I think it is worth to note that there is nothing wrong with the scrum techniques. Just like any shoe you find in a store might be fully functional and useful

I think it is worth to note that there is nothing wrong with the scrum techniques. Just like any shoe you find in a store might be fully functional and useful to somebody it might just not be good fit for you. Now, that might not be a problem for a more traditional development process of the past. In the past we would just choose one of the prescribed processes that was deemed the most fitting. But the agile came and basically said that any set process is by definition wrong. The goal was to pursue constant improvement, forge the process as you go along and the idea was that the company that can improve faster will, over time, prevail over competition (you can't say "win", because it is an infinite game). And that the faster you can execute the iterations of these improvements the faster you can improve overall. And that the higher management is usually ill suited to do this because it just takes too much time to get the improvement iteration and that they usually don't know the specifics anyway. And out of all this came the idea that the team itself should be responsible for improving their own process because this is the only way to do it fast enough. In practice when the team notices a problem I may offer a possible solution for discussion and this solution will frequently be something already known from typical "agile"/scrum/kanban literature. Again, not saying it is all wrong but it needs to be viewed as a collection of solutions to individual problems rather than collectively a solution to fixing development process.