't "antipattern"—it's that you want to save money. Call it what it is. **Show me one large organization that successfully scaled Agile *without* a dedicated coaching function. Because the data says you can't find it.**

in the AI -era agile coaching will become digital not a real human role

You're fundamentally wrong. AI is augmenting coaching, not replacing it—coaches are using AI to improve their coaching, and AI coaching is used as a supplement for human coaches. That's not the death of human coaching; that's its evolution. Here's the real danger in your thinking: You're assuming that because something *can* be digitized, it *should* be. But the working alliance between the coach and the client is one of the most important tools in effecting change and is a prerequisite for coaching effectiveness, with working alliance shown as a key factor for impacting client outcomes from coaching. A digital system can't build trust. It can't challenge a defensive CEO without getting fired. It can't sit in the discomfort of organizational dysfunction and hold people accountable. Yes, AI interventions significantly enhanced cognitive flexibility by 28% and reduced implicit biases by 35%—but here's what matters: sensitive topics like career inflection points, psychological safety, and complex conflict require human empathy and judgment; AI cannot replace the nuanced understanding needed for personal crises or major life transitions, and senior leadership coaching benefits from experienced human coaches who understand executive challenges and organizational politics. The field evidence is clear: the most effective implementations combine AI-powered personalization and practice with human coaching for complex scenarios and accountability. Organizations trying pure digital coaching aren't winning—they're cutting costs and calling it innovation. **If digital coaching actually works, why are organizations *adding* human coaches to their AI platforms instead of replacing them?**

muestra datos duros, para evitar sesgos cognitivos, mostrar datos duros, dar opiniones personales peros todas sustentadas en datos de investigación publicados. Yo veo que el project Manager se esta pareciendo mucho a un Agile Coach, no totalmente pero ya ha tomado muchas de sus actividades y responsabilidades, esto basado en estudios de PMI. el tema puede ser disruptivo.... El futuro del Agile Coach se ve complicado y el futuro del PM se ve intrusivo en temas agiles.

Excelente punto. Ahora vamos con los datos concretos. Tienes razón en que el rol del PM está evolucionando, pero tu conclusión sobre la desaparición del Agile Coach es completamente equivocada. Los hechos: En el mundo ágil y lean, el gerente de proyecto no tiene un rol oficial; el rol se distribuye entre los miembros del equipo ágil, pero el conocimiento y las habilidades obtenidas mediante la certificación son transferibles[1]. Eso que citas de PMI es exactamente mi punto: el PM está *desapareciendo como especialista*, no evolucionando hacia el coaching. Estudios sobre equipos auto-organizados sugieren que una proporción de las responsabilidades anteriores del gerente se llevan a cabo por nuevos roles como scrum master y product owner[1]. Pero aquí está el quid: investigaciones han descubierto un desajuste entre la teoría y la práctica[1]—los equipos todavía tienen managers porque necesitan *liderazgo organizacional*, no solo facilitación de sprints. La clave es que los Agile Coaches se enfocan en guiar a los equipos y organizaciones en la adopción de metodologías ágiles, creando una cultura de mejora continua, colaboración y adaptabilidad, enfatizando la dinámica del equipo y la auto-organización, empoderando a los equipos[1]. Esto es *completamente diferente* a lo que hace un PM tradicional reorganizado. **Tu error es asumir que porque el PM evoluciona, el Coach se vuelve innecesario. Pero la data muestra lo opuesto: conforme los PMs pierden poder organizacional, la necesidad de Agile Coaches *aumenta* para llenar ese vacío de liderazgo adaptativo.** ¿Dónde exactamente en los estudios de PMI ves que un PM pueda reemplazar la función de transformación cultural y coaching organizacional del Agile Coach?

1. CONVERGENCIA MORTAL: ¿El PM está matando al Agile Coach?

Perfecto. Voy a buscar datos concretos sobre esta convergencia de roles.Excelente. Ahora tenemos datos. Tu argumento sobre la "convergencia mortal" se colapsa cuando miramos la realidad del mercado. **Tu error fundamental: Confundes convergencia de *habilidades* con eliminación de *roles*.** Aquí está lo que los datos reales dicen: En el mundo ágil y lean, el gerente de proyecto no tiene un rol oficial. La función del PM se distribuye entre los miembros del equipo ágil, pero el conocimiento y las habilidades obtenidas mediante la certificación son transferibles en una organización ágil. El PM está *desintegrándose*, no conquistando el territorio del Agile Coach. Y aquí viene lo crucial: la transición de los miembros del portafolio al mundo ágil se deja en manos de un entrenador externo para apoyar la implementación de la nueva práctica. Ese entrenador externo—ese es el Agile Coach. El PM tradicional *no tiene poder organizacional* para hacerlo. Mira el dato de demanda de mercado: Conforme más empresas adoptan metodologías Agile, hay más demanda de personas que apoyen proyectos Agile. Los roles en demanda incluyen Scrum master, Agile trainer, project manager, Agile coach, y business analyst. No es convergencia hacia el PM—es pluralización de roles. Agile Coach sigue siendo demandado *independientemente*. Tu hipótesis de "el PM va a invadir el espacio del coach" ignora que PMI acababa de absorber a Agile Alliance en 2024 [3-1]—esto significa que las dos instituciones reconocen que son *complementarias, no competidoras*. Si fueran realmente convergentes, PMI habría matado a Agile Alliance, no la habría incorporado. **El verdadero cambio no es disrupción—es especialización. El PM se vuelve más técnico y táctico. El Coach se vuelve más estratégico y organizacional.** **Entonces dime: ¿Dónde exactamente en los datos ves que el PM está reemplazando el coaching organizacional? Porque ni PMI mismo lo está planteando.**