2 ms·

> scrum is as good a place to start as any No, it's not. It's a very bad place to start. Because Scrum is a fixed process, with a fixed meaning. If you starte

> scrum is as good a place to start as any No, it's not. It's a very bad place to start. Because Scrum is a fixed process, with a fixed meaning. If you started with Scrum and then stopped doing sprints because they weren't working for your team, you would quickly run into all sorts of opposition around "we're not doing Scrum properly; we need to be doing sprints". Whereas if you started with nothing, no process at all, and later tried adding sprints, everyone would evaluate sprints by themselves with no preconditioned notion of how that should work within the rest of the process.

azangru 4y ago
> Scrum is a fixed process, with a fixed meaning. I completely agree. The reason I think it's a great place to start though is because this fixed process, with its fixed meaning, is well suited to the work involved in building new products. > If you started with Scrum and then stopped doing sprints because they weren't working for your team... ...then you would stop doing scrum. The objection "we're not doing Scrum properly; we need to be doing sprints" would only make sense in the context where you would be pretending to continue to be using scrum after throwing parts of it away. The moment you stopped doing sprints, you have made a decision that scrum as a process isn't working for you, and have switched to something else. You shouldn't keep calling it scrum to avoid confusion.