> We should be praising progress. Not everything should be a 'sprint', it should be a 'march'. What's all the sprinting for? I'm of two minds on this statement

> We should be praising progress. Not everything should be a 'sprint', it should be a 'march'. What's all the sprinting for? I'm of two minds on this statement. On the one hand, "sprint" isn't meant to be taken literally in the scrum metaphor, in that teams aren't supposed to be trying to cram in as much stuff as humanly possible. But at the same time, the idea of each two-week period needing to have concrete goals, and failure to meet those goals being a negative indicator, is a major issue. For me, the value of having deadlines, or something resembling a deadline, is to make it easier to get started. Once I've actually got the ball rolling, it's less important that the schedule actually resembles the plan, insofar as it doesn't affect other people. But my experience with scrum teams is that progress isn't seen as good enough. You have to execute on the plan, at least as far as scheduling is concerned, and cut corners if you have to. The issue is this rigid equivalency of plan = commitment, and therefore deviation from that plan = failure. No, a plan does not necessarily mean a commitment. A plan lets you get started without spending so much time in decision paralysis. Once you're moving, the real plan evolves.