Is Scrum on the Decline? - Michał Opalski / ai-agile.org
Is Scrum on the Decline?
Scrum, an agile framework born from the need for improved project management in complex, fast-paced environments, has been a go-to method for software development and beyond since its inception in the 1990s. Known for empowering teams, enhancing collaboration, and supporting iterative development, Scrum is both widely respected and widely applied across industries. However, as the agile landscape continues to evolve, so too does the perception of Scrum’s relevance. While it remains one of the most widely adopted frameworks, many wonder if Scrum is declining, especially as new agile methodologies gain traction and companies experiment with hybrid approaches.
This article will explore the factors contributing to the perception that Scrum is on the decline, analyze the influence of competing frameworks, and address why some organizations are moving toward alternative or blended methodologies.
Understanding Scrum’s Maturity and Market Saturation
Scrum's popularity has grown over the years due to its structured, highly adaptable, and team-focused nature. It offers clearly defined roles (such as the Scrum Master, Product Owner, and Development Team) and ceremonies (like Daily Stand-ups, Sprint Planning, and Retrospectives) that guide teams through cycles of work called sprints, typically lasting two to four weeks. The focus on continuous feedback, clear prioritization, and regular improvement has made Scrum highly effective in environments requiring rapid change.
However, the initial wave of Scrum adoption appears to be stabilizing. According to the 2021 State of Agile report, 66% of surveyed organizations use Scrum in some capacity, indicating that while Scrum adoption remains high, new implementations are slowing as more companies shift from initial adoption to continuous improvement or adaptation. As organizations become more familiar with Scrum, they are refining and even customizing the framework to better meet their unique demands. This often involves blending Scrum with other frameworks, reducing its visibility as a standalone methodology.
For example, a large software company with mature Scrum practices may reach a point where it no longer adheres strictly to "pure" Scrum. Instead, the company might add elements from Kanban to manage work-in-progress limits or incorporate practices from Lean to improve efficiency. This adjustment does not indicate a failure of Scrum; rather, it shows that organizations are striving to use Scrum as a base while optimizing the overall process.
1. Hybrid Agile Approaches: Customizing Scrum to Meet Complex Needs
One reason Scrum appears to be on the decline is the shift toward hybrid approaches that combine Scrum with other frameworks like Kanban, Lean, or even the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe). Hybrid models allow companies to tailor their processes to better meet the unique demands of their projects and teams. These approaches offer the flexibility to adopt the best practices of each methodology.
For example, many organizations blend Scrum with Kanban to accommodate continuous delivery needs. Known as "Scrumban," this approach retains Scrum’s structure while adding Kanban’s work-in-progress limits and flow management. This hybrid method is especially useful for teams dealing with frequent ad-hoc requests or unpredictable workloads, such as IT operations or customer support. In these cases, Scrum’s sprint-based planning can feel rigid, so Kanban’s flow-based approach helps maintain productivity without sacrificing flexibility.
On the larger scale, SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) provides a structured method for scaling Scrum in enterprise environments. SAFe introduces additional roles, events, and artifacts that align with Scrum but also include top-down planning, program management, and value stream organization. For instance, a multinational financial services firm with thousands of employees may find it impractical to scale Scrum without the additional layers provided by SAFe. By implementing SAFe, the organization gains a comprehensive framework for aligning multiple teams under shared goals. However, adding layers also increases bureaucracy and can dilute Scrum’s simplicity, sometimes leading organizations to question Scrum’s applicability in a large-scale context.
2. Increased Focus on Business Agility Over Project Agility
Scrum was designed primarily as a team-based framework focused on delivering quality products through iterative development. As business agility gains importance, however, organizations are looking for frameworks that foster adaptability across entire enterprises, not just within development teams. Business agility involves creating a flexible, resilient organization capable of quickly adjusting to market changes, customer feedback, or new regulatory requirements.
In response, many companies have adopted agile practices beyond project management, integrating agility into HR, marketing, finance, and customer service. Take Spotify, for example. The company is widely known for its squad, tribe, and chapter model, which allows teams to work autonomously while aligning with company-wide goals. Each team, or "squad," is free to use the practices that best suit their needs, whether it’s Scrum, Kanban, or a customized blend of both. Spotify’s model enables cross-functional collaboration at scale, offering the flexibility to adapt rapidly without mandating strict adherence to a single methodology like Scrum. This level of autonomy has become a benchmark for many companies seeking business agility, and for some, it represents a shift away from the strict roles and ceremonies associated with Scrum.
3. Scaling Challenges in Larger Organizations
Another factor contributing to the perception that Scrum is in decline is the difficulty many organizations experience when attempting to scale it. Scrum is highly effective for small, cross-functional teams, but scaling it across a large enterprise with multiple teams can create challenges around communication, synchronization, and role clarity. This has prompted the adoption of frameworks designed to help scale Scrum, such as SAFe, LeSS (Large-Scale Scrum), and Nexus.
LeSS, for example, aims to scale Scrum by keeping it as simple as possible while addressing the complexities of having multiple Scrum teams working together on a single product. Unlike SAFe, which adds more roles and layers, LeSS stays close to the core principles of Scrum, only adding minimal structure to coordinate teams. An organization with multiple teams working on a single product might implement LeSS to maintain consistency and reduce cross-team conflicts. However, even with a minimalist approach, scaling Scrum can be a challenge, as the need for inter-team collaboration often exceeds what Scrum ceremonies like the Scrum of Scrums can effectively manage.
Similarly, Nexus is designed to help organizations scale Scrum by introducing practices for managing dependencies, aligning goals, and coordinating work across teams. Nexus includes roles and events specifically for managing cross-team work and dependencies but remains closer to Scrum’s original simplicity than SAFe. However, both Nexus and LeSS, while helpful, may not fully address the complexities faced by very large enterprises with interconnected dependencies across numerous teams.
4. Demand for Flexibility and Continuous Delivery
In many industries, there is a growing emphasis on continuous delivery and flexibility, particularly in sectors where the ability to quickly release updates is critical. Scrum’s sprint-based approach, while effective for structured iterations, can feel limiting in continuous delivery environments. Kanban has proven especially popular here, given its emphasis on continuous workflow rather than fixed-length sprints.
For instance, in a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) company, updates, bug fixes, and feature requests often need to be deployed immediately rather than waiting until the end of a sprint cycle. By implementing Kanban alongside Scrum, these teams can prioritize tasks dynamically, releasing new features or fixes as they’re ready rather than adhering to a fixed sprint schedule. This demand for real-time flexibility, particularly in DevOps and customer support, has driven some teams to fully transition away from Scrum to more flow-oriented approaches, reinforcing the perception that Scrum’s structure may not be suitable for all environments.
5. Scrum Anti-Patterns and Implementation Challenges
One of the largest contributors to Scrum’s perceived decline is improper implementation, leading to a rise in Scrum anti-patterns. Anti-patterns are poor practices that emerge from misunderstandings or misapplications of Scrum principles, resulting in reduced effectiveness and frustration among team members. Common anti-patterns include micromanagement under the guise of transparency, the presence of too many roles, or simply going through the motions of Scrum without embracing its agile mindset.
For example, a company might assign a Scrum Master role to a manager who lacks an understanding of Scrum principles or empowerment to remove impediments. As a result, the role may devolve into micromanagement, with the Scrum Master dictating tasks rather than facilitating self-organizing teams. Over time, team morale declines, and Scrum ceremonies become hollow, reducing engagement. In such cases, the team may abandon Scrum, not because of its inherent limitations but due to its ineffective implementation.
Another common anti-pattern is "Scrumfall," where teams use Scrum terms and roles but adhere to a waterfall approach. In a Scrumfall environment, sprints are planned with little flexibility, and team members are often restricted from changing requirements mid-sprint, resembling a mini-waterfall cycle rather than an agile approach. When Scrum becomes overly rigid, teams may feel that it’s no longer agile, causing them to explore alternatives that offer greater adaptability.
6. Broader Focus on Outcomes and Value Creation
An increasing number of organizations are prioritizing outcomes and value over processes, a shift that sometimes leads teams away from Scrum’s prescribed ceremonies and roles. With more companies adopting Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) and Lean Startup principles, the emphasis on rapid learning and value creation has grown, creating environments that prioritize metrics over methodology.
For example, a tech startup focusing on fast product iterations may find Scrum’s sprint cycles to be slower than desired. By implementing Lean Startup principles, they focus on developing minimum viable products (MVPs), gathering customer feedback, and pivoting as needed. This outcome-driven approach emphasizes experimentation and rapid validation, which may conflict with Scrum’s structured sprint planning and ceremonies.
OKRs, meanwhile, allow teams to align their goals with broader organizational objectives, prioritizing outcomes over rigid adherence to a particular framework. In organizations using OKRs, Scrum’s role may become less central as teams focus on value-driven metrics, releasing updates, and changing direction more dynamically.
Is Scrum Really Declining, or Just Adapting?
Scrum continues to be a foundational framework within agile project management, yet its role in organizations is evolving. The rise of hybrid approaches, emphasis on business agility, challenges of scaling, and a shift toward outcome-focused frameworks are reshaping the way Scrum is applied across industries. This evolution does not necessarily signal a decline; rather, it shows that Scrum is adapting to the needs of complex and diverse organizations.
Scrum remains highly effective for small to mid-sized teams focused on iterative product development, and its emphasis on roles, ceremonies, and artifacts provides a strong foundation for many agile practices. However, as organizations seek greater flexibility, faster delivery, and enterprise-wide agility, they are increasingly blending Scrum with other frameworks to achieve their unique goals.
In this context, Scrum’s legacy and impact are far from diminishing. Instead, Scrum is adapting to support new forms of agility, complementing a broader ecosystem of agile methodologies. By combining Scrum with complementary frameworks like Kanban, Lean, and SAFe, organizations are discovering that Scrum can be customized to meet their specific needs, creating a more versatile agile landscape that remains deeply influenced by Scrum’s principles.
As a result, Scrum is likely to remain a central part of agile project management, albeit in a more adaptable and hybridized form. Far from being in decline, Scrum is evolving to better serve modern business demands, supporting the future of work and the dynamic nature of today’s business environments.
