Somewhere during the series of Corona-crises, I started with a newsletter to connect and remain in touch with interested people around the world (April 2021). Fortunately, I never intended it to be a regular newsletter, meaning having to release at a fixed interval. I would have brutally failed. Somewhere along that journey (of irregularly collecting and sharing little snippets of news and updates) I started calling my newsletter “The Scrum Caretaker Courier” and started numbering them (September 2022). I was hoping at some point to design my newsletter like the front page of a newspaper (a mix of articles). That never worked out, so I’m stuck with enforcing a linear reading exercise on my subscribers. What did work out, is the use of the color scheme that resembles an old, worn-out newspaper (text color #5F5948 on background color #EAE0C4).
At first I only sent my Scrum Caretaker Couriers to the official subscribers (via MailChimp integrated with my webshop, 4k+ people in the meantime). Sign up here if interested to receive my snippets first-hand. Then I realized I am also connected to interested people via the Scrum Caretakers Meetup group (1k+ people), so I started sharing a short summary and a link to the online version of my Scrum Caretaker Courier there too. And after I sent nr. 12 recently, I woke up (almost screaming) because I remembered that there are also quite a few people (400+) that have agreed to receive updates from my blog via e-mail. Did I already share that I have this unbearably slow-thinking brain? So, allow me to hereby address them (YOU) and all others just happening to stumble upon my website (YOU also). By the way, if ever you would be interested, there is even an historical archive available kept by MailChimp with all Scrum Caretaker Courier editions.
On 3 January 2025 the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the Agile Alliance® published an announcement that they signed an agreement on 31 December 2024 through which Agile Alliance® joined PMI, to be known as “PMI Agile Alliance” from that day on. I have no idea where the ® went but it certainly caused a lot of fuzz and noise on so-called social media. As I don’t really care and I don’t expect it to cause that much fuzz or noise on the workfloor, I wasn’t planning on joining any of the debates.
But, Frank Ray asked me on LinkedIn if I had any ‘take’ on this. Despite my initial thought “Not really”, his question was seemingly still enough to trigger me and to get me thinking anyhow (which is something to think about in itself). So, I decided I might as well jot down my thoughts quickly:
I am not involved in or associated with either organization, or their offerings. I never was. What strikes me most are the large, corporate structures that they both have in place. Too large, too corporate for me to feel comfortable with anyhow. So large, so corporate that I am not too sure about the extent to which they actually represent their practitioners and members. I obviously do know a lot of these practitioners and members.
I did find it interesting that Mike Cohn, one of the original co-founders of the Agile Alliance, shared on LinkedIn how the reason for this merger/absorption is the decline in revenues from events since the Corona crisis. Isn’t it fascinating how in general it is said that organizations need to become more ‘Agile’ in order to adapt to changing markets and business conditions? And that of all organizations, the home of Agile has been unable to do so unless giving up on its independence?
At the time of the creation of the Agile Manifesto (2001) and the subsequent establishment of the Agile Alliance (I know Ken Schwaber was also a co-founder but I have never been able to have a clear confirmation on who else was), the world of software development was “dominated by plan-driven, industrial views“[1], “in times when failing heavy-weight, waterfall approaches were replaced by heavy-weight, waterfall-like RUP implementations“[1]. At that time, the PMI certainly was part of the problem, and not of the way out.
In August 2024, the 4th edition of my book “Scrum – A Pocket Guide” was published. I created it because I am continuously uncovering better ways of explaining Scrum and want to help people by sharing these ways. Luckily, my publisher, Van Haren Group, agreed that there was value in making my update available (again) for the many friends of Scrum around the globe.
In my announcement I said I was planning to share a few excerpts from the updated version. Find herewith a compilation of my thoughts and observations on Agile, agility, Scrum and organizational transformation from the updated edition of my book.
The challenge is real
The use of lightweight, Agile methods continues to gain traction with Scrum being the most widely adopted framework. The general level of interest in Scrum is already huge and still its use keeps expanding, in and beyond software and (new) product development.
In the spring of 2013 I abandoned my position as Principal Consultant at a large international consulting firm to engage in a partnership with Ken Schwaber and his organization Scrum.org, operating under the title “Director of the Professional Scrum series”. Next to and after co-developing the Agility Path framework, from which Evidence-based Management (‘EBMgt’) was derived, and the Nexus framework for Scaled Professional Scrum (‘SPS’), I vividly remember creating the first version of (what became) the PSM II assessment of Scrum.org. In my mind it was in the spring of 2015, but checking out my archives tells me it must have been the spring of 2016. That is most likely an indication of how flawed my memory actually is…
By that time, we observed how many people took the PSM I assessment (‘Professional Scrum Master level I’) and how few people were taking the assessment that was by then known as PSM II (‘Professional Scrum Master level II’). I remember (thereby potentially disregarding how flawed my memories can be) that at that time around 40k individuals held the PSM I credential while no more than a few 100 had achieved the PSM II certification. It felt like we were failing to help people understand Scrum better and demonstrate that knowledge. In practice, mostly people aspiring to become a Professional Scrum Trainer (‘PST’) were actually doing the PSM II assessment (as a mandatory requirement). I remember taking the assessment myself with that ambition in mind. Luckily I wrote a blog note on 8 September 2010 to ‘remember’ (hence: compensate for my flawed memory) that I was #27 worldwide to achieve it.
In August 2024, the 4th edition of my book “Scrum – A Pocket Guide” was published. I created it because I am continuously uncovering better ways of explaining Scrum and want to help people by sharing these ways. Luckily, my publisher, Van Haren Group, agreed that there was value in making my update available (again) for the many friends of Scrum around the globe.
In my announcement I said I was planning to share a few excerpts from the updated version. Find herewith the (slightly edited) excerpt with my thoughts and observations on the past waves of Scrum and the rise of the 4th Scrum Wave.
In 2013 I ended up writing a book about Scrum for Van Haren Publishing, a publishing house specialized in IT publications based in the Netherlands. They wanted to add a book about Scrum to their portfolio. By that time, I had been applying Scrum for 10 years and in the two years preceding the actual creation of my book, I had been at the heart of the Scrum storm that was sweeping the Netherlands. And survived.
Writing a book about Scrum was anything but a long-lived hope, ambition or dream. Rather, it was an accidental and unplanned endeavor. At the same time, writing a simple book with as few lines of text as possible actually turned out taking a lot more time and energy than I thought it would take. I went through that effort in the time between ending my position as a Principal Consultant at a large international consulting company and embarking on my partnership journey with Ken Schwaber (Scrum co-creator) as the Director of the Professional Scrum Series at Scrum.org.
Imagine my surprise that more than a decade later the 4th edition of my book is now globally available via diverse channels.
I embarked on my Agile journey in 2003 when we wrapped eXtreme Programming in Scrum. Besides having engaged with many teams and organizations I have also created and facilitated many Scrum workshops and classes about various topics for various audiences since then. In 2011 I obtained my license as a Professional Scrum Trainer for Scrum.org from Ken Schwaber (co-creator of Scrum). From 2013-2016 I maintained the official “Professional Scrum” series of Scrum.org meanwhile training candidate-PSTs and shepherding the global community of Professional Scrum Trainers and coaches. After ending the exclusivity of Scrum.org over my work in 2016, I had to think about a new title. I started calling myself “Scrum Caretaker” because it best represents what it is that I do. As a one-person company, all other titles felt silly too (like CEO, CFO, cleaning person, helpdesk, sales agent, office manager or spreadsheet administrator). I added ‘independent’ to my self-chosen title to emphasize that I am not part of any fixed structure, small nor big. As from the start of the program, my company and business vehicle, Ullizee-Inc, became a member of the Professional Training Network of Scrum.org. Next to teaching Professional Scrum classes, I keep evolving my Scrum Pocket Classes, a series of proprietary half-day workshops based upon my book “Scrum – A Pocket Guide”.
Let there be no misunderstanding: money is important.
Money is important for our family. My wife is my stability (1993). We have three kids (2001, 2003, 2013) of which the two oldest (sons) have a disability (Duchenne and Down Syndrome). My family is my stability. Throughout the years we lost people (some dear, some not). We cope. We gained liberty. Money is important because it pays our bills. As a family, we need and use money to keep us fed, pay off our mortgage, buy stuff and lead a materially somewhat comfortable life. My work as an independent Scrum Caretaker via my one-person company Ullizee-Inc is the sole source of money for our family. We have no backup or additional sources of income. Scrum is what I do for a living. Scrum is what I’ve been practicing for the past 20+ years.
Beyond the fact that not even all my Scrum Caretakery work is paid work or even about money, I can’t escape giving up financially more beneficial Scrum Caretakery activities to spend a substantial proportion of my time on (what I call) my Home Caretakery activities. I am inescapably needed at home a lot of the time to provide our (adult) sons with the specific care they need as a result of their respective disabilities. There is no other way given the physical nature of that care. There is no other way given the absence of a network around us and given the lack of the funding that would be needed to purchase professional care that would be sufficiently tuned to their needs.
Still, I am unable to blindly go after money only, not even in situations where it might be justified. Regardless of ethics, values, principles or purpose, it is also a conscious choice to take my Home Caretakery and being with my family seriously, and to some extent I wouldn’t want it otherwise. Money is important, but it is not what drives us.
Money was not what drove my wife and I when I gave up my position as software engineer and aspiring project manager in favor of running a bookshop (1996). It wasn’t when I refused the position of CIO at Belgium’s first e-com (2001). It wasn’t when we gave up on my wife’s income to allow her to develop her creative talents (2007). It wasn’t when I abandoned a position of Principal Consultant and a future higher-up the ladder function at a large international consulting company (2013). It wasn’t when we bought a house we didn’t think we could afford because of the increasing wheelchair-dependence of our son (2014). It wasn’t when I decided to go completely independent with my one-person company Ullizee-Inc (2016) and not be part of any fixed structure for the time being (which is to this date).
It took me a very long time, nearly a life time, to even start realizing what it is then that drives me, if not money. I still find it difficult to put words to what that is and articulate it with some precision. Ultimately, it boils down to people and working with people, treating people as human beings and not accepting otherwise. It leads to my personal mission of promoting and establishing more humane working environments and humanizing the workplace in an attempt to reduce toxic and abusive behaviors and restore people’s engagement (at work). Humanizing the workplace equals undoing the past mechanization of the workplace (during the dominance of the industrial paradigm), while helping leadership and anyone involved see and understand that workplace humanization equals company deworrification. Because, ultimately, engaged people care more (about team, customer and company outcomes of their work).
It took me even longer (another life time?) to understand where this drive comes from, what its roots are, unveil the why of why I’m doing what I do, why I can’t let go, why I often behave in the way that I do, take the decisions that I take–often intuitively, fiercely and stubbornly, regardless of the financial consequences. I have gradually discovered that it is most likely an attempt to turn the traumas of my childhood and my youth into a mission. I guess I needed to take the pain of my youth and transform it into a mission. The result is a mission and a life of serving others to break (not continue or start anew) a circle of emotional violence and mental abuse, to turn a downward spiral around and make it go upward. The roots of my mission is what I call my Past Continuous Sorrow. It is a sort of sorrow that nobody recognizes, notices or sees. While every day I am reminded of this hole that cannot be filled. But I find comfort in my lack of importance in the fact that in 4-5 billion years our dear sun, before disappearing after a life expected to take 9-10 billion years, will swallow us whole anyhow, as a sign of tenderness.
I believe that these specifics of my past are why I engage and want to have an impact, make a difference and help create a better world. I believe it is why I’m completely insensitive to anything Career, Hierarchy, Title, Position, Role, Power, Fame (etc.). These big capital words are not what drive me. They are no goals to me. And more than just being insensitive to them, I’ve even found that it typically turns out rather counterproductive if people ‘use’ it to ‘motivate’ me, and even more when connecting money to it. It is the only explanation for my past, instinctive anti-responses in situations where that was essentially what was happening. Money is important, but it is not what drives me. Money is important, but integrity is more important. Every time I left a company was essentially because of integrity. Integrity is why I ended up this one-person company aspiring to change the world for the better. Doing this in all independence is made even more difficult by not being acknowledged for the work I’ve done as part of company structures in the past and the legacy I tried to leave in favor of Scrum and humanizing the workplace.
But if it was money that drives me, I would never have had the time to become what I didn’t know I wanted to be. And although it may look as if there was a plan, there wasn’t. If it was money that drives me, I would have created my own proprietary program of Agile/Scrum classes and a certification scheme when I went independent (which seems to be what many people thought I was going to do). If it was money that drives me, I would have created my own proprietary Agile scaling model (without calling it a model, obviously) and set up even more classes and extend my certification schemes. If it was money that drives me, I could have created my own proprietary development framework (ending up with yet another Scrum derivative) as a foundation for even newer courses and more certifications and an even larger ‘model’ to scale it. If it was money that drives me, I would be giving mass production trainings for people not interested in learning, but in quickly certifying. If it was money that drives me, I would do individual coaching of people not interested in experience, but still wanting level III certifications. If it was money that drives me, I wouldn’t spend time on writing. If it was money that drives me, I would be out there in the market to shamelessly, vigilantly, relentlessly and ruthlessly market, promote, sell, oversell and resell my 20+ years of experience (like a real consultant would do) while pushing competitors out of the market rather than spending time at home taking care of our sons and exploring give-and-take collaborative partnerships (even when largely unsuccessfully). If it was money that drives me, I would be speaking at events only when offered large sums of money with no other intent than entertainment and self-promotion.
Rather, after abandoning several (financially more rewarding) positions and titles, once upon a time I started calling myself a Scrum Caretaker (2016). In the expanded version that became an independent Scrum Caretaker to leave no doubts that I am not a part of any fixed structure, big nor small (2017). I added my personal mission to it: an independent Scrum Caretaker on a journey of humanizing the workplace with Scrum (2019). I’ve noticed how the term “Scrum Caretaker” resonates with people across the planet. Maybe more Scrum Caretakers will emerge. Maybe some day we will form a Scrum Caretakers Collective.
Maybe it will happen once enough people start realizing that the time has come to restore the balance between the ‘people’ aspect of Scrum (“Self-organization”) and the ‘process’ aspect of Scrum (“Empiricism”). Because the focus of many Scrum adoptions is still tilted heavily towards the process aspect, and not barely enough on the people aspect. Scrum is too much limited to a way to create and deliver product; more features, sooner, faster. The added value of adopting Scrum for the people doing the work is conveniently ignored. But, guess what, people who are truly engaged and motivated will build better products. Ultimately, using Scrum as a tool to humanize the workplace is the way forward.
Let there be no misunderstanding: money is important.
Unfortunately, too many people and enterprises take it for granted that it is not money that drives me (not willing to pay, to not return a favor, to not grant me a piece of the cake, but some bread crumbs only). So, in case of doubt: although money is not what drives me, I am trying to make a living out of my mission too, not in the least to support my family but also to fund my ways of offering inspiration that are beyond money. The alternative is charity and a hungry family. A good start, and thus one of my ambitions as from 2024 is to speak for free less. I know you now understand.
People regularly approach me (often privately) with the request to speak out (potentially publicly) on various things ‘Agile’. Although I am humbled by the trust that genuinely speaks from their words, there is also (o, the horror!) the expectations in their requests.
I want to share my (multi-layered) doubts and hesitance regarding the matter of speaking out publicly on (some) things ‘Agile’. And thereby, in a way, speak out publicly anyhow… albeit offering–what I hope is–a nuanced perspective.
1. Regarding the matter of importance and impact
I wouldn’t overrate the importance or impact of my words and viewpoints. Because, surprise, surprise, I am no wizard. Agile nor Scrum. I’ve only found a way to stick around for a long time and still be hopeful. It is an ‘achievement’ that also includes that I have survived a bunch of ups and downs and have seen many others come and go.
The fact that some of my public messages get a lot of ‘likes’ is to a certain extent meaningless. It is not a sign of importance (let alone of impact). Because pressing ‘like’ on some social media platform does not represent commitment or action. I have found over and over that it often doesn’t even mean that a liker has actually read what I’m sharing. Worse, I observe regularly how some of the comments seem to have no other aim than trying to shine a light of importance on the commenting subject, often through some form of simplistic clickbait message. One of my core beliefs is that a name and a reputation can at most be a side effect, never the purpose (unless one doesn’t mind a very poor purpose).
Judging by the number of people actually actively joining me in my journey of humanizing the workplace with Scrum(extremely low), much of the expressed ‘respect’ is no more than paying lip service. Best case it is a confirmation of my wrongly presumed importance. It is not a confirmation of any impact that I may have (or not). Commitment is not in what people say, not in how they name themselves or look like. It is in what they do.
Nor can there thus be much expectations (in a positive or negative sense) of the actual impact of my words or viewpoints regarding the question whether a process or framework (whatever name they chose for themselves) is “Agile”.
2. Regarding the matter of action and contribution
Another highly personal belief is the belief in positive action. I want to deliver a positive contribution to our world, help increase the global levels of positivity. Believe me, I have little idea where that drive comes from. As I am aging however, the finding keeps taking root more firmly that I am a man who took the pain of his youth and transformed it into a mission.
There are already so many haters and bashers, certainly regarding my favourite tool, Scrum. So much energy is wasted on spreading negativity. Some people seem to spend their entire life on nothing but ranting. It might help them gain many followers and leave them with a feeling of being a ‘leader’ (again, what a strange idea of purpose). Whether it is through some form of simplistic clickbait messages or otherwise, helpful it is not. Giving them more attention is unlikely to help either. Unless increasing their feeling of importance is the goal. Not to mention that I have found that it often completely drains me, which, I realize, is just one of my many shortcomings for which nobody else is to be blamed.
So, I feel comfortable enough to ‘speak out’ by liking, sharing or commenting on certain messages as a sign of my support. In my case, it is generally a well-considered choice, as is not liking messages. (On a side note, this also applies on the many requests by authors I get to read their article) It is similarly a well-considered choice not to spend time on correcting, judging or contradicting messages, not even when I think I could. I don’t overrate my ability to make people listen, let alone change their mind.
Furthermore and finally, I simply have too many plans, hopes, dreams and ambitions to allow such a waste of time to creep in. Life’s too short.
3. Regarding the question whether a process or framework (whatever name they chose for themselves) is “Agile”
Regardless whether free-floating opportunists like it or not, there is no denying that the source and roots of all things ‘Agile’ is the “Manifesto for Agile Software Development”, or the “Agile Manifesto” in short. Whatever gets labeled as “Agile” should by default mean that it is in line with the four value statements and twelve principles of that Manifesto. It is only fair to use that alignment to assess the validity of the claim of the label “Agile”. And although those value statements and principles were expressed in the realm of software development, they are sufficiently generic to be interpreted outside of software development.
In my book “Scrum – A Pocket Guide” I repeat that “Agile” is not one fixed process, method or practice. In the absence of a concise, specific definition of “the Agile process”, I list and describe three characteristics as the core traits that are common and typical to an Agile way of working:
People-centric.
Iterative-incremental progress.
Value as the measure of success.
I also describe “agility” as the (organizational) state envisioned by moving to an Agile way of working: a state of continuous flux, high responsiveness, speed and adaptiveness. It is a state needed to deal with the unpredictability so common to most of today’s work and to the moving markets that organizations operate within. I consciously capitalise “Agile” but not “agility”.
SAFe, like a few other methods, can be many things (helpful or not, who knows) but it is neither Agile, nor is it a framework. SAFe is exactly the sort of process (in the sense of ‘methodology’) as referred to by the signatories of the Agile Manifesto in the first Agile value statement (“INDIVIDUALS and INTERACTIONS over processes and tools”). SAFe turns this statement upside down and reverses the expressed preference, as it does to the 3rd and 4th Agile value statement (and likely even the 2nd). Similar findings can be made about the lack of various aspects of “Agile” highlighted in the twelve principles, like timescales, collaboration, emergence and self-organization. After all, there is a reason why there were no people from RUP invited for the Snowbird gathering.
My hesitance to speak out loudly is not because of my ‘reputation’ (I have none) or commercial or legal consequences. It is because I know first-hand that the best form of promotion that SAFe got in the past was a few global leaders heavily speaking out against it. What they said was correct, well-intended and of high integrity. Still, the effect was people massively looking at SAFe, thereby causing damage and big setbacks in helping the world move away from the paradigm of industrial views and beliefs.
It shows how the statement of my book is true: the old (industrial, Taylorist) paradigm has deep roots and a considerable half-life time. So, let’s hope nobody reads this text if it increases even more interest in a methodology that claims you can change without having to change. And I’ve already spent too much valuable time on it anyhow.
By the way, various other approaches claiming to be “Agile” don’t put people (as human beings) and capitalizing on people’s intelligence and creativity front and center either. Nor are they iterative-incremental. Work is not organized in short cycles allowing and provoking emergence, pivoting and bottom-up knowledge creation. They also aim at pressuring for ‘more’ (volume) instead of discovering ‘better’ (value). They can be useful or helpful (who knows), but they are not “Agile”.
And for the bashers/trolls, I am well aware that many implementations of Scrum suffer from the same problem. At least, it is a problem of interpretation, not of definition. I stand my ground when stating that "Scrum is the most widely adopted definition of Agile".
I don’t abide by it, but the reality is that many, many people don’t care about integrity but prefer (commercial) convenience.
A last, personal example: As part of my ambition and will to deliver a positive contribution, I have developed a Scrum Pocket Class called “Scrum in the Large”. It is based upon the insights on ‘scale’ that I already shared in the first edition of my book, in 2013, which was even before (or maybe at the start of) the whole scaling hype. As most of my public classes, it barely attracts people (it is not what most want to hear), although the people that join generally describe it as a true eye-opener. I accept it as a confirmation of what I stated regarding the matter of importance and impact: my limited impact or recognition rather than being an “important voice” or “Scrumfluencer” (quoting some direct messages).
I’m at peace with that. It’s even good to keep my feet on the ground while being able to sustain my family and do my part of personal caretakery at home. At most, I am a man who took the pain of his youth and transformed it into a mission. It’s an infinite game anyhow. I plant seeds.
The updated, third edition of my book “Scrum – A Pocket Guide” is now available worldwide, as a digital and as a paperback edition. Still small enough to fit in your pocket and carry it with you anywhere, anytime.Still a smart travel companion.
I accidentally created the first edition of my book “Scrum – A Pocket Guide” in 2013. I consider how I described the Scrum Values in that first edition. In July 2016 they were added to the Scrum Guide. I consider how I already described the traditional three questions of the Daily Scrum as a good but optional tactic in that first version. These questions being optional was added to the Scrum Guide in November 2017 and their description was even completely removed from the November 2020 edition; taking away all doubt that they are indeed optional. In 2018 I deliberately evolved my Scrum travel companion into a second edition (available 2019).
Rather than repeating the rules of the game, in my pocket guide to Scrum I focus on the purpose of those rules while clearly distinguishing them from tactics to play the game. Tactics are not described in the Scrum Guide because they ‘vary widely and are described elsewhere’. Given its size (small) and volume (only about 100 pages) I hope my book lives up to what its subtitle says: a smart travel companion. Creating and updating my book, accidentally or otherwise, had many unanticipated (mostly positive) consequences, for which I am very grateful. I could not hope for, nor aspired, continual appreciation for being such a comprehensive description of the Scrum framework seven+ years later.
In the meantime, more and bigger challenges keep surfacing. The balance of society keeps drastically and rapidly shifting from industrial (often physical) labor to digital (often virtual) work. More and different people ask for guidance and insights on their journey of Scrum in domains beyond software and new product development. Organizations look for clear insights in the simple rules of Scrum as they envision re-emerging their structures and their way of working around Scrum. Without rendering them overly vague I believe that the third edition of “Scrum – A Pocket Guide” holds more generic, yet still appropriate and complete descriptions of the rules of Scrum; using different words and other angles to the known set of rules without creating or leaving holes. Rather than omitting them all, terms and examples from Scrum in software and new product development environments now serve more as examples for other industries where Scrum is adopted.
I believe that this third edition offers the more than ever needed, foundational insights for people and their organizations to properly shape their Scrum, regardless of their domain or business. The focus is still more on the intent and purpose of the rules and roles in the framework, while clarifying some changes in terminology from the 2020 update of the Scrum Guide. Helping people understand the purpose of the rules and the roles of Scrum remains at the heart of all my work and actions as an independent Scrum Caretaker–training, coaching, consulting and speaking. It helps me drive forward an evolution towards more humanized workplaces.
Following are some of the more popular channels to acquire the third edition of “Scrum – A Pocket Guide”:
I thank Bhuvan Misra for his much-appreciated, critical feedback on this third edition. I thank all translators for their past and on-going efforts to spread my words in different languages. Translations of this updated, third edition in Russian, Polish, French and traditional Chinese are in progress. I thank all at Van Haren Publishing, and especially Ivo van Haren, for giving me the chance to express my views on Scrum.
