Alternative less dogmatic scrum
Developing software is hard and requires much critical thought and analysis of the problem.
Another massive problem is the outside world expecting predictions about when something will be done and how much it will cost. The 'lets just start and see where we end up' model is so much better. They don't understand such predictions are always lies and are shocked when something goes over budget or takes more time.
But people always want to avoid facing the hard problems. It seems Scrum has become very rigid to force them to face those problems. Even though dogma's don't actually work in real life (look at the problems religion causes).
I would like there to be an alternative less dogmatic version of Scrum where the participants are trusted to use their brain. Developers should be able to change their development processes as needed.
I understand there will always be a need for something to keep the stupid managers at bay, but we don't all need to fit in that little box.
1 commentComments are closed
Karol Grodzicki commented
No one should be forced to use 100% accurate Scrum. You can always adapt it (Scrum-but), use other method (Kan-ban) or mix Scrum with something else (Scrum-ban). Scrum is just the way some people (like Ken Schwaber) suggest to do it. It's generally good, but in some cases you can adapt it. Scrum-buts shouldn't be called Scrums, but it doesn't mean they're bad.
If you write in Scrum Guide that all of the Scrum practices are changeable you describe in fact a do-what-you-think-is-right method. We don't really need a word for that...
That's why I see no problem in current situation - different organizations suggest different methods and call it with different names. And people use them as they want.