Having my first experience with SCRUM. Not overly impressed. Common sense codified at best where it actually does something good. One. SCRUM is lauded and promoted by management as a Holy Grail because it gives the appearance to the client of increased productivity by frequent release of usable software. But what about all the re-testing, all the design, all the riga-ma-role that goes into that one tiny incremental releases? Double or triple the overhead per delivered item. Frankly, I think it is just a way to make the hamsters (us) run faster even though I don't see any real decrease in time to stable, largely complete system. Two. It is very, very brittle. If anything is missing or weak, particularly if the client does not fully embrace the Product Owner duties, then it degrades quickly into the all too familiar daily endurance contest. If the team leader does not lead and only holds a daily stand up and while avoiding communication with the lower level hamsters the consequences are the same as a non-communicative leader regardless of project methodology. Oh, wait, there is no hierarchy in a SCRUM team. My bad, forgetting human nature naturally results in a flat organization. (Sarcasm intended). I could go on. But the point is that, in my observation, SCRUM is fine but only if executed perfectly. Otherwise it is just being used by management to mollify clients and makes us work faster and harder while being less productive and definitely less creative. I would say SCRUM is unfortunately usually implemented imperfectly and therefore creates situations opposite of the intentions for both the clients and the developers while making the usual management job of stomping on both fires at once all the more nauseating and difficult. Use carefully, use some of the modified Agile methods for larger projects. SCRUM is a White Elephant and not a Holy Grail in most cases.