A Look at Scrum vs. Traditional Project Management

This article is an excerpt from the Shortform book guide to "Scrum" by Jeff Sutherland. Shortform has the world's best summaries and analyses of books you should be reading.

Like this article? Sign up for a free trial here .

In what ways are the traditional project management methods flawed? How does the Scrum method overcome those flaws?

In his book Scrum, Jeff Sutherland compares the Scrum method to more traditional management methods, such as the Waterfall method. Sutherland points out that these traditional methods don’t work well because they’re based on unrealistic optimism, whereas the Scrum method is based on flexibility and reality.

Let’s take a look at Scrum vs. traditional project management methods.

Scrum vs. a Traditional Management System

Within the Scrum framework, Sutherland advises that your team constantly inspect its methods and processes so that you can adapt to problems or changes in real-time. This contrasts with a traditional project management style where you’d wait to finish a pre-planned stage and then review your results—by which time it’s often a huge hassle or too late to fix issues.

(Shortform note: In general, it’s good practice to assess your work as you’re working on it. Waiting to review something until after it’s complete can waste a lot of time and energy. This can be used in your daily life as well. Instead of waiting until the end of the month or end of the quarter to review your own performance, why not do it every day? One expert recommends you write down your daily routine and go over it to determine how to better spend your time.)

Sutherland argues that this traditional style, widely called the Waterfall Method, causes more problems than it solves. It relies on extensive planning and linear progression, which Sutherland claims is an inefficient way to manage a complex, creative project.

Here’s an assessment of Scrum vs. the traditional project management method.

The Waterfall Method

One reason Sutherland says the Waterfall method doesn’t work is that it’s an exercise in unrealistic optimism: It’s hopeful to think that through careful planning you can know exactly how to do something and how much time, effort, and manpower it will take. Unfortunately, when that plan meets with reality, it almost always falls apart. With Scrum, Sutherland creates a framework based on the way humans actually work, taking into account what we struggle with and what we’re naturally good at.

What We’re Bad At

Under the right circumstances, people can do amazing things. We’re capable of complex thought and creative problem-solving that can change the world. In many ways, though, our brains are very limited. We simply aren’t able to do some things no matter how hard we try. It’s important to understand our limitations if we wish to achieve greatness.

(Shortform note: In the past century, work, school, and even daily life have grown increasingly complex, demanding more and more of our mental energies. Research suggests human intelligence may be leveling off. As our brains near their optimal capacity, we may have to use sources outside of our brains such as technology, our bodies, or physical space to supplement our limited mental capabilities.)

We’re Bad at Estimating Time

Humans are terrible at estimating how long something will take. When determining the amount of time a task will take, we can underestimate or overestimate by a factor of four. In other words, the task can take four times as long as expected, or a quarter of the time expected.

Why Humans Are Bad at Estimating Time

Sutherland says many times how bad people are at estimating, but doesn’t delve into why that is. Other experts have suggested some reasons:

Procrastination: Procrastination can add significant time to a project. Researchers suggest most procrastination comes from a fear of failure.
Bad Habits: When we perform any task, our brains tend to repeat how we did it whether it was done the right way or not. We often don’t consider how our bad habits will slow us down when estimating.
Planning Fallacy: People tend to be optimistic when planning things out. That is, we think we can perform tasks at a much faster rate than we actually can. Even when we know things usually take longer than we plan, this phenomenon still occurs.
Anchoring Bias: If we set an initial plan for completing a project, we become anchored to that plan even as it becomes clear it isn’t working properly.

We Don’t Speak Up

In a group setting, people also struggle with trusting their own judgment. Whether out of fear of looking unintelligent or misinformed, or a general sense that other people make sound decisions, the “bandwagon effect” causes people to go along with whatever decision the group makes. When making an important business decision, this can be a big problem. Half the group may think something is a bad idea but nobody says anything.

(Shortform note: The term “bandwagon effect” originated in politics, but its influence is prominent in the business and economics worlds. In some ways, it’s helpful, as the popularity of a product can demonstrate its quality or usefulness. This can become a problem, though, when the popularity of a product isn’t aligned with quality. Effective marketing, combined with the bandwagon effect, may cause people to buy a product that they may not need or like.)

A Look at Scrum vs. Traditional Project Management