I think Scrum is a good framework when it is used where it was designed for – a cross-functional team creating a new product. This, of course, represents a very small number of the time where it is used. The variation in where it is used requires a variation in the framework. This seems self-evident to me. But the response I get to this is “people need a well-defined, clear, set place to start.” I agree with this. But does it mean the place to start is the one people are promoting? I don’t think so.
From the Scrum guide, “Scrum’s roles, events, artifacts, and rules are immutable.” To me this means they are not as applicable as possible to most teams’ context since no one size fits all well. And Scrum is designed not to adapt – it works because of how it is defined.
When pressed on this, I get “we must keep it simple.” But this is the second falsehood. It implies that tailoring it to the need at hand will be more complicated. It doesn’t need to be. We must remember we need sufficiency as well – “as simple as possible but no simpler.”
My solution? Get a consultant who can quickly identify the ‘well-defined, clear, set place to start’ that works for your situation. Many consultants can do this, others can’t. Find one who can.