Much has been told about the advantages of agile development and Scrum in particular, however, most of these assessments assume that an organisation comes from a very rigid methodology of Waterfall. But what if a company is organised less strictly than advised by Scrum, not more?
The organisation I work for is a former startup. The team is used to tackling any issues or requirements as they come. The organisation does make a half-hearted attempt at implementing Scrum but the general attitude is rather negative, with many people seeing Scrum only as corporate red tape. What benefits will we get from applying more discipline?
On the dev side, the team is reluctant to sacrifice coding time for planning sessions. Especially if the whole team was supposed to attend: so far any planning or estimation was done by a team leader alone (unless they actively sought assistance from some of their devs).
The business, on the other hand, is not used to having to provide detailed requirements for whole two weeks up front. So far they only provided a general sketch of the things they needed most at the moment, and fleshed it out on the go. Now, if there are gaps in the requirements at the start of the sprint, the team should in theory tell them that the item is not 'ready' and the new feature will not be worked on for the next two weeks, meaning it will be deployed in a month at the earliest. How would you make the business accept this loss of flexibility?
How do you sell agile development to a company that is already agile to the point of chaos?