4 ms·
The problem is not that Scrum doesn't have these things. The problem is that Scrum is a heavy and rigid set of processes that, besides a few useful things, adds
by arnvald 4y ago
The problem is not that Scrum doesn't have these things. The problem is that Scrum is a heavy and rigid set of processes that, besides a few useful things, adds a lot of unnecessary overhead.
Daily Scrum, Sprint Review, Sprint Goal, even the role of Scrum Master - depending on the team, some or all of these things can be removed to the benefit of the team, but Scrum itself doesn't allow it. It's either all or nothing, which is why I believe Scrum itself is anti-Agile.
- azangru 4y ago> Daily Scrum, Sprint Review, Sprint Goal, even the role of Scrum Master - depending on the team, some or all of these things can be removed to the benefit of the team, but Scrum itself doesn't allow it. Of course it doesn't. It wouldn't be scrum if these were removed; it would be something else. Which is fine; but if you prefer to organize your work in a way that isn't scrum, then why would you call it scrum? > It's either all or nothing Isn't it the same with everything else? An agile manifesto, but with only one value rather than four? TDD but with tests written after the code, and without refactoring? And so on?
- arnvald 4y agoWhen I work with a framework, let's say Ruby on Rails, and I don't use the build-in ORM, I still use Ruby on Rails. Agile is an idea, a concept. Scrum is a tool (or even a framework, according to its website), and for a tool that's associated with a concept of being agile and flexible, it's incredibly rigid.