The good thing about Scrum is that it introduces frequent moments of accountability. They are not popular but much needed in many teams and better than the alte

The good thing about Scrum is that it introduces frequent moments of accountability. They are not popular but much needed in many teams and better than the alternative of the traditional waterfall approach. It should also very frequently reveal issues. In misunderstandings, planning, underestimation, dependencies. This is a good thing as you can then course-correct early. That said, it is soul crushing. Some jobs/tasks just don't fit into SCRUM yet one is forced to adhere to it anyway. There's way too many meetings. The boundaries of roles are not respected. Quality is not rewarded, only story point delivery. There's typically no feedback loop from users/the market as to whether actual value was delivered because you're working on the next sprint. Product owners are not actual owners. Scrum masters act as project management. A typical scrum team easily costs 1M to run even here in Europe. And yet they produce so little. If you'd hire 3 A-class players in a high trust environment they'd produce 10 times more at superior quality. True comedy is found in "scaled agile". This is where the SCRUM elite of the company get the teams together and ask: tell me for the next 6 months which stories you will deliver and figure out all the dependencies. Mind you, near-zero input is given. You might as well roll a dice. And still we're all here to pretend that this insanity is normal. I no longer fight it. I actually feel bad for business owners. They're setting on fire some 50-70% of their hard-earned revenue on talking and book keeping.