3 ms·

I was trained in Scrum, but the main thing I learned was that it is the opposite of what the "companies using Scrum" do. When I mentioned that in the company I

I was trained in Scrum, but the main thing I learned was that it is the opposite of what the "companies using Scrum" do. When I mentioned that in the company I worked at (the one that paid for my training), I was told that "we do Scrum differently here". They paid for my Scrum training just to tell me to shut up and do it the traditional way, only now I was supposed to call it Scrum, and the existing meetings had to be renamed using Scrum terminology. Oh, except for the retrospective (the part where developers provide feedback on everything, including Scrum itself), because retrospectives are a waste of time! So it seems to me that the main reason why "true Scrum has never been tried" is that most companies never intended to actually try it. They just wanted the buzzword.

stcredzero 3y ago
So it seems to me that the main reason why "true Scrum has never been tried" is that most companies never intended to actually try it. They just wanted the buzzword. Scrum is actually a cultural change. The methodology is just the surface stuff, like the buzzword. It also doesn't actually happen at the company level, unless the company is quite small. It happens at the group level. I just thought of this: The Scrum that can be named, is not the true Scrum. "Practicing" Scrum by following dictums in a book is sort of like practicing marriage by following dictums in a book. Those are just guidelines, and the reality is at a deeper level. EDIT: Come to think of it, that can also be interpreted as: Therefore Scrum is broken as a methodology. It cannot be "followed" at scale. (Much as communism is broken as an economic system.)