Why is Scrum Immutable?
Q: Can’t we just tweak Scrum to fit how we already work?
You can. But then you’re not doing Scrum.
Scrum is a framework, not a menu. You don’t get to pick and choose what you like and toss the rest. Each role, event, and artefact is there for a reason. They exist to promote transparency, facilitate inspection, and enable adaptation. Once you start removing pieces or warping them to fit existing habits, you break the system that makes Scrum effective. What you’re left with might still look like Scrum, but it won’t behave like it. It’ll stall, and you’ll wonder why.
Q: Isn’t that a bit rigid? Isn’t agility about adapting?
Adapting to what you learn, yes. Not “adapting” the framework itself because it's inconvenient.
Scrum is deliberately minimal. It sets up just enough structure to create the space for empiricism. That’s where teams can inspect how things are going and adapt based on real feedback. That only works if the system is intact. If you cut corners — say, by dropping the Retrospective, skipping the Sprint Goal, or diluting the Product Owner role — you’re no longer inspecting the right things. Your feedback loops vanish. You start relying on assumptions. That’s not agility. That’s chaos with better branding.
Q: But our team’s different. Shouldn’t we make Scrum work for us?
Your application of Scrum should evolve. Scrum itself shouldn’t.
Scrum doesn’t stop you from trying different ways of working. You can experiment within the framework all you like. How you forecast, how you refine work, how you collaborate — that’s your sandbox. But the framework gives you the rules of the game. Remove them, and you're not playing Scrum anymore. You’re just improvising under a Scrum-shaped label.
Q: What happens if we do modify Scrum?
Things get muddy fast.
Scrum’s structure exists to expose dysfunction. When it’s working, it reveals problems. It doesn't hide them. But when teams start patching over pain points by altering the framework, they usually do it to avoid discomfort. Not to learn from it. Over time, transparency fades. Feedback loops weaken. And instead of becoming more agile, the team just becomes more fragile. Propped up by rituals they no longer understand and outcomes they can’t explain.
Q: So what’s the alternative?
Run Scrum properly. Then improve how you work inside it.
Every element of Scrum is there to support empiricism and self-management. If something’s uncomfortable, lean in. That tension is often a sign of something worth fixing. Not something to be avoided. Changing Scrum won’t help. Facing the dysfunctions it exposes will.