Estimate the work that comes in, commit to that work for x amount of time +/- 5-10% variance, evaluate ability to finish it all, and re-balance accordingly, all

Estimate the work that comes in, commit to that work for x amount of time +/- 5-10% variance, evaluate ability to finish it all, and re-balance accordingly, all in all is a pretty effective productivity approach. When the alternative is a near certainty miss of waterfall and tremendous, tremendous cost overages, then scrum starts to look like the less ugly dance partner. Consistent challenges I see for anti-Scrum arguments: 1) Their POs are doing a horrible job defining what an MVP is, or the devs aren't following good MVP practices. The MVP solution as something that works outside of Scrum is well proven in numerous other contexts, regardless of what a developer designing an API may think. 2) Their Scrum Masters are allowed to turn into managers, not process governors. The silly SM metrics SMs start to make to increase their job justification suddenly govern teams and paychecks. 3) Their management doesn't understand what POs and SMs are really supposed to do. 4) Ok, present an alternative to Scrum, waterfall, in a way that works with financial reporting and accountability to the people that pay the bills and paychecks. This is the major sticking point. Criticize Scrum :thumbsup: Come up with an alternative that meshes with the reality of software the profit-seeking business :silence:.