- I have seen Scrum teams (and broader teams/management) struggle with a particular aspect of Scrum that does seem a little confounding at first:
- If one of the outcomes of retrospectives is to inspect and adapt, what are the “core” requirements of Scrum and when are you no longer “doing Scrum” due to too many adaptations?
- Given that Scrum literally comes with a handbook, it should be reasonably clear what can and can’t be changed for it to be “Scrum”.
- Some of the benefits of running Scrum per the handbook include:
- No need to create your own documentation of your adaptations
- Everyone knows what it is from the get-go, easy to onboard people to
- Very road-tested, has been run this way by millions of people over many years and the guide gets improved frequently
- Fewer changes means less complexity (see ability to handle complexity and irreducible complexity) and therefore less for individuals to have to deal with
- Many people prefer stability in their way of working, which allows them to know the rules of the game (and therefore perfect their performance as a player).
- Changing the Scrum implementation - especially frequently - can often be a sign of a feeling of impotency in the team or individuals. It is essentially a lever you can pull that makes you feel powerful. “I am not simply a player, I can change the game rules myself!”
- There is no simple solution here other than effective management and hiring. I saw this happen especially over the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, likely because of the reduction in power and choices overall for everyone and looking for some way to make the bad feelings go away.
- This is not to say, however, that you should make no changes to the Scrum guide when you implement Scrum. I would, however, recommend that you try it by the book for at least 6 months and then make changes carefully, as even the smallest alterations can affect different people (roles, personalities) quite drastically differently.