Reducing resources

Hi Amanna - If you are referring to a reduction in people, we should think of them as people, not resources. I'm not picking on you, it is common to call people resources, but no one likes to be thought of like that. Just trying to give some friendly advice if that is what you meant . : )

I don't know of any direct cases where Scrum has lead to a reduction in people, as that is not the main reason for Scrum. The true value of Scrum is bringing value to your customers and revenue to your company, and providing your company with a competitive advantage to respond to change in the digital age.

All the best,

Chris

Yes with my previous teams we were able to reduce money and resources drastically by eliminating unneeded overhead / management and empowering teams to take responsibility for the end-to-end solutions being developed.

 

I've seen things go that way and even adding more people.  It all depends on the company and their goals.  Scrum isn't intended to save money or require fewer people.  It is intended to help deliver incremental improvements for complex problems.  The value that is delivered increases but the cost does not necessarily go down.

Agree with all previous points.

There is a common saying in Agile/Scrum.   It isn't about building stuff quicker or easier, although that is certainly a possibility.   It is all about ensuring that you are building the right thing.

Hello, how are you?

Thank you everyone for help me.

I would like to know if anyone has any Scrum case that a company has managed to reduce resources or money using Scrum.

Yes, but they are poor ones. The best case studies maximize value.