Early in Agile's history (even before the Manifesto) the idea of "doing" a framework (and getting a certification in it) became associated with what Agile meant.

It has only gotten worse in the ensuing decades as bugger organizations decided they wanted/needed to "do Agile." They did not go to the Manifesto to consider what it would mean for them to "be Agile." The looked about for someone selling a solution and bought it. That's what big(ger) organizations do.

Some one once told me that companies "do not put out RFPs for organizational transformation." Indeed, people who decide they will engage in an Agile "transformation" typically end up with a "transition" to doing specific Agile practices and generally stop there.

"Transition," to me, means moving from one place to another. In the case of Agile, it will mean moving from one way of doing day-to-day things to a different way of doing things.

"Transformation," to me, means to change the actual form of something. In the case of Agile, it means changing the form and structure of the organization. A bigger deal than transitioning.

You can transition to doing Agile in a few months.

It likely will take you years to transform and be Agile.

In my 20 years of trying to work in and be Agile, I am now interested in a #noframeworks approach to agility by asking people to look at the Agile values and principles and asking themselves, "What would we have to do to implement these ideas in our organization?" Then taking this approach would lead them to their own framework.

Unfortunately, it is easier to "buy" than "build," but you end up with someone else's way of working, not yours.