[kitotik]

The only potential result of a competently run scrum process is exactly that - a process that was designed by the team.

If you are stuck in some weird cargo cult that doesn’t allow the team to iteratively change the process, you should call bullshit.

[rightbyte]

If scrum is any process designed by the team the term is worthless.

Sadly, scrum as I have seen it has been consultants preaching to the commoners how their rigid process is going to make them agile.

Scrum is just flawed from the foundations for anything but very routine work where you can somewhat estimate subtasks duration with any accuracy. But if your job is that easy you hardly need any fancy process anyway.

[kitotik]

> If scrum is any process designed by the team the term is worthless.

SCRUM is a handful of tactics that a team can start off with to design and implement the “right” process for a given team. For example, I’ve been on several teams where through the use of retrospectives, daily stand ups were abandoned and replaced with other means to keep the team in sync.

> Sadly, scrum as I have seen it has been consultants preaching to the commoners how their rigid process is going to make them agile.

That sucks, but sadly this is the most common case. Very few organizations actually want agility, as they are culturally and practically top-down hierarchies that require command-and-control structures to function. These consultants are generally brought in by middle-management who are grasping at straws without any real buy in from the c-suite.

> Scrum is just flawed from the foundations for anything but very routine work where you can somewhat estimate subtasks duration with any accuracy. But if your job is that easy you hardly need any fancy process anyway.

I couldn’t disagree more. For “routine” work that is predictable, what value does agility provide? It’s either done correctly or not. Agility is only useful in dynamic environments when outcomes are hard to predict and there is limited prior art to reference.