Scrum's Flaws: Embracing Imperfection in Agile Frameworks
Written on
Understanding Scrum's Limitations
Scrum is not without its shortcomings, much like Newton's theories. The Scrum Guide states that the framework is immutable; however, practitioners can adapt their approach to Scrum, demonstrating that its application is indeed flexible.
Why engage in discussions about the imperfections of Scrum? Gabriel Steinhardt responded to my LinkedIn post with a compelling point:
- A significant amount of energy is often wasted trying to make Scrum work effectively.
- There is an overabundance of interpretations and analyses.
- Numerous discussions question the effectiveness of Scrum.
- Continuous scrutiny of the Scrum Guide's terminology.
- Unsubstantiated assertions that Scrum succeeds unless misapplied.
Gabriel poses an interesting question: why not acknowledge that Scrum has foundational flaws and move forward?
I agree with Gabriel. Furthermore, I contend that theories hold value only as long as they yield practical results. This assertion may seem obvious; however, why is it necessary to state such a straightforward idea?
Scrum, like many other frameworks, is rooted in theoretical constructs. Historical evidence reveals that most theories possess flaws. Newton himself had uncertainties about gravity, while Descartes famously declared, "Cogito, ergo sum" — I think, therefore I am, yet he struggled to counter the notion that we could merely be brains in jars, fed thoughts by malevolent forces. If this seems perplexing, think of the Matrix.
What is remarkable is how Descartes's declaration has influenced Western thought regarding reality, despite ongoing debates about its validity.
I assert that:
No theory is without flaws, and I hope that will always be the case. Nevertheless, some methods and approaches prove to be more beneficial than others.
We continue to glean immense insights from simple revelations, like discovering gravity from an apple falling or Archimedes’ realization while bathing, which led him to run through the streets in excitement.
Great scientists and philosophers have developed ideas reflective of their times and contexts. As the world evolves or as we encounter theories with fewer anomalies, we adapt. Does this mean previous ideas were ineffective? Certainly not; they were once as fruitful as the apples themselves.
Theoretical Intersections: Archimedes and Newton
Imagine if Archimedes and Newton had coexisted. Would they have formulated a theory about an apple dropping into a bathtub?
Why do I believe we should always have flawed systems?
Firstly, I do not subscribe to the idea of a perfect theory or a universally applicable "best practice" — such notions would lead to a stagnant and unchanging world. Consider how many conversations we would miss if the weather were perfect every day; the weather would never be a topic of discussion.
Secondly, theories without flaws cannot be challenged, which limits their utility as they lack opportunities for inspection, adaptation, or improvement.
In my experience, Scrum has been more beneficial than previous methodologies such as Prince2, RUP, waterfall, or SAFe. The most valuable experience I had was in an unstructured, "Cowboy style" project:
“We were three inexperienced programmers tasked with streamlining procurement — each with about four to five years of experience. We had no structured methodologies, no testing environment, and our server had a public IP. Documentation was nonexistent, and we were left to our own devices.”
For more on our experience, read the article Pulling Down the Pants of Agile Angst.
Navigating Agile Challenges
I believe there is considerable angst within the Agile community. Questions like "Are we truly being agile, or merely going through the motions?" frequently arise.
While I would NEVER endorse that chaotic approach for my current organization — which would certainly lead to disaster — it made sense in its original context.
Scrum is not free from flaws; it is an imperfect framework. Challenging the framework only enhances our understanding. I found the following assertion to resonate with me:
Scrum is immutable, but its practice can take many forms.
Each team should adapt Scrum to fit their unique circumstances. What works for one team may not be suitable for another.
This assertion garnered feedback, including criticism from Al Shalloway regarding the definition of "practice":
Are time-boxed planning, interchangeable roles, cross-functional teams, daily scrums, and retrospectives not practices?
It is essential to challenge these notions, as that is how we grow. Assaf Stone responded effectively to Al's points:
“No, these aren’t practices. Time-boxed planning is an event that can be executed in various ways. Planning is merely limited to a maximum of X hours per sprint, where X is flexible. Recommendations exist but provide no strict guidelines on how to plan. This constitutes a practice.”
Scrum defines accountabilities, not roles. It specifies responsibilities for vision, process, and product, but does not dictate who should perform those tasks. This distinction is crucial.
Daily Scrum is an event, not a practice. It can be adapted in numerous ways, just as retrospectives can be. Practices, such as the three-question format or the "magic wand" approach, are different.
I envision Scrum as a toolbox; practitioners are free to modify the tools — this may lead to outcomes that deviate from Scrum if that better serves their needs, and that's perfectly acceptable.
In conclusion, while we engage in tedious discussions about Scrum and sometimes throw around arguments like spoiled apples, it is not a flawless solution, nor will we likely discover a perfect answer. However, just as flawed theories like gravity have benefited us, Scrum can too.
Yet, when the drawbacks outweigh the advantages, please do not cling to them like a flat-earther denying the Earth's roundness.
Let’s wrap up with a quote wisely rephrased by Soumen Sarkar:
“Nothing in life is guaranteed and immutable — except death and taxes.”
To read the original discussion that inspired this article, click here.
Engage with Serious Scrum
Are you interested in contributing to Serious Scrum or engaging in meaningful discussions about Scrum?