Common Challenges in Scrum

Scrum is not a process – rather, it’s a framework which provides a lot of visibility to the team, and a mechanism that allows them to “inspect and adapt” accordingly. Scrum works by making visible the dysfunction and impediments that are impacting the team’s effectiveness, so that they can be addressed. For example, most teams are not good at estimating how much they can get done in a certain period, and so will fail to deliver what they committed to in the first Sprint. To the team, this feels like failure. But in reality, this experience is the necessary first step toward becoming more realistic and thoughtful about their commitments, and also being even more committed to delivering what they signed up for. This pattern – of Scrum helping make visible dysfunction, enabling the team to do something about it – is the basic mechanism that produces the most significant benefits which teams using Scrum experience.

One very common mistake teams make, when presented with a Scrum practice that challenges them, is to change the practice, not change themselves. For example, teams that have trouble delivering on their Sprint commitment might decide to make the Sprint duration extendable, so they never run out of time – and in the process, ensure they never have to learn how to do a better job of estimating and managing their time. In this way, without training and the support of an experienced Scrum coach, teams can morph Scrum into just a mirror image of their own weaknesses and dysfunction, and undermine the real benefit that Scrum offers: Making visible the good and the bad, and giving the team the choice of elevating itself to a higher level.

Another common mistake is to assume that a practice is discouraged or prohibited just because Scrum doesn’t specifically require it. For example, Scrum doesn’t specifically require the Product Owner to set a long-term strategy for his or her product; nor does it require engineers to seek advice from more experienced engineers about complex technical problems. Scrum leaves it to the individuals involved to make the right decision; and in most cases, both of these practices (along with many others) would be well-advised.

Something else to be wary of is managers imposing Scrum on their teams; Scrum is about giving a team space and tools to self-organize, and having this dictated from above is not a recipe for success. A better approach might begin with a team learning about Scrum from a peer or manager, getting comprehensively educated in professional training, and then making a decision as a team to follow the practices faithfully for a defined period (say, 90 days); at the end of that period, the team will evaluate its experience, and decide whether to continue.

The good news is that while the first Sprint is often very challenging to the team, the benefits of Scrum tend to be visible by the end of it, leading many new Scrum teams to exclaim: “Scrum is hard, but it sure is a whole lot better than what we were doing before!”

Common Challenges in Scrum

Scrum is not a process – rather, it’s a framework which provides a lot of visibility to the team, and a mechanism that allows them to “inspect and adapt” accordingly. Scrum works by making visible the dysfunction and impediments that are impacting the team’s effectiveness, so that they can be addressed. For example, most teams are not good at estimating how much they can get done in a certain period, and so will fail to deliver what they committed to in the first Sprint. To the team, this feels like failure. But in reality, this experience is the necessary first step toward becoming more realistic and thoughtful about their commitments, and also being even more committed to delivering what they signed up for. This pattern – of Scrum helping make visible dysfunction, enabling the team to do something about it – is the basic mechanism that produces the most significant benefits which teams using Scrum experience.
One very common mistake teams make, when presented with a Scrum practice that challenges them, is to change the practice, not change themselves. For example, teams that have trouble delivering on their Sprint commitment might decide to make the Sprint duration extendable, so they never run out of time – and in the process, ensure they never have to learn how to do a better job of estimating and managing their time. In this way, without training and the support of an experienced Scrum coach, teams can morph Scrum into just a mirror image of their own weaknesses and dysfunction, and undermine the real benefit that Scrum offers: Making visible the good and the bad, and giving the team the choice of elevating itself to a higher level.
Another common mistake is to assume that a practice is discouraged or prohibited just because
Scrum doesn’t specifically require it. For example, Scrum doesn’t specifically require the
Product Owner to set a long-term strategy for his or her product; nor does it require engineers to seek advice from more experienced engineers about complex technical problems. Scrum leaves it to the individuals involved to make the right decision; and in most cases, both of these practices (along with many others) would be well-advised.
Something else to be wary of is managers imposing Scrum on their teams; Scrum is about giving a team space and tools to self-organize, and having this dictated from above is not a recipe for success. A better approach might begin with a team learning about Scrum from a peer or manager, getting comprehensively educated in professional training, and then making a decision as a team to follow the practices faithfully for a defined period (say, 90 days); at the end of that period, the team will evaluate its experience, and decide whether to continue.
The good news is that while the first Sprint is often very challenging to the team, the benefits of Scrum tend to be visible by the end of it, leading many new Scrum teams to exclaim:
“Scrum is hard, but it sure is a whole lot better than what we were doing before!”