4 comments

[ 6.6 ms ] story [ 25.4 ms ] thread
It's like this: Agile is all about dynamic process tailoring. That means, yes, that teams control the degree of paperwork and process they need to accomplish. But it's also like this: there are some "recipes" that the community has found over and over again that work. You'd be a complete fool to ignore them.

For Agile (whatever that is) it may be true. Many of the Scrum books I've seen, however, emphasize that Scrum is an all-or-nothing proposition. Either you get buy in from management and you go Scrum all the way or you don't do Scrum at all. The justification given is that Scrum is a set of interlocking practices, and adopting some of the practices without adopting the whole set doesn't get you any benefit, and may even harm the project.

Yes. Just for the folks who might not be aware, note that Agile is a superset of Scrum.
I have always viewed scrum as a management technique... easily wrapped around delivering a software product. Since scrum is pretty light-weight, I guess doing it "all" is not that cumbersome, but you could probably jettison/modify some parts that don't fit your culture/context. (Just know why...)
If you think agile is a set of fixed steps, you are wrong. If you think a standup is a status meeting "for the boss," use jira and avoid the standup.