Software is code. Code is structure. Structure is meaning. Meaning requires structure. Almost by definition, structure does not change or adapt or otherwise it would lose meaning. So, in order to simulate "adaptable-ness", you have to make it configurable. But there is still structure, because there are still unchanging structures that information must flow through.
You could in theory make software completely dynamic (as in get or send anything from or to a system) but then you would have to do some kind of "programming" on the client side in order to use it. For example, say I want to make it possible from the client side to be able to get any information possible out of my software system. One option is just make every piece of data available in every possible known combination (a herculean task). Or create some kind of "query" language to get the data out of my system. In essence, the application just becomes a domain specific language on top of your database.
Programming is supposed to make it easier to to do things. Users want to point and click to make things happen. They don't want to write code to make it happen. But then people want things to adapt to their needs. So you add configuration. The tradeoff is that now the system is harder to understand how to use. Taken to the extreme for flexibleness, your application becomes a maze of knobs and switches. Which oddly enough, to setup, feels a bit like programming something. So you end up programming the program. I thought the point of programming was to not have to program?
I've come to the conclusion that an application is really only 100% useful for one company max. As soon as you involve more than one company, there are differing opinions on how things should be done. There are differing opinions within a company, but a least at a company level, policies can be adjusted. To support more than one company, you have to either be dogmatic and say "you have to do it this way" or make a configuration option. As soon as you begin down the road of configuration, it becomes harder and harder to know how to use the software. It's a problem that if is not checked will bring the software to it's knees and it will die a slow hard death.
Programming doesn't really solve problems very well. It solves one problem and creates ten other ones. It is inherently self-defeating. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "software is hard", and yes it always will be.
P.S. I think it is wise to keep an eagle eye out for what NOT to program rather than what to program. There is no shortage of things to program. It takes gutsy, courageous leadership to say "we are not going to program that because it will create to many additional [programming] problems".