Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
How to move a team from waterfall development model to scrum model? What all are the steps that one need to follow to achieve a smooth transition. What would be the acceptance curve and will it be successful altogether?
First the team needs to want the change, and the business has to support it.
There isn't a set sequence of steps, and success can vary widely, as much depends on your particular situation.
I'd recommend getting Mike Cohn's book Succeeding with Agile, which gives some excellent advice for such a transition.
Though there are many ideas on how to implement scrum within an organization, starting with one team is certainly a consistent thread. So good work on starting that way. From there find someone with experience in implementing agile. A contractor, a colleague, or advice at meetup groups. Here's a link to one I have attended in the DC area - http://groups.google.com/group/dcnova-scrum-user-group
From there, my opinion is to adapt scrum to your team. It's size, it's need for adjustment, etc. Everyone has opinions, but if your team doesn't buy it, it's not worth it. Don't take that as a license to cut things from scrum. Keep the daily standups, the commitment, the retrospectives, the demo (etc), but adjust the size of the sprint, etc.
I recently saw a compelling presentation that advocated implementing pieces of scrum/agile as the team/business was ready. See this gentelman's site for details - http://www.dragile.com/
A big key is to not get lazy - do scrum. And have a high standard. If you're going to go it alone (which can be dangerous) - read your heart out. Read examples, talk to others, go to meetups, etc. Don't let your inexperience in scrum sour your team to it.
Another good link for an example of one team's experience implementing scrum.
http://www.crisp.se/henrik.kniberg/ScrumAndXpFromTheTrenches.pdf
In my experience with learning to manage a team using agile there are two critical components to making agile/scrum work. I think that Jody's point about not being lazy is really important, with the more free-flowing work pattern of agile it can be easy to succumb to skipping meetings or other such nonsense.
Get a good web based task tracker. This allows developers to login and see what they need to do and will help track progress. I've been very happy with Pivotal Tracker (www.pivotaltracker.com). Of course the tracker is only worthwhile if you actually keep it up to date, which leads me to point two.
Having meetings EVERY day. The daily standup discussed in the scrum and agile books is by far the most important aspect of the routine. Keep the meetings short, do it in the same place at the same time every day. Update the task tracker during this meeting and keep it organized.
Transitioning a team from waterfall can be difficult. Having everyone on the team read about scrum is important. Also, understand that not every aspect of the scrum model will work in your environment. Facilitate an open discussion about what aspects of the model you want to adopt as a team. The more input you get from the team the more buy-in you'll have.
How to move a team from waterfall development model to scrum model ?
Strategizing Phase:
Well, the first step off course is the thought for change. Then comes the buy-in from the Management, and the Product Development Teams.
Release Planning and Virtual Product Discovery:
Ideally, you would start by identifying all stakeholders and identifying all the requirements by using the Agile Release planning method - which is a really lean way of doing Release Planning. You would identify virtual products at this stage if not already identified.
Team Forming and Infrastructure:
Next step would be forming cross functional teams based on what virtual products need to be built. This step can be tough. It may require RE-organization. Cross functional teams mean there will be no requirements gathering team, or software development team, or QA team. You would have to pull a experienced lot of people from each department to form a cross functional team. A Scrum Master and a Product for each team will have to be appointed.
Basic infrastructure will need to be established for the cross functional teams to operate smoothly, without interruption.
Start Sprinting With Team(s):
Start following the Scrum/Agile principles and have them Sprint. Capture various artifacts and use them to inspect and adapt.
WALAH you are Agile!
What all are the steps that one need to follow to achieve a smooth transition. What would be the acceptance curve and will it be successful altogether?
Steps are mentioned above in order. Acceptance curve varies based on how well you execute the steps I mentioned above.
Lastly Yes, off course it will be successful. 100% guaranteed successful.
Kidding, I wish I could guarantee that, but I can't. :)
What I suggest is this - When you read my statement "Yes, off course it will be successful", the hope you might have got, just hold on to that hope and take that first step!
I happened to be a part of a team which was migrating from waterfall to scrum. If the teams large and distributed, I don't think its easy for everyone to migrate to scrum all at once as a change in organization takes certain amount of days/months/years.
Once such approach that you may like to try is Tracer Bullet, although this term is used more in agile world, but you can surely prove your point to get the buy-in and lead by example if you/your team is stuck in the middle of waterfall and scrum and are looking to go nowhere in quick time.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
For many years I have been involved in projects which are managed by waterfall or V-model frameworks. For a while I am reading about agile methodologies, mainly scrum, and getting opinions about sprints, daily meetings, burndown charts etc. However all the articles I read describe the methodology when everything goes well.
Last week, I was in an interview and not able to answer a bad-case question:
What if you realize that you misunderstood something about your daily
work in a daily morning meeting? Or, you find yourself in a situation that you
don't know the requirement of your daily work, what would you do?
I could only say; I don't know but I would not burn that day out. Maybe to talk to the scrum master and ask to gather the team again?
What should a scrum developer team member do in such a case?
EDIT:
There are many failure scenarios for scrum masters (motivating the team members, communicating with the customer, failure of sprints etc.), but I could not find failure cases for scrum team members.
You talk to whomever you need to talk to in order to figure out what you should be doing. That might be stakeholder, that might be a member of the team who is an expert on that part of the system, it might be someone else, it might be multiple people.
The daily scrum is an opportunity to get people on the same page. It isn't the only time you are allowed to communicate.
Ask for help as soon as he knows that the plan he had for the next 24h is void.
Probably first to a co-team-member, if that doesn't yield the answer the product owner, if that doesn't help a user, stakeholder or anyone else. If you can't get access to a person who can help you, signal the scrum master, as this would be an impediment.
Report on your findings at least at the next daily scrum, but of course you can call, send email, drop a message in slack, update the scrum board way before that.
This isn't a failure, it's getting a better understanding of the real problem. As this often leads to new work being found, the Sprint Backlog is updated with new sprint backlog items to reflect the new reality. If the new understanding jeopardizes the sprint goal, I (the developer) 'd personally call for a quick full-team meeting to adjust strategy.
I'd say this falls under this part of the Scrum Guide:
The Development Team modifies the Sprint Backlog throughout the Sprint, and the Sprint Backlog emerges during the Sprint. This emergence occurs as the Development Team works through the plan and learns more about the work needed to achieve the Sprint Goal.
As new work is required, the Development Team adds it to the Sprint Backlog.
http://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#artifacts-sprintbacklog
In General, Product owner and Team member understand the requirement of particular scrum and task list for that scrum.
1.If one member is facing any issue in understanding the task or
business requirement, you can talk to product owner for more clarification regarding the story/task.
2.If you have understood the task but facing problem in understanding the technical requirement, you should have some quick discussion with another team member after your finding related to the task and fix the blocker of understanding as soon as possible.
3.Report your situation to scrum master if you are not able to make it even after having discussion with team member.
4.have a meeting with multiple members if you still see it a blocker.
Talks and discussion are the solutions for solving any issue in all process including scrum. Scrum is tightly scheduled process, so you have to take quick decision and action to fix understanding blocker.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I realize that this is a subjective question, so I've marked it as a community wiki. I think that it is pretty specific to programming teams, though, so I've posted it here as opposed to somewhere else.
I'm leading a small game development team (four people) as a side project. We are a disjoint team, with everyone in different places, but we do have some of the mainstays of an organized team.
Source Control
Continuous Integration
Bug Tracking
Document Workspace
Regular Meetings
Calendar / Schedule
How do you keep your small, disjoint teams on-track? I tend to agree with Joel's opinion about when and how to micromanage and know that my team is motivated, but it can be easy to fall off-course when everyone isn't connected in a physical way and doesn't see what other people on the team are doing. Suggestions, feedback, or criticisms are welcome!
Edit: I'm managing the team; I'm not looking for automated tools or anything to do my job for me, just ideas for approach or process that might help everyone feel more "connected" and involved.
You need a Team Leader with specific skills.
Motivator: You have to keep your team Motivated. This is really hard to do, and requires a special personality. Without this skill, small teams like yours are hopeless.
1a. Request thoughtful answers to a controversial question and then after 7 minutes accept one of few answers and go on to something else. This shows that you take the long view and is highly motivating to your contributors
Intelligence: For small projects like this, it's best if the Team Leader knows something about everything. If he knows something about everything, everyone is going to follow him.
Objective: Remaining objective is very key.
Organized: You have to be the most organized out of everyone, because when things get chaotic, people run. And I would say in small projects, this is the skill that most Team Leaders lack.
I have been part of several small projects. I would guess that 90% of them fail. I would say it's primarily due to the Team Leader lacking in certain skills.
BTW. Good Luck. I couldn't be a Team leader. :)
Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment from "How To Win Friends and Influence People":
Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
Call attention to other people's mistakes indirectly.
Talk about your own mistakes first.
Ask questions instead of directly giving orders.
Let the other person save face.
Praise every improvement.
Give them a fine reputation to live up to.
Encourage them by making their faults seem easy to correct.
Make the other person happy about doing what you suggest.
Those are my suggestions for some helpful tactics, even if they are rather old as the book was written in 1936.
This is an interesting article about that very topic: Gaming the System.
A manager. Someone has to keep track of where folks are at and how their progress fits in the scope and time-line of the entire project. There isn't really a good way to automate this. It must be done by a human.
Edit When I worked for a game industry company, we always had to meet certain milestones to get payments from the publisher. As the manager you can break down each persons tasks into milestones as well. This way you can track the progress of each developer without bothering those who are on track with their features. It also makes it easier for the developer to know what their deadlines are in nice bite size pieces. If they are consultants, you can even pay them upon meeting their milestones. Money is great motivator ;) Another great motivator is to make all milestones open to the whole team. So if one person falls behind, others can jump in and help her meet it.
I've worked in large and small game development teams for many years and I think the most important thing you can keep in mind to hit milestones and stay on track is discipline.
Game Development seems to suffer immensely from the desire to add more and more features or focus too much energy in something that's just not that much of the final experience. Your best tool for keeping the team on track is the word "No"
So far I've been on the development end of this equation, and by personal preference rejected attempts to place me in a managerial position. Techniques I have observed are:
Set very, perhaps impossibly short deadlines. Developers will be so rushed to achieve the goals that they won't have time for any distractions. They won't have time for refactoring, cleaning up code, indenting, code review or anything else either, but as long as their code compiles they can reach the milestone and worry about debugging it later.
Have a technical project lead so dedicated to the project he'll crack the whip on all others until they produce maximum (visible) output. Also, he'll work lots of overtime and encourage others to do the same.
Weekly meetings, all hands. Some of the information exchanged about what other folks are doing and what they've learned can actually be useful.
Provide standardized equipment, software and development environments. They may be awkward to work with and developers will hate it, but at least they won't end up playing with their configuration when they could be coding.
Have a business-savvy administrative project lead who can keep customers off the developers' backs and filter requirements for them. Anytime a customer "helps" it delays progress by many hours.
Daily standup meetings done properly help a whole lot. If you keep it to:
1 what did you do yesterday?
2 what are you doing today?
3 what problems are you having?
it should remain quick and helpful. Keep in mind #3 is just to state it not to solve it. That is done after the meeting and is facilitated by the development manager or project manager.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
We have a four person development team that is in need of a formalized project management system. I have a general understanding of Scrum and Kanban but it's hard to truly understand until it's been tried. We don't have the luxury of trying one for a few weeks and then switching to another so I was hoping that someone out there in a similar situation might have thoughts on which worked better for them and why. Also, any other systems for managing development that worked would be great to hear about.
Another note: there's the possibility of the team growing, of course, so we would need a system that scaled well.
Yet another note: We work on three separate software applications in Windows all of which are based on a central library which we also wrote (so i guess you could say four projects)
Both Scrum and Kanban are really process "skeletons". Neither is specific to software development. Scrum was popularised by software development organisations but is positioned as general management technique rather than a software project management technique. Kanban emerged from manufacturing and has been adapted to software development, initially by maintenance teams. Both Scrum and Kanban aim to manage the flow of units of work through the team that is doing that work, measure how fast work flows so that estimates can be made more and more accurately, and make bottlenecks highly visible so that they can be addressed.
Because neither is specific to software development, teams using Scrum and Kanban add software development practices to the process to help them incrementally and iteratively release and improve the software. Most teams, whether working within a Scrum or Kanban process, adopt the technical practices of XP and reflective practices of Crystal.
XP is basically Scrum applied to a single team plus guidelines about what makes code "high quality" and how programmers can achieve that. Crystal Clear also applies to small co-located teams but is more flexible about programming practices although it also recommends the XP practices (the book describing the process is excellent and full of invaluable advice, whatever process you decide to go with). Scrum teams also usually adopt the reflective practices of Crystal: regular "heart-beat" retrospectives and larger retrospectives after every major milestone. Kanban requires continual reflection and improvement but some teams use retrospectives too.
If you want to start applying an incremental/iterative process in a small programming team, then I think XP is a good process to start with because it sets the bar pretty high for technical capability and is very well documented. How continuous-flow and Kanban best applies to different areas of the software development industry is still being debated on the kanban-dev mailing list and elsewhere.
I would recommend also performing regular retrospectives to improve the process and adapt it to your specific situation.
The most important part is to have a reflection/retrospective mechanmism in place which facilitates continuous improvement. Start with some process model and evolve it over time for your needs. Stop doing things that are not worth doing. Keep on doing things that bring in high value. Try new things that you think could be valuable or address specific problems.
I think Scrum works for small to medium team. Compared to XP it leaves out some details, so you can borrow from XP or do something that makes sense. Either methodology you pick, you have to consider the role of chickens(customers/managers/stakeholder/domain experts) role. Sometimes you have to play the roles yourself, but many agile methodologies work because there's external pace car with grounded knowledge of the domain.
Other key aspects are the communication level among your team and some form of quality assurance mechanism. It's hard to do pair programming if you are not located in the same building. Scrum tries to get a feature to acceptance within a sprint cycle, and XP tries to get the feature integrated within the day using unit tests, code review, and continuous integration.
*) Sprint can range from 15-30 days.
What is you question ? Is it which methodology would be most suitable ?
You don't get much benefit from all the overhead that a formallised system will impose with that size of team. Instead, try a good management technique to make sure everyone is listening to each other and blocks are removed.
I've worked with a team of that sice and even bigger on two teams that shared some common libraries. Scrum worked well for us. Now I work with a team with 6 members and we use XP and I think it works as well. The first team developed a product and the influences from 'the outer space' were not that big. So longer iterations worked fine. No we develop a customer project and therefore shorter release cycles are better for us.
But SCRUM and XP are more than that. Now we use TDD and Pair-Programming (both more from the XP world). We also have daily standup meetings that are more SCRUM like. So we adoped XP and SCRUM to work for our project and our situation.
I would start with short cylces (1 week) and reviews of this cycle. It will take some time to adopt a new methodology in your team but if the members are willing to learn and change it will work.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
In the course of my career I've noticed that developers working on new functionality are, as a rule, more cheerful than these assigned to troubleshooting and fixing bugs.
Good tips on keeping business support a happy? Organising business support in the way that team's morale isn’t hurt?
If we start with the assumption that the reason for new function developers being happier is that they get to feel proactive or in control and the troubleshooters are reactive and pushed around by the users one answer comes to mind:
Create a model for those doing troubleshooting to fixes to generalise these from point fixes into broad, consistent fixes for a class of problem. This puts them in the situation of creating new code, even if not new functionality, and they get to think a problem through and anticipate and avoid problems rather than playing whack-a-mole.
In fast moving environments it may also be possible to rotate people through the job descriptions by have them follow their feature from new development into fix and realease and hopefully into version 2 of the feature.
Our organisation has a substantial amount of support work and we've got hit with this problem really hard. The motivation on support teams could dropping down exponentially over the time if you don't do it right.
The principles which worked for us were:
Choose the right people. Some people are happier doing new stuff. Some people are actually much more suited to a steady no-nonsense job. It means that you should have two teams - one for development and one for support. Developers only stay on a completed project until they pass their knowledge to the supporters.
Choose the right leader. Good organisation is make or break here. A good leader would help to organise good relationship with the product users and at the same time will care for his team.
Rotate. We try to keep the support people on the project for a period of less then 2 years and then move them to something new. This helps maintaining proper morale and ensure that their skills don't rust.
Relationship with the customer. Make sure that the support team know how valuable they are. The customers/users should occasionally visit the team or the team should go on-site to have a face-to-face session with the users (a friendly dinner or lunch will also help)
I have seen this too.
There are few approaches that I can think of:
1. Give some thought to selection process.
Not everyone have same career aspirations. While some people are always dying to work for the latest technology and challenging projects, there are others who are content at a stable work environment. Picking the person with right KSA (Knowledge, Skills, Attitude) is always central to good person-job match. In this case, you just need to put more stress on the Attitude part.
2. Choose the right lead
Team leads play crucial role in controlling the motivation and morale of the team. There must be an open and frank channel of communication with team lead and upper management. Ideally a person from the senior management should be made the owner of the team in formal organization chart. Team lead should actively try to foster a team-culture that suites the nature of the team.
3. Rewards
Rewards off course are key tool for managing motivational issues. Just make sure the person receiving the rewards understand that the nature of job was also taken into consideration in decision to reward. If this point is not addressed, it is likely that the person will not take this factor into account when perceiving internal equity.
Following Bell's suggestion, consider letting new or junior developers cut their teeth on fixes. Promote them from maintenance to the feature team based on their performance and ability.
Healthy competition is also a good motivator, but it must be managed to remain a positive influence.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
My company has recently started using Scrum; we've done 2 sprints. We're still learning, but we've definitely exposed and fixed some problems in our development process already. So in general I think it has been good for us.
In reading many of the internet musings about Scrum from evangelists, cynics and everyone in between, three common and somewhat contradictory themes have stood out to me:
Scrum implementation fails because the processes of Scrum are not followed closely enough.
Scrum implementation fails because the organization does not adapt Scrum to its own environment/culture/practices.
The processes of Scrum are not important; only the values in the Agile Manifesto matter.
Examples of these can be seen in the responses to these SO questions:
Have you had a bad experience with Scrum or Sprinting?
Is Scrum evil?
Is Agile Development Dead?
I have to admit that we're not yet following all the guidelines of Scrum: we haven't done a release at the end of the sprints, our Scrum Master doesn't want us to move tasks out of the sprint backlog near the end of the sprint so that he can see how much our planning was off (which means the burndown chart never goes to 0), and urgent customer support issues still have incredible power to disrupt everyone's planning, for a few examples.
My question is: in trying to solve these and other issues, is it better to try and be closer to the official Scrum processes, better to be closer to some of our pre-Scrum processes, or better to meditate on the principles of Scrum to try and come up with a different process altogether?
I would say that you are really missing one of the key components of agility if you don't release early and often. To the degree that you don't do this, your process is not agile and bound to suffer the same sorts of problems that traditional, plan-driven processes have. It may be that this is a temporary condition as you are just getting used to things, but you need to start releasing soon (and regularly).
You'll always have the problem with show-stoppers, but you may be able to help this by shortening your sprint length. The customer may not be able to wait a month, but they may be able to wait 2 weeks for some things. A shorter sprint length, then, may help you to defer some requests to the next sprint making them less disruptive. You also need to be upfront with the customer that the disruptions are actually causing your pace to suffer. They may voluntarily choose to wait if they know that their chosen features are being delayed by some requests.
Another observation that I would make is that, as with almost anything, it's better to start out by following the pattern as closely as you can while you are learning. Once you have a good grasp of the fundamental principles, you can then see where some principles can be bent, broken, or replaced much more clearly to improve the process. Until you really get it, the things you change may hurt or help -- you really have no idea since you don't have the experience that tells you how things ought to be working. Unless your Scrum master is really experienced, you may want to hew closer to the defined practices until you've got a few more sprints under your belt.
Almost everything I've read on Scrum says that one of the keys is to adapt the process to fit your own situation. No two development teams are the same, and different things work for different people.
The main ideas behind Scrum are:
Have a tight feedback loop from requirements to development and back to the stakeholder(s).
This allows the development team to continually verify that they are building something that's actually wanted and allows the development to be easily adjusted as requirements and expectations change. Stakeholders can add or remove features at any point and they can adjust the priority of the features as their needs change.
Keep the software in a state where it's releasable at the end of any given sprint.
That's not to say you have releases every sprint, but that you could if the customer decides they want to have the latest stuff. This also helps a development team avoid the situation of integration hell that comes from people going off and working on a piece of the project on for months at a time in isolation.
Be completely transparent with what's going on in development and everyone needs to be willing to make tradeoffs.
This is where most projects fail and where Scrum can really succeed if everyone buys into the process. So many development projects are set up to where a release has to have X features released on Y date and no flexibility in changing that. This results in half-done features and bug ridden software as the developers cram to get in all the required features on their checklist.
The reality is, unexpected things happen in software development. With open communication and willing participants in the Scrum process, customers and developers can continually evaluate the current state of the project and make educated decisions on prioritizing the work remaining on the project.
Scrum does work. Not with all teams in all situations, but it has been shown to work.
I would suggest trying to embrace textbook Scrum as much as your business environment allows, see how that works out, and then tune it.
Why does your Scrum master not want to move tasks out of the sprint backlog? Does he not 100% embrace the principles of Scrum? (I would see that as worrying in a Scrum master)
Most problems implementing Scrum are actually just problems in the team or business being exposed by the Scrum process e.g. - if your sprints are thrown out by unforeseen support issues this suggests you are not allocating enough resource to support
Every company is different, every project is different and every client is different.
I think it's just as easy to fail by following scrum (or any other methodology) too closely in an environment that doesn't fit the methodology as it is to fail because you follow scrum too loosely in a project that does fit.
At the end some generic answer in a QA site is no replacement to serious analysis of your own project, company, team and clients - there is no magic formula and you have to make your own decision.
Answer: You need to adopt both Scrum and XP together to get the full benefits of scrum.
Reasons:
The reasons are based on years of doing XP and scrum, and specifically on what I learned from Jeff Sutherland's talk (for the ACCU in London, May 2009)
Scrum is a management technique - not necessarily a software production method. Some people use scrum in other domains e.g. preparing museum exhibitions and running religious institutions... so it has the mechanisms you need to make a multidisciplinary team deliver work adaptably in small increments.
Scrum, originally included all the extreme programming practices. Jeff Sutherland actually said that he's never seen a scrum project achieve the higher orders of productivity measured for scrum without using the extreme programming practices.
Scrum and XP both come from the same background - Object-oriented programming, specifically with Smalltalk. The programmers went off and developed XP whilst the management people created scrum. You need both aspects - development practices and management practices.
The XP practices were deliberately removed from Scrum to make it easier to adopt. - Implementing the XP practices is hard and it's difficult to get them adopted quickly. Jeff actually said that Ken Schwaber removed the XP practices to help people get started with scrum. The danger now is that this minimal scrum has become all that people see and expect.
Lots of non-technical project managers now teach scrum - but they don't have the skillset to teach XP
Not all developers find the XP practices easy to adopt - they can be hard sell and it takes a few months rather than the 2 days it takes to establish basic scrum.
Scrum doesn't attempt to address the technical issues in software development. It's just a small management process.
The strength of scrum is that it doesn't get in the way by prescribing lots of unnecessary or irrelevant technical work.
The weakness of scrum is that it doesn't tell you what good technical practices to do.
Extreme Programming does address the technical issues involved in software development and it fits very well within scrum. The reason the scrum people didn't force everyone to do the XP technical practices is that it takes about 6 months to implement those tech practices, rather than the 2 days it takes to implement the most basic scrum.
Whether or not scrum is "evil" - there are certainly drawbacks with it. We discussed the uneasy relationship between XP and Scrum at length at XP Days, London, 2009: http://xpday-london.editme.com/WhereHasXpGone
Scrum is not really the problem that you are showing. Most development methodologies work, even waterfall, as much as we like to bash it, works. Scrum does make you concentrate a little more on the important things, but it won't stop people from making bad decisions like not really following the process.
The system is pretty simple at its core.
See the problem.
Define what done is.
Create a series of tasks that will get you to done.
Estimate those tasks.
Select enough of those so that you can get something done in a short period of time.
Complete the tasks.
Rinse and repeat.
OK admittedly these steps are simplified, and I haven't thrown in a scrum master and a customer. But the point is that the framework is just a basic time management strategy. If the people in your system are chaotic and not good at getting things done then scrum really won't help them.
It's better to start applying Scrum by the book, and to really understand the underlying principles and values from the Agile manifesto, prior to customize it, so that the process does not get denatured. Be sure to run retrospectives at the end of each and every iteration (Sprint) to "inspect and adapt" your process and eliminate waste.
For your Scrum Master, he can track what is removed from the current Sprint. Also Sprints are planned based on the previous Sprints achievement, not on what was previously scheduled. I do no get its point.