I’ve always hated the retort–“well they weren’t following Scrum” when a team abandoned a Scrum practice and failed. It certainly sounds logical. Since Scrum defines certain practices to be immutable then if you don’t do them you’re not doing Scrum. But this immutability creates a trap for many teams.
For example, when a team can’t get their stories done at the end of a sprint, after a few sprints of this they often give up in frustration and abandon sprints.
Yes, they’re not doing Scrum, but this happens so often, perhaps its inherent in Scrum’s design. There’s an assumption teams will figure out how to solve their problems with the immutable aspects of the framework. Evidence, however, shows they often don’t.
But what if the team was taught the theory that delays cause waste? That bigger items are harder to finish in a sprint. That we need to manage queues. How to substitute an “immutable” practice with something else that meets its intention.
I suggest this not only arms Scrum teams in how to do Scrum better, but it enables them to avoid the limitations its immutability sets up. Dropping the immutability shifts Scrum’s focus to what’s needed, not Scrum’s practices. This creates a more proactive attitude about what to do.



