"Scrum Is Immutable, (Supposedly) Prevents Improvement."

Catchy headline, right?

It's all based on the following few lines.

Scrum is free and offered in this Guide. The Scrum framework, as outlined herein, is immutable. While implementing only parts of Scrum is possible, the result is not Scrum. Scrum exists only in its entirety and functions well as a container for other techniques, methodologies, and practices.

Why does the clause upset some people? Some responses:

• Scrum's immutability discourages and prevents improvements for people new to Scrum.
• Scrum's immutability prevents critiques of Scrum.
• The clause is a distraction.
• And more...

These claims don't hold water.

I can't help but consider this claim BS. I confess, my description of the claim is probably influenced by the fact that I'm currently reading Calling Bullshit by Carl Bergstrom and Jevin West, and BS is top of mind for me right now.

Now, I completely accept that there are people in the world who read that Scrum is immutable and choose not to improve because they want the ability to keep referring to what they're doing as Scrum. I haven't met such people. But others tell us they have.

These would be people who don't know any better. Maybe they are brand new to Scrum. Maybe they lack the experience required to diagnose when moving on from Scrum is appropriate. Plausible reasons if you ask me.

And yet, I wonder if the mistake is having people who don't have the requisite experience responsible for helping an organization adopt Scrum.

But immutability prevented improvement. If that word hadn't been there, improvement was sure to occur. Please. Color me skeptical.

Remember, the immutability requirement is that a team implement ALL parts of Scrum to call what we're doing Scrum. We can add to it and call it Scrum. We can't remove elements from it and call it Scrum.

While implementing only parts of Scrum is possible, the result is not Scrum.

This acknowledges that it's possible to put parts of Scrum to good use. And yet, even this isn't Scrum. The authors could have claimed partial implementations as Scrum, but they didn't.

The reality, however, is that many (if not most) teams out there who implement parts of Scrum still label what they're doing Scrum. In practice, the immutability property isn't doing much. It allows people to implement elements of Scrum.

However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that this clause would deter modification. I consider this a naive conclusion. How many people even read the Scrum Guide? Based on my experience, a minority of those claiming to implement Scrum.

I offer that there are few people, relative to the number of people claiming to implement Scrum, who read the Scrum Guide. Those who do, do so for one of two primary reasons:

1. Those who read to understand Scrum so they can implement it in their organization.
2. Those who read to identify all of Scrum's flaws so they can criticize Scrum.

I believe Type 2 people outnumber, significantly, Type 1 people. Or maybe Type 2 people do a better job at making their presence felt.

I believe in going straight to the source, so I asked Jeff Sutherland and Ken Schwaber over Twitter for the rationale for this clause. They didn't respond.

Determined, I sent an e-mail to Scrum Support. In response, I was redirected to this article "as a good article on the subject."

Here are my thoughts on why the clause exists in the document.

This clause is all about protecting intellectual property and liability. The clause lets the creators objectively state what Scrum is (and is not) in any context. It's in the End Note. And it's all or nothing.

Why do people feel it's critical to be able to implement parts of Scrum and still call what they're doing Scrum? Why? (Okay, I'm told no one thinks this.)

Some people are appalled that the creators of Scrum dare to say their framework is immutable. How dare they make what many of us believe implicitly explicit!

How many of us would like people to have the license to change our work and still say it's ours?

Like removing the chapters from a book I wrote and then claiming it's the book I wrote? As an author, that would upset me, which is why there are protections for that.

I'm not a Scrum advocate. (Ask people I've worked with since my foray into Agile in the early 2000's). It sure seems like I’m promoting Scrum. I’m not.

So why comment?

Because #wordsmatter .

The claims we make matter. They need to stand up to scrutiny. Weak critiques, if all legitimate (and I don't consider this critique legitimate), obscure strong and impactful critiques.

Some of us need more objectivity when it comes to Scrum. This loss of objectivity means we look for even the most trivial things to focus on.

Scrum isn't perfect. It can't be.

People who focus on the immutability property are majoring in minors.