We'll see. I expect it will take quite a bit longer than you're thinking. There's a huge inertia in these things.
Also remains to be seen whether any organizations that "moves past" Scrum will actually do better. Which metrics are we using to validate success? And if you're moving past because Scrum didn't bring the improvement you expected, why would any new model be different?
All agile frameworks are awful and completely miss the point of agile. Scrum is more focused on processes/meetings/ceremonies than iterating based on user feedback.
I had not heard of it. It's a bit hard to find information on what it actually is, and most of the site being a list of consultants and courses is a big red flag to me. I like the idea of keeping it simple but the problem with boiling it down to 4 words is that it's too open to interpretation.
For example people using scrum already think they are "delivering" because they produce some deployable package of software every 2 weeks, but then product says marketing don't want to let users have it until their marketing campaign is ready which could take months, and then dev move on to the next thing even though the last thing they worked on was never actually delivered to real users.
Even if it does get delivered to real users, there may be no attempt to get feedback before working on the next piece, it could just be doing what was originally planned before the first piece was even started. Repeat that a few times and you've just done the up front planning from waterfall with extra steps.
Scrum is indeed simple to understand but very difficult to do well. I've yet to see a great Scrum team, although I obviously haven't seen all Scrum teams. It's always tempting to want the new thing and I suspect that this may be part of the issue; that people are fed up with Scrum because it doesn't give the promised results. I do think that this is more as a result of the problems with the mindset, bureaucracy and other limiting factors.
Fully agree with Jakob's point that any new approach will be challenged to do better. Although that won't necessarily stop people and companies latching on it.
Did you know that in Spanish dubbing Terminator says "Sayonara, baby" as opposed to "Hasta la vista, baby" because obviously they needed to make it distinguishable. I find it hilarious!
I believe you are right. It will be a slow decline, because Scrum is easy to sell to managers and clients as the de-facto standard. But the best and most agile teams already move on.
Well, dead is a pretty black and white state. You're either dead or not :).
XP isn't dead either. I never wrote an Agile is dead, or an Agile will become niche post. So I do think this post is a bit more nuanced than another flavor of 'scrum is dead'.
You may see it however you want, but I don't think I'll write an Agile is dead or Scrum is dead post, ever.
If something is dead, no need to point out the obvious.
We'll see. I expect it will take quite a bit longer than you're thinking. There's a huge inertia in these things.
Also remains to be seen whether any organizations that "moves past" Scrum will actually do better. Which metrics are we using to validate success? And if you're moving past because Scrum didn't bring the improvement you expected, why would any new model be different?
All agile frameworks are awful and completely miss the point of agile. Scrum is more focused on processes/meetings/ceremonies than iterating based on user feedback.
Are you familiar with Heart of Agile? That doesn't do that.
I had not heard of it. It's a bit hard to find information on what it actually is, and most of the site being a list of consultants and courses is a big red flag to me. I like the idea of keeping it simple but the problem with boiling it down to 4 words is that it's too open to interpretation.
For example people using scrum already think they are "delivering" because they produce some deployable package of software every 2 weeks, but then product says marketing don't want to let users have it until their marketing campaign is ready which could take months, and then dev move on to the next thing even though the last thing they worked on was never actually delivered to real users.
Even if it does get delivered to real users, there may be no attempt to get feedback before working on the next piece, it could just be doing what was originally planned before the first piece was even started. Repeat that a few times and you've just done the up front planning from waterfall with extra steps.
Scrum is indeed simple to understand but very difficult to do well. I've yet to see a great Scrum team, although I obviously haven't seen all Scrum teams. It's always tempting to want the new thing and I suspect that this may be part of the issue; that people are fed up with Scrum because it doesn't give the promised results. I do think that this is more as a result of the problems with the mindset, bureaucracy and other limiting factors.
Fully agree with Jakob's point that any new approach will be challenged to do better. Although that won't necessarily stop people and companies latching on it.
Did you know that in Spanish dubbing Terminator says "Sayonara, baby" as opposed to "Hasta la vista, baby" because obviously they needed to make it distinguishable. I find it hilarious!
You learn something new every day! Haha
I believe you are right. It will be a slow decline, because Scrum is easy to sell to managers and clients as the de-facto standard. But the best and most agile teams already move on.
ohh another "scrum is dead" article
Where did anyone write scrum is dead? Please show me.
Isn’t the “decline of scrum” a sub-category of the “scrum is dead” niche then? 😂
Well, dead is a pretty black and white state. You're either dead or not :).
XP isn't dead either. I never wrote an Agile is dead, or an Agile will become niche post. So I do think this post is a bit more nuanced than another flavor of 'scrum is dead'.
You may see it however you want, but I don't think I'll write an Agile is dead or Scrum is dead post, ever.
If something is dead, no need to point out the obvious.