>Scrum isn't good or bad, but the way the OP (or their company) uses it seems to be a reflection of an inflexible culture. It's not the company. This inflexibi

>Scrum isn't good or bad, but the way the OP (or their company) uses it seems to be a reflection of an inflexible culture. It's not the company. This inflexibility is a reflection of scrum's culture. I've seen this inflexibility on multiple teams across the world - what you've experienced is very much the exception and what the OP described is basically the norm. >We also made changes to the "core" of scrum after our retrospectives when we decided it was stuff that did not work for us. This is great and it's exactly how I'd want to work but I think almost every single scrum consultancy not only advocate strongly against doing this, they would likely blame anything that went wrong on your "rash" decision to not adhere to core scrum principles. They literally invented a whole new phrase to emphasize just how much they look down on what you do: https://www.scrum.org/resources/what-scrumbut https://www.scrum.org/resources/what-scrumbut >We added bugfixing sprints after we observed the bugs piling up. This is actually something I've heard explicitly called out by consultancies. >Instead of complaining about scrum, I suggest the OP either try changing the culture I don't agree. I suggest slagging scrum off until it dies, because the inflexibility which you decry is so deeply embedded in its culture and will only die when scrum does. Sure, what you did worked great - it just wasn't "scrum".