3 ms·

I know that. The historical motivator is the 1986 paper, "The new new product development game". I think the difference in what happens in Scrum is that the t

by YZF 14y ago

I know that. The historical motivator is the 1986 paper, "The new new product development game". I think the difference in what happens in Scrum is that the team gets further isolated from an organization through the ScrumMaster and Product Owner and therefore has less ability to influence and more process imposed (the various invariable rituals of Scrum and more). The teams are now viewed as units of production, stick story in, get implementation out. Almost never will the Product Owner be really a product owner within the intention of Scrum and the ScrumMaster will drift towards a semi-team-lead role and his incentives are not aligned with those of the company or the team.

adrianhoward 14y ago
Agreed. That sort of setup does suck. But then again that sort of team isn't really doing Scrum (they're certainly ignoring the way the roles should work, and they're certainly not using the sprint retrospective to improve). This isn't Agile sucking, or Scrum sucking. This is folks not doing Scrum sucking. The issues that caused the OP to move from Scrum to a Lean approach - I can go with most of those (indeed they match my observations of some other transitions)... but the delivery one doesn't ring true in my experience. I've seen a bunch of Scrum teams with a laser like focus on delivery.