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
  10% (6)
• B
  22% (13)
• C
  68% (41)

Explanation

Scrum requires genuine commitment from all parties - if the customer is unwilling to adopt the framework, proceeding without their buy-in undermines the entire process and will likely produce friction and poor results. Scrum is not a methodology that can be partially imposed; it depends on the customer's active participation, especially in key ceremonies like Sprint Reviews.

Why A is wrong: Having the Scrum Master "translate" to Waterfall creates a hybrid that corrupts both methodologies - you lose the transparency and adaptability of Scrum while abandoning the structure of Waterfall. This is a workaround, not a solution.

Why B is wrong: Running Scrum without the customer's agreement is coercive and sets the team up for failure. The customer's collaboration is essential (e.g., for backlog prioritization and Sprint Review feedback); pretending Scrum is working when the customer isn't participating is dishonest and ineffective.

Why C is correct: Scrum adoption must be consensual. If the customer is unconvinced, the team should continue educating and demonstrating value, but should not proceed with Scrum until there is genuine agreement to change the way of working.

Memory tip: Think of it as a marriage proposal - you don't just start acting married because you want to. Both parties must agree before the relationship changes. Similarly, Scrum only works when everyone commits to it.

No community discussion yet for this question.