A team is trying to convince a customer about the value of adopting Scrum. The customer likes some of the features of the methodology like the bi-weekly demonstration, but the customer remains…

Question

Options

• ALet the Scrum Master 'translate' to Waterfall practices.
• BUse Scrum and convince the customer during the process.
• CDo not follow Scrum until the customer is convinced of the value.

• A
  22% (9)
• B
  34% (14)
• C
  44% (18)

Explanation

Scrum requires genuine buy-in from all key stakeholders - including the customer - to function effectively. Without the customer's commitment to participate in Sprint Reviews, provide timely feedback, and collaborate iteratively, the core feedback loops that make Scrum valuable simply cannot operate as intended. Proceeding without that buy-in leads to a dysfunctional implementation that may actually discredit Scrum rather than demonstrate its value.

Why A is wrong: Having the Scrum Master "translate" to Waterfall doesn't adopt Scrum at all - it just disguises Waterfall with Scrum vocabulary, undermining the entire purpose and producing neither the benefits of Scrum nor a clean Waterfall process.

Why B is wrong: Using Scrum while the customer actively refuses to change their way of working means the collaboration model breaks down from the start. A half-engaged customer won't give timely feedback, attend ceremonies meaningfully, or trust the process - making the experiment likely to fail and harder to recover from.

Memory tip: Think "No consent, no Scrum." Scrum is a collaborative framework, not something you impose. If the customer won't commit to the model, you're not doing Scrum - you're doing something else and calling it Scrum, which is worse than doing nothing.

No community discussion yet for this question.