Potential mistake in Scrum Guide

I think it's important to avoid status meetings in which all sorts of things are inspected and yet nothing is adapted. In my experience, that's where the waste is to be found.

Can you have an adaptation without inspection first? It's assumed inspection would always happen before adaptation, but many leave out the adaptation.

Here's an example of why I believe The Scrum Guide wording is acceptable. The Scrum Guide portion of the Sprint Retrospective tells us about inspection:

The Scrum Team inspects how the last Sprint went with regards to individuals, interactions, processes, tools, and their Definition of Done.

And, it goes on to state the adaptation:

The Scrum Team identifies the most helpful changes to improve its effectiveness. The most impactful improvements are addressed as soon as possible. 

In my experience, many Scrum Teams get together and discuss and inspect several issues, yet they never change (adapt) anything in future Sprints. And by not changing anything, team members begin to question the value of the event. "Why get together for yet another Sprint Retrospective, it's just a waste of time", team members proclaim!

I think the Guide is correct.  It is pointless to inspect if you do not plan to use the learnings for adaption.  That is a waste of time.  The point of the statement is to call out that just inspecting is not enough and only inspecting is considered wasted effort. 

Adaption can occur without inspection. For example adaption could be required due to an upgrade in the software used for deploying your software.  It wasn't inspection that required you to adapt. It was forced upon you. Another example is if a third party (or even your organization) updates their password requirements to be more secure which forces you to update passwords for accounts used within your applications.  Again, you did no inspection that lead to the adaption but you were forced to adapt. 

Adaption is a basis for an organization to have agility.  But inspection leads to adapting based upon available information.  Adaption can occur without inspection but inspection should not be wasted by not adapting.

In the first phrase, inspection is the primary action, with its purpose being to enable adaptation. If adaptation doesn't follow after inspection, it's a missed opportunity.

In the second phrase, adaptation is the primary focus, and if you proceed with adaptation without prior inspection, your efforts may lack a solid foundation or direction. It may lead to a lack of transparency and missed opportunities to inspect and adapt based on empirical evidence.

In the second case, "Adaptation without inspection is considered pointless," not only is it pointless, but there's also a higher risk of making things worse because you're making changes without a proper understanding of the situation. I would use a stronger word than 'pointless,' such as 'reckless' or 'risky'. Therefore, I believe the first interpretation aligns more closely with what the authors meant in the Scrum Guide.

Along the lines of what others said, there is no point in inspecting if you are not going to do something with what you learned. Consider that each event is intended to be eventful. To provoke change. This is why Inspection without Adaptation is considered pointless.

Adaptation without inspection could certainly be problematic. This could be misleading and wasteful as transparency is also missing due to not inspecting. Hard to say if it would be pointless. If you are lucky the adaptation could turn out to be ok. I like the words Lars suggested (reckless, risky).

Adil, Could you elaborate on why you think it is a mistake? What might we be missing?

Hello,

Thanks everyone for the very insightful responses.

After second thought, I think, as most of you mentioned, the Scrum Guide wording is correct. Inspection needs to be followed by an adaptation to improve whether a process aspect or product. On the other hand, an adaption without inspection is not only risky but should be discouraged in my opinion, as Scrum is based on empiricism. 

I believe the second statement could be considered a Scrum anti-pattern. We aim for forward-looking decisions based on facts rather than relying on luck. Ryan's point is valid; it might turn out fine, but it also carries the risk of going completely wrong. Referring to it as 'pointless' is true, but an understatement in the context of empiricism-based Scrum principles. 

Inspection without Adaptation is considered pointless. Why would you invest the effort in inspecting something if you do not intend to adapt it based on the new evidence collected?
Using the same phrasing, Adaptation without Inspection is considered dangerous... After all, if you adapt without inspecting first, what are the basis for your adaptation? You'll be making decisions without sound evidence to base them, and that could lead to increasing risk and diminishing value...

It's an interesting point that I've often thought about. 

This line in the Guide is related:

"If any aspects of a process deviate outside acceptable limits or if the resulting product is unacceptable, the process being applied or the materials being produced must be adjusted."

This implies if those aspects fall within accetable limits or the product is acceptable, then adjustment may not need to be made.  How does one know if something falls within the limits if inspection doesn't occur?