I worked in a small software company, where designers and testers are shared across small teams. There are dependencies between teams and occasionally bottlenecks of key persons. Thus, no real "Scrum" was implemented.
One colleague planned to attend the workshop Does anyone study this new agile "PACE" framework? It has 12 rules and seems to plan around bottlenecks.
I am a PSM 1 but struggled to tailor the framework to my org. Look forward to advice and a comparion with the "PACE".
Reading the website on PACE the person doesn't seem to understand Scrum in how he compares it to PACE in my opinion and he is actually just using poor myths as truths. Scrum does allow for continuous flow, the only thing it says is take a moment and review to ensure you have feedback from people outside of the team and look at how you work to continuously improve.
Items like what he writes only help to prolong the myths rather than fix them IMHO.
This is my opinion and only my own. It does not in any way represent the position of scrum.org or any of the individuals involved in this site. I say that because the following is not real complimentary.
All I know is what I just learned from the minimal information given on the website. And as @Eric Naiburg points out, that information shows a lack of understanding of Scrum. He does point out some of the reasons that Scrum "fails" at so many companies, however those reasons are not based upon the Scrum framework anyway. So what he is pointing out is that doing something and then calling it Scrum because you use some of the terminology usually doesn't work.
There is also nothing to support his claims that PACE is better. No testimonials from companies that have used it. Nothing to support his claim of it being "proven".
It seems to be another attempt of someone to capitalize on the term "Agile".
Having said all of that, he may have the next great miracle. When Scrum, Kanban, Extreme Programming were all introduced, I'm sure that there were people saying exactly what I have just said about all of them. But the original paper on Scrum had supporting documentation and evidence that it was successful and it was provided freely. He is not being as forthcoming so it really makes me skeptical.