The Misconception of Scrum: A Critical Analysis of Its Limitations
Written on
Scrum is often viewed as a flawed framework, akin to SAFe, with potential risks for organizations that adopt it. The classic cartoon titled Uninstall Industrial Mindset illustrates a worker who believes they have implemented agile methodology, only to be reminded that success is contingent upon shedding outdated industrial practices. This humorous yet relatable depiction resonates with many.
However, after the laughter fades, many rush to implement Scrum, mistakenly believing they have become agile, not realizing that Scrum may not propel them beyond the initial 20% progress shown in the cartoon.
Why is this the case?
Scrum, at its core, diverges from the principles of agility. It attempts to codify agile values into rigid rules and structures, resulting in a framework that can hinder true flexibility and adaptability.
I term this phenomenon The Scrum Fallacy. While it bears some resemblance to the sunk cost fallacy—where individuals continue investing in a failing endeavor—organizations adopting Scrum frequently exhibit similar behaviors.
It's essential not to take my critique at face value; I encourage readers to delve into the Scrum Guide, often regarded as the definitive text on Scrum, and draw their own conclusions. Nonetheless, I present five key points that illustrate why I believe Scrum promotes non-agile behaviors.
1. Rigid Rules and Immutable Framework
The Scrum Guide establishes its framework with two straightforward paragraphs, underscoring its rigid structure:
> The Scrum Guide defines Scrum, highlighting the necessity of each component for achieving its intended value. Deviating from the core design or omitting elements hinders Scrum’s benefits and may render it ineffective.
It’s perplexing to assume that adhering strictly to a set of rules could enhance agility. The essence of agility lies in being adaptable. The Agile Manifesto is fundamentally a collection of values and principles, not prescriptive rules. Scrum notably contradicts the 12th principle, which emphasizes the importance of reflection and adjustment.
If a team's reflection leads to the conclusion that modifications are needed, the agile response is to implement those changes. Sticking rigidly to Scrum's design, even when it conflicts with a team's evolving needs, represents a clear anti-agile approach.
Furthermore, the Scrum Guide states:
> The Scrum framework is immutable. Implementing only parts of it does not constitute Scrum; it exists solely in its entirety.
Does this sound agile to you?
2. Inconsistencies and Ambiguity
The Scrum Guide begins by emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to its rules, only to later state that it is "purposefully incomplete," defining only what is necessary to implement Scrum theory. This contradictory stance raises questions:
> Various processes and methods can be employed within the framework, revealing the effectiveness of current management practices.
Such vague statements echo sentiments found in SAFe, a framework criticized for its lack of true agility. This ambiguity seems to serve as a shield against valid critiques, allowing Scrum to evade accountability.
When shortcomings in Scrum are highlighted, the common retort from its proponents is, "They aren't doing it correctly." If numerous teams struggle to implement Scrum effectively, perhaps the underlying framework itself warrants scrutiny?
3. Mandatory Events and Sprints
The necessity of sprints and other prescribed events in Scrum feels reminiscent of traditional Waterfall methodologies:
> Failing to conduct prescribed events leads to missed opportunities for inspection and adaptation.
While minimizing unstructured meetings is beneficial, the sheer volume of required Scrum events—such as sprint planning, daily scrums, reviews, and retrospectives—can be overwhelming.
The Scrum Guide stipulates that sprints should enable regular assessment of progress towards a product goal. Yet, it also states that no changes should jeopardize the sprint goal. This contradiction ignores the Agile Manifesto's principle of welcoming changes, even late in development.
The claim that sprints foster predictability is dubious, as human beings are inherently poor at forecasting outcomes.
4. Scrum Masters: A Necessary Role?
The assertion that agility cannot exist without a Scrum Master raises eyebrows:
> The Scrum Master is responsible for the effectiveness of the Scrum Team by enabling improvements within the Scrum framework.
If a team identifies the need for practices outside Scrum's scope, the agile response is to adopt those practices. Likewise, if a team determines that a Scrum Master is unnecessary, they should feel empowered to reorganize.
The role of a Product Owner or Scrum Master should not be seen as inherently valuable; rather, it is the contributions of the individual that count.
5. Hierarchical Structures
Scrum presents itself as a non-hierarchical framework while simultaneously establishing a clear hierarchy. The Scrum Guide asserts that Scrum teams are cohesive units without sub-teams. However, it also states that:
> Changes to the Product Backlog require convincing the Product Owner.
This reveals a significant contradiction. The process outlined in Scrum is inherently sequential, which can stifle agility. True agile development is non-linear and should not be confined to a rigid framework.
Bonus: The Origins of Scrum
While the age of a framework does not inherently determine its effectiveness, it is noteworthy that Scrum originated in the early 1990s, pre-dating the Agile Manifesto. This historical context suggests remnants of outdated practices within Scrum.
Is There Value in Scrum?
In conclusion, while I acknowledge the limitations of Scrum, I believe it can serve a purpose in the agile landscape. It may be beneficial for novice teams to grasp agile values. However, as teams mature, reliance on Scrum should be minimized, as it can restrict their potential for agile growth.
Conformity within Scrum can create a false sense of progress, as teams may feel they are evolving while actually being confined to a framework that limits their agility.
If you appreciate this analysis and wish to support my writing, consider joining Medium. A membership offers unlimited access to articles and content for a small monthly fee.