It's a scam at every level. There's no reason why anyone should need to be "certified" for a methodology to be applied. There isn't even a reason why SCUM met

It's a scam at every level. There's no reason why anyone should need to be "certified" for a methodology to be applied. There isn't even a reason why SCUM methodology should be applied as a sort of universally applicable process. The funniest thing about SCUM is that every diagram someone makes of it looks nearly identical to the straw man that is "Waterfall." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(software_development)#/media/File:Scrum_Framework.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(software_development)#/... I mean, tell me that you couldn't change some of the jargon on that diagram and fool just about everyone into thinking it describes Waterfall. The only thing potentially differentiating between SCUM and Waterfall is that the former has (in theory) a smaller iteration window and has liaisons between development and management. But the latter argument is nonsense because generally non-agile teams still self-organize into having liaisons and middle-managers. And as you pointed out, the answer to why SCUM fails always comes down to not doing it "correctly". If no one can do it correctly, that's because it sucks. I've seen agile principles applied in different ways successfully, but I've never seen SCUM actually work any better than no formal methodology at all.