I agree a small amount of process is a good thing. It needs to be small enough so that people won't be squashed by it, so they won't stop thinking and act corre

I agree a small amount of process is a good thing. It needs to be small enough so that people won't be squashed by it, so they won't stop thinking and act correctly in whatever situation the process didn't cover. As someone who was doing waterfall projects back in the day and lived through various agile variants, I don't think the amount of process that scrum involves is justifiable. At least waterfall produced tons of documentations which made projects rock solid. With scrum you do all these crap rituals and you are left with nothing but depressed engineers. And no, an "energizer" is not going to help. I've seen plenty of times were scrum was added to organizations (even to teams that were working incredibly well without it) with horrific results. In one case, developers just started quitting (me included). I'm glad one of my client is walking back on scrum, even though there are still a few zealots trying to do scrum without calling it scrum, no matter the pushback they receive from everyone else. There are definitely some good ideas coming out of scrum (the product backlog is a great concept) but as a whole it's definitely a net negative for morale and productivity. I respect the hustle of the scrum masters who managed to create the most useless job role I've ever seen, though.