> a ton of rigid procedures, that only work well in concert That is your problem right there. 7 years ago, scrum was taught as a toolbox. Each "procedure" had

> a ton of rigid procedures, that only work well in concert That is your problem right there. 7 years ago, scrum was taught as a toolbox. Each "procedure" had a goal. Reaching the goal mattered, not following a recipe like a lemming. It was for example perfectly reasonable to get rid of the daily standup in a 3 members team, if you have plenty of interaction with others already. The core of the methodology fitted in a single page. All the above FYI only, no need to call the True Scotsman to the rescue, I'm convinced: from the other comments, scrum looks more like Prince2 than anything else.