How to use scrum in this situation

The Scrum Guide describes Scrum as:

A framework within which people can address complex adaptive problems, while productively and creatively delivering products of the highest possible value.

And goes on to say:

Scrum is founded on empirical process control theory, or empiricism. Empiricism asserts that knowledge comes from experience and making decisions based on what is known. Scrum employs an iterative, incremental approach to optimize predictability and control risk.

Rather than focus on the vagueness of the requirements, consider whether there is sufficient complexity that empirical decision making is required. If scope is fixed, perhaps there is low complexity, or no need to inspect and adapt, based on what is learned throughout the development of the product.

Towards the end of the Scrum Guide, it explains:

…although implementing only parts of Scrum is possible, the result is not Scrum. Scrum exists only in its entirety…

If there is no Product Owner, it cannot possibly be Scrum. Based on the rest of what you say, I suspect there's not enough of an empirical approach either.

Why do your management want to use Scrum? Do they really understand it, and have something specific they're trying to achieve?

Scrum is only likely to help if it is used in the right circumstances, and if there is management support for adapting the organization to work with Scrum, rather than picking the bits of Scrum that sound convenient or useful.

If there isn't support for using Scrum properly, and you do end up with something that is inspired by Scrum, but not Scrum, it probably helps if you call it something else.

Perhaps one day your organization will have a good reason to use Scrum, and whether this experiment is successful or not, it will be helpful if people don't confuse it with being Scrum.

For this case, each product set has already a defined set of features and more or less fixed. I want to argue to my management about it but I would like to know if I am in the right position to do so that we should just employ waterfall. Also, I cannot get the cooperation of our counterparts in client to assign a product owner for product backlog prioritization. Per them, we have paid for this package, customize it based on their requirements and then it should be good.

Without a product owner to account for value, how can anyone be sure that features are “more or less fixed”? How do they know those features are what users really want?

Whenever clients say a defined set of features “should be good” they take a risk. When one of their products is so “loaded with features” it is labelled “extreme” the risk might not be trivial.

Let me put this in pragmatic terms.

If there is no Product Owner, who is prioritizing and refining the Product Backlog Items? The Scrum Master and the Development Team members could help a little but they won't have time to execute on these tasks and also perform their own duties.

Without a Product Owner, who is constantly communicating with the customer, the end-user, and performing market research to validate assumptions? The Scrum Master and the Development Team members have to focus on their work and they don't necessarily have the skillset to accomplish these tasks. They could help, but then they will fall behind on their duties.

I guess somebody could represent the stakeholders.

It's kind of like saying, "we'll just get the Account Receivable and Payable Analyst to take over the responsibilities of the Staff Accountant and the Financial Analyst."

By the way, I have seen more bizarre things transpire in the name of "agile" and "scaled agile" so this isn't news to me.

@Mark Adams I think work delegation is the least of the worries of having no Product Owner. A self-organizing, cross-functional team will adapt to handle this, and may even benefit from being closer to the context.

Scrum is built around there being a Product Owner who is accountable for maximizing value. Without such a role being filled, there is a massive transparency deficit, and it will be difficult to effectively inspect and adapt Sprints, Increments and the Product Backlog.

Taking it back to the original post:

Also, I cannot get the cooperation of our counterparts in client to assign a product owner for product backlog prioritization. Per them, we have paid for this package, customize it based on their requirements and then it should be good.

Is anyone accountable for the total cost of ownership of this product? It sounds as though someone might have sanctioned paying a fee; but the development and maintenance costs are unknown.

If someone is accountable for the total cost of ownership, they might choose a different solution, such as buying a product that requires less configuration, or not buying anything at all.

C Kway, I do not quite understand the contradicting statements:

For this case, each product set has already a defined set of features and more or less fixed.

 and

Per them, we have paid for this package, customize it based on their requirements and then it should be good

If the requirement is very clear already and product to support the requirements are well-presented and accepted, I will agree that there isn't much risks we are taking here and it will be good to adopt Waterfall model. But if this is the case, why you mentioned the customization?

How confidence you are on the products sets features are really what they want?