And I think that, in turn, might be a symptom of how large organizations often implement scrum. Scrum's meant to be an alternative to - even an inversion of -

And I think that, in turn, might be a symptom of how large organizations often implement scrum. Scrum's meant to be an alternative to - even an inversion of - the traditional way of running software projects. But as it passes through the kaleidoscope of corporate culture, it's all too easy for scrum to just become a layer of makeup on top of the traditional approach. For example, Scrum has a "scrum master" role that is most certainly NOT that of being a project manager. But usually a project manager gets placed in that role, and is naturally going to interpret the role by finding and then exaggerating analogies between it and the stuff they learned in PMP class. In the more traditional structure that the "project manager" role comes from, the PM owns and dictates a lot of the processes that the team follows, including daily meetings and suchlike. This is in direct conflict with the idea that the entire scrum team owns and collaboratively determines the processes that they follow. And that idea is fundamental to the inspect/adapt process that the sprint retrospective is supposed to facilitate.