6 ms·
Not sure if you are joking but unfailing people is no requirement of scrum. Scrum requires the people participating in the process to at least have some fundame
by evfanknitram 8y ago
Not sure if you are joking but unfailing people is no requirement of scrum. Scrum requires the people participating in the process to at least have some fundamental grasp of the process though. If the actors can't be bothered to learn this, then of course it won't work.
If you don't know what values scrum brings over for example traditional waterfall, then the scrum handbook is a good place to start to learn.
- kasey_junk 8y agoI've worked on agile projects for 20 years. I was using agile before the manifesto was published. The opposite of 'not scrum' is not 'waterfall'. Further, I don't disagree with anything Ken Schwaber outlines in his writings on scrum. The problem is, on the ground, that is not what scrum is. Ken has been fighting that battle for at least 10 years. If the process is just as often implemented incorrectly as correctly, that is a failing of the process. And in this case that is the most damning thing you can say about scrum. More often than not, people do it wrong. I'm tired of that excuse.
- evfanknitram 8y ago> The problem is, on the ground, that is not what scrum is. The companies I have worked on who claim to use scrum does not suffer from the issues OP brought up. So I question your statement. I also have >20 years experience. > If the process is just as often implemented incorrectly as correctly, that is a failing of the process. That's bs. That would be like putting a tractor driver in a Cessna and when the plane crash clamr that Cessnas are inherently unsafe to use. Yes, scrum requires buy in and some basic level of competence. If one or both of these are missing in an organization and they still say they use scrum then that can hardly be blamed on scrum.