Unfinished Work in Scrum: Myth vs Reality
Clarifies Scrum guidelines on unfinished work, explaining that items can span multiple Sprints if the Sprint Goal and Done Increment remain intact, …
TL;DR; Scrum is meant to be flexible and adaptable, not rigid, despite some claims that it is “immutable.” The Scrum Guide’s reference to immutability applies to its definition, not to how teams must implement it, so teams can adapt Scrum as needed as long as they are transparent about changes. Development managers should focus on delivering value, getting feedback, adapting plans, and reflecting regularly rather than debating strict adherence to the Scrum Guide.

The false claim that “Scrum is immutable”!
The Scrum Guide makes it clear that it’s a flexible approach that welcomes change, including in Scrum itself, during implementation. Every part of the “Guide” (including its name) discusses flexibility and adaptation.
However, many will rally around the battle cry that “Scrum is immutable” and scream about its lack of fundamental agility, forgetting that it’s a “guide” and that its creators were one-sixth of those who created the Agile Manifesto.
The paragraph that they take offence to is way down in the “endnotes” of the Scrum Guide and reads:
“The Scrum framework, as outlined herein, is immutable. While implementing only parts of Scrum is possible, the result is not Scrum. Scrum exists only in its entirety and functions well as a container for other techniques, methodologies, and practices.”
I can kind of understand where the confusion comes from if one only reads the “The Scrum framework, as outlined herein, is immutable.” and ignores the rest. Still, with the content of the rest of the guide, as well as the following sentence, it is quite explicitly clear that this refers to an immutability of definition and not of implementation! This is an extremely important distinction that results in the idea that:
You don’t have to implement Scrum as it says in the Guide at all. You can do whatever you want.
All the Guide “asks” is that if we change the game’s core rules, we should be honest, open, and transparent and that we are playing a different game. Is that too difficult a concept to grasp?
The only people having these arguments are practitioners; for everyone else… it’s irrelevant. Focus instead on the intent and purpose…
…are we delivering value regularly? …are we getting feedback regularly? …are we adapting our plans regularly? …are we reflecting regularly?
Each classification [Concepts, Categories, & Tags] was assigned using AI-powered semantic analysis and scored across relevance, depth, and alignment. Final decisions? Still human. Always traceable. Hover to see how it applies.
If you've made it this far, it's worth connecting with our principal consultant and coach, Martin Hinshelwood, for a 30-minute 'ask me anything' call.
We partner with businesses across diverse industries, including finance, insurance, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, technology, engineering, transportation, hospitality, entertainment, legal, government, and military sectors.

Xceptor - Process and Data Automation

Big Data for Humans

Healthgrades

Freadom

Brandes Investment Partners L.P.

Milliman

ALS Life Sciences

Boeing

Akaditi
CR2

Hubtel Ghana

Epic Games

Microsoft

Lockheed Martin

Flowmaster (a Mentor Graphics Company)

Graham & Brown

Deliotte

Kongsberg Maritime

Washington Department of Enterprise Services

Nottingham County Council

Royal Air Force

New Hampshire Supreme Court

Ghana Police Service

Washington Department of Transport

Deliotte

New Signature

Higher Education Statistics Agency
CR2
NIT A/S

Qualco