Looking at one software development agency I worked with for a large corporate client, everyone wanted to use Scrum, but there was massive inefficiency (maybe i

Looking at one software development agency I worked with for a large corporate client, everyone wanted to use Scrum, but there was massive inefficiency (maybe it was just the way they were doing it, although I've seen such things a few different companies now). The project managers at the customer were bright and competent, as were the team. Nobody was lazy. So why did they decide to work that way, and why did they put up with it? I came to the conclusion Scrum offers two key advantages to the stakeholders on each side of a client/agency relationship: - In a large company, mistakes are punished more harshly than successes are celebrated. (Mainly because your competition for the next promotion are going to promote your failures.) So it's important not to get things wrong. The most certain way to not get decisions wrong is to not decide anything at all. By using Scrum and planning only a sprint ahead, and not having any long-term vision, they achieve that. - The agency is billing by time. The longer things take the better. If all their team spend 30% of their time on Scrum meetings (the amount I currently spend at my current employer), the manager of the agency sees that and isn't unhappy about the situation. Soon progress slows down and the customer requests more people get put on the project, the manager of the agency isn't unhappy about that either. So both parties want to use Scrum, therefore of course an agreement is reached and Scrum is used. It's not about delivering great software, or delivering it quickly, etc. Neither the middle manager at the customer nor the boss of an agency directly benefit from those things.