Scrum Methodology Criticism

None of the things the author complains about are specified in Scrum. The Scrum guide states that the developers choose the work: "Through discussion with the Product Owner, the Developers select items from the Product Backlog to include in the current Sprint." I've also heard people complain about the meetings, but honestly people hate meetings generally--my current team doesn't do Scrum or any other agile system, and we still have several time-wasting meetings every week. I

It seems like you are invoking the No true Scotsman fallacy. There's a lot of companies that do "Agile" and "Scrum" that are exactly like he describes. When Feature X has to be done this sprint because it's already been sold to (Board|Client|Investors|Other Dept), there's not much time to think about "How?", it's more like "If I'm going to be working Sat and Sun again?".I'm sure there are organizations out there where Agile

Scrum is pretty small. A lot of the threads on here are mentioning all sorts of Agile tools that Scrum does not require. Those extra things are optional if they help you but defined outside of Scrum (like planning poker). And if you dislike one of the few things in Scrum such as the end of sprint retrospective, you can take it out. So a lot of people think they’re doing Scrum when it’s really Scrum plus other stuff, and they think they hate Scrum. Experienced developers may not find it helps

There are projects where scrum doesn't make much sense. You wouldn't want to build a house in an agile way. It is also essential to have the customer comnit to the agile way of working. A project with a fixed deadline, fixed scope and fixed budget doesn't become a scrum project just because you introduce sprints, dailies, reviews, scrum masters and product owners. Framing the misuse of a framework as a "get out of jail free card against criticism" misses the point.

I have seen both good and bad implementations of Scrum. Or rather, I have seen Scrum, and I have also seen people doing classical management with some extra rituals on top of that and calling it "Scrum". Yes, the latter is basically the industry standard these days. I have worked at over dozen companies, and I have seen the actual Scrum only once or twice.There is no system that survives a company culture that takes some of its keywords and ignores everything else. Without Scrum, co

It can be beneficial if done right - but most places just don't do it right at all.I've even seen officially certified scrum masters using it in ways that go completely against the ideas that are behind it.The main idea of Scrum is, to empower the entire team to decide on their own processes through finding consensus, and to get rid of annoyances that slow things down.If Scrum itself becomes that annoyance that slows you down - then according to Scrum you absolutely need to ge

You have discovered a couple of things:Scrum doesn't survive "reality testing" in the context of actual s/w development projects.Management (at least in your case) doesn't care about reality.The usual solution is to participate in "software process theater" where you have the meetings and maintain the project plans for scrum, but actually use an alternative reality-driven management process to run your team.Not perfect, but it's how software de

You may mean scrum, which is too bureaucratic for many/most projects.

This sounds like an organizational failure rather than sprint/agile/scrum. It works beautifully when lead in/by tech teams.

I think this part is somewhat true. Big problem is management/sales/business analysts taking over the scrum and weaponizing it to blame developers or push them into thinking they have to do all what they are told.Issue is those people are usually more pushy, talkative, so it is easier for them to take over and having devs as pushovers.I work in a company where me and other senior devs made sure that we run the scrum and we use scrum as our shield.They want to change the scope?