> Whoever you hired may have called that scrum, but it seems they were bringing in unrelated processes. This is both true and not exculpatory, IME. I've often

> Whoever you hired may have called that scrum, but it seems they were bringing in unrelated processes. This is both true and not exculpatory, IME. I've often referred to/heard this referred to as "Scrum-but", i.e. "Scrum, but X", and it's pretty true in my experience that Scrum legitimizes and encourages Scrum-but. There are places where Scrum is legitimately useful (as a way for managing stakeholders when dealing with war-room problems where the entire implementation team is of roughly equivalent competency and is literally sitting around a table), but beyond that, the first hint of Scrum-but and the boat's taking on water.