What does 'Individuals and interactions over processes and tools' even mean???

what exactly does "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools" even mean?

I am reminded that people are both smarter and lazier than the machines they rely on.

in a world of DevOps where tools automate every process

That's when I am reminded most. Plugging in tools and switching them on is easy. Processes are automated. However, the organizations have tools but don't have DevOps. Organizational change is hard.

This is how I have thought about the Manifesto. To me, the most important line is:

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

I never read it as "don't use processes and tools", rather the Manifesto puts people first and suggests we allow self-managing teams and their bottoms-up intelligence to choose what works best for them.

I would also point out that while DevOps might be important for Scrum Teams building software, Agile and Scrum are branching out beyond that domain, into marketing, biotech, HR, hardware, data analytics and anywhere complex problems need to be solved.
 

This is entirely my opinion and I mean no offense to anyone with what I say. 

Given that most of the original signatories of the Manifesto for agile software development have said that the original purpose for the item has failed and many wish that it had never been written, I really don't see any reason to revisit it. It will just become more commercialized for the reasons like you mention.

The manifesto was never meant to be a "do this not that" list.  It was to provide some insights into how agile software development was different from the old style waterfall project management. Everything it states is still true and viable.  However, after the manifesto was provided people were quick to try and find ways of making money from the writings.  The verb agile became a noun as Agile and commercialization started.  (This is why the signatories say it failed).  I feel like any attempts to revisit or update would just further the commercialization of it.  

The specific statement you picked does have current relevance.  

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

As @Chris points out there is value on the right but the signatories valued the left more.  Processes and tools have value to make things predictable and easier.   However, they are no replacement for individuals interacting together to share and analyze information to arrive at answers.  In fact, until individuals interact, processes and tools can not be used. 

Well said, team!

You're definitely making me think about that Agile value in a new way.

Exactly what I love posting here!

I know this question is years old, but I am also wondering what the line actually means. This discussion gave me new insight.

I tend to think the 'individuals and interactions over processes and tools' as a guideline for what should come first. When I consider a process or a tool, I should ask, 'Is it good for the people? Can our way of working be enhanced?' before 'Does it work? Will it be effective?' In other words, always consider processes and tools in the context at hand, which is about the people.

Just my two cents.

The money-making off of some actually really good ideas is just what the world looks like at large these days. There's even a word for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification (although I see this is a bigger trend, not just with regards to platforms).

Without going into details about how this comes to be, which would lead us too far here, I say literally all the same things that Daniel said about agile turning to Agile™ you can also say about Scrum, about Kanban, about job titles like Scrum Master and Product Owner (and especially Senior Scrum Master and Senior Product Owner) - in short, whenever people get the idea to "mAkE MoRe mOnEe!" off of an actually good idea, the original idea will be rendered almost useless.