>Using scrum can easily lead to two features deployed to production that logically cannot coexist under certain circumstances. And no, testing doesn't prevent that. Another problem are features that are just very large by nature. They tend to break the repetitive cycle, because they simply don't repeat.
Breaking down features is a skill that not many learn because, unless it's trivial, they believe it to be impossible to begin with.
Good god is it valuable though.
I'm with you on the rest of scrum. It's an awful methodology.
Breaking down features doesn't help if two features are simply incompatible with each other.
I experienced this once, when feature A that was about 3 years old prevented feature B that was a out 1 year old from functioning correctly. The error lead to accumulation of garbage in a DB and was spotted when said DB ran out of disk space. It was incredible difficult to convey the message to management that the bug was at a meta level because both features worked as specified. They really struggled with the concept. It simply didn't fit their view on reality that features aren't completely independent.
Breaking down features is a skill that not many learn because, unless it's trivial, they believe it to be impossible to begin with.
Good god is it valuable though.
I'm with you on the rest of scrum. It's an awful methodology.