Make the pre-requisites for Scrum explicit#26

Scrum can be great, but it’s not a panacea.

Say when it is contra-indicated and refer out!

I think I agree. Although the SG does indicate complex environments, product value creation and teams

I usually use Cynefin or a Wardley map to explain where Scrum fits.

Some common contra-indications for starting with Scrum:

• Lack of a main area of focus - clear product goal in Scrum 2020 speak
• Can’t assemble a full time (or near full time) team
• Lots of external dependencies that get addressed slowly compared to the sprint length

I don’t think this is the problem.

1) The problem is that most people don’t understand what Scrum is really about. They take the mechanical Scrum view which is wrong and fail to see that scrum is a framework to help improve things.

2) Scrum defines “what” to do and NOT how to do it.

I personally feel the guide is badly written and encourages a mechancial view of Scrum. I also feel that the way it is written will add to the confusion of when or when not to use it. In the current state, adding this will likely add incorrect views of when not to use Scrum.

In communities, I often see people comment on when not to use Scrum. Most or wrong as they have a flawed understanding of Scrum.

My vote is to fix the wording of Scrum.

@Brett fixing the wording is a very generic statement. All this feedback collected here is about improving the wording, no? :)

However i was actually happier with the earlier version of the guide where it stated that Scrum suits complex product development (which a a simplified and bit misleading summary if you ask Snowden, but at least it doesn’t aim at any kind of complex problem where it clearly doesn’t fit).

@Tamás Hajdu , No! Most of the suggestions in this site are about changing the rules and the way Scrum works. This item is just masking the underlying problem.

The guide needs professional technical writers that fully understand Scrum to write it. They need to understand the subtle nuances and be able to express that in everyday lanaguage.

That is a different problem to what you are saying, IMO.

To some extent I agree with @Brett that writing the Scrum Guide by its elements is not the best way to convey the idea … it does somehow make the reader have a mechanical view. IMO the Scrum Guide needs to be written in a narrative form.

@brett (Hey mate!)

I learned Scrum before the Guide from Schwaber & Beedle’s book which I found much less doctrinaire and less compressed than The Guide. [The more recent Patterns book by Cope and co. also looks good in this respect.]

My assumption was that the Guide was originally intended for mechanical Command & Control org cultures to get started, though it has softened a bit over the years — and it reads very differently depending on the background and world view of the reader.

“In communities, I often see people comment on when not to use Scrum. Most or wrong as they have a flawed understanding of Scrum.”

This item is just asking for a clear description of where Scrum is contra-indicated, just as there are for particular prescription drugs. Including a more accurate statement will help those communities.

@Brett I think we are actually overestimating the significance of the guide. many organizations claiming to do something scrumish are not even aware of its existance and even less making any efforts to actually understand it. not sure if rewriting it would make any difference.

@Tamás Hajdu , fair point and that is another problem to address. Having two wrongs does not make it right. I think improving the way the guide is written may be one of many positive steps going forward.