I'm reading the Scrum - A Pocket Guide by Gunther Verheyen and it says:
The Chaos report of 2011 by the Standish Group marks a turning point. Extensive research was done in comparing traditional projects with projects that used Agile methods. The report shows that an Agile approach to software development results in a much higher yield, even against the old expectations that software must be delivered on time, on budget and with all the promised scope. The report shows that the Agile projects were three times as successful, and there were three times fewer failed Agile projects compared with traditional projects.
So I have an argument with one of my colleagues who says that for some projects (like medicine/military where the requirements don't change), Agile (and, particularly, Scrum) is overhead with all of the meetings etc and it's more logical to use waterfall, for example.
My point of view is that Scrum should be adopted in such projects because it will make the process more transparent and increase the productivity of a team. I also think that Scrum events won't take much time if it's not needed because we don't need to sit the whole 8 hours in Sprint Planning for 1 month sprint. We can spare 5 minutes just to be sure that we are all on the same page and start working.
So, will Scrum create additional overhead for a project where requirements don't change?