When You Modify Scrum

I’m a big believer in Scrum as designed. When you modify Scrum, you’re usually hiding problems. That being said, sometimes you need to let teams adopt Scrum at their own pace.

Why Modifying Scrum Hides Problems

Every time you change or remove something from Scrum, you’re typically covering up an underlying organizational issue. Common examples I see:

• You skip the Sprint Review → You’re avoiding the fact that your Sprint review is poorly run or, in a word, boring.

• You develop in one Sprint and test in the next → You’re hiding from yourselves the fact that your stories are too big or that your deployment process is onerous.

• You turn the Scrum Master into a project manager or delivery enforcer → You’re masking a command-and-control culture that doesn’t trust teams to self-organize.

• You leave old Sprints open → You’re hiding unfinished work and losing transparency.

• You plan all requirements up front → Leadership buy-in is low or they don't really trust the team 

Scrum is designed to make problems visible. When you modify it, you often make those problems easier to live with, but you are slowing down the solution as well.

Still, sometimes a slow change is better

After 20+ years coaching teams, I’ve learned that pushing too hard and too fast can backfire. Sometimes a modified or lighter version of Scrum is a necessary stepping stone.

I once watched a very patient Scrum Master work with a team that was convinced they couldn’t develop and test in the same Sprint. They felt it was impossible.

The Scrum Master let them try developing in one Sprint and testing in the next. For six months they operated that way. They struggled with tracking work, lost stories, and created all kinds of workarounds. The Scrum Master gently reminded them they had modified Scrum, but didn’t force the issue.

Eventually, the team got so frustrated with the problems they created that they suggested going back to developing and testing in one Sprint. Within a short time, they were doing real incremental delivery.

It took them nine months total, but they got there on their own terms. During that time they also built regression tests, improved their deployment process, and paid down technical debt so that they were ready for incremental delivery.

The Important Rule

• If you’re modifying Scrum because the organization or team isn’t ready for the real thing → That’s acceptable temporarily.

• If you’re modifying Scrum to permanently avoid dealing with real problems → That’s a waste of the value that the Scrum framework can bring to the organization.

The moment you accept a watered-down version as your permanent “Scrum,” you’ve given up. You’ve decided that “good enough” is enough.

Scrum is about continuous improvement. Keep using it to get better at it. Don’t quit just because it’s difficult or takes years to reach high performance.

Bottom Line

Modifying Scrum is like taking painkillers. Sometimes you need them to function — but if you rely on them forever, you’ll never heal what’s actually broken.

Be honest with yourself and your teams. Use modifications when you need to control the pace of change. But never forget what you’re actually doing: temporarily hiding problems so the organization can get started on a journey of continuous improvement.

The real goal should always be to eventually remove the crutches and let Scrum expose the real issues — so you can finally solve them.