While it's true that many people do not really learn or understand scrum, I do not think that just getting a good trainer is the most common problem. There is s

While it's true that many people do not really learn or understand scrum, I do not think that just getting a good trainer is the most common problem. There is something way worse, and harder to cure: You can't teach something to someone if their livelihood depends on them not knowing it. For instance, if you start with an departments whose sole job is build software, and they make scrum teams that happen to have 5 people that only know the business, 3 testsrs that don't know how to write code, a dba who is the only person who can change DB structures, and 4 developers who do not talk to users, there is NO WAY you can make scrum work without major amounts of turnover. 13 team members is too many for a scrum. Scrum members have to be able to play multiple roles, even if they are only excellent at one of them. Otherwise, the team is not self organizing, and can't adapt to much. Most large organizations around town that claim to do scrum follow that pattern, and the end result is that they are doing all the scrum ceremonies, but the teams are lumbering hulks of failure. I agree with the article: Agility is more important than the process, and people have to carry agility with them. If your team is full of specialist that can't claim ownership of the totality of the team's output, there is no agility.