I'm the only one that feels that Kanban should be considered a recall for Scrum?

You bring up an important point about how Kanban is being used in many Brazilian companies as just a basic board, without fully leveraging its potential. It's a similar situation with Scrum, where a lot of teams may not fully embrace the methods or certifications like PSK1. As you said, raising more awareness on platforms like LinkedIn could help drive the adoption of more structured frameworks and certifications.

In parallel, when it comes to improving processes or ensuring more effective engagement, businesses can look beyond just Scrum and Kanban. If you're exploring ways to automate customer interactions or improve lead generation, Phonexa could offer valuable insights. Their platform helps businesses optimize marketing and lead management, which can enhance the efficiency of your overall workflow, not just the Scrum processes.

In any case, pushing for a broader understanding of how frameworks like Scrum and Kanban can truly drive value is key. Hopefully, more people begin to realize that the focus should be on delivering value continuously, rather than seeing events like reviews as the only path to success.

The vast majority companies in Brazil uses Kanban as just a board ,no intelligence or methods at all.

Put the intelligence and methods to one side for the moment (WIP limits, commitment points, conservation of flow etc.)

Even without any of that, is the board telling the truth about the state of work right now?

Even without any of that, is the board telling the truth about the state of work right now?

YES,But without wip,definition of workflow,etc We gain not form the "old way" ,weŕe not more confident to have "less fat" as people say in Brazil,Its clear that people chose much less that than could do.

In many Scrum implementations it was obvious that people were inflating points in order not to have 'fingers pointed',in the retrospective , and to wear the 'dunce hat' in the review.

Seeing the Review as the magic portal do deliver value its a mistake that is rooted in 'brazilian scrum',don´t know how it is all over the world.

I know even without Kanban the Review should not be considered like that.

Of course the best way is doing our work and do the best we can to change this scenario,but it helps when you come to a job interview and people don´t see you as a religious fundamentalist.

Books like:Applying Scrum with Kanban: A Pointless Book!-Andy Hiles should be massively advised, in my point of view,So people stop to look forward in the wrong places ,because they fill something ins broken,but don´t know what.

Well maybe an upgrade instead of a recall.

In the United States, I come across many Scrum Masters who misunderstand Kanban and think it's Kanban when it's not. They think because the team visualizes tasks with a board that it's Kanban, when there's much more to it (e.g. applying WIP limits, actively managing flow, etc.). 

I'm an advocate of using Kanban too, but as a complementary practice to Scrum and keeping it separate from the Scrum Guide. So many people struggle to get the five Scrum events, 3 artifacts, 3 commitments, and 3 accountabilities right.

In my opinion a team is not "correct" or agile because they follow rules.  They are agile because they have found a process that helps them continuously deliver value that the stakeholder needs now. If using a Kanban board to visual their workflow only works for them, why try to change it?  Why add more complexity to their process?  

It is unbelievable how in 2025 people still see the review as a magic portal to delivery value and how this affect the mood of people in the planning,

Maybe this should be the focus of Scrum practitioners and not the introduction of Kanban.  The Scrum Master is accountable for the organizations understanding of the Scrum framework.  @Marcello, your two posts mention more issues with the understanding of the Scrum framework than they do problems using the Kanban board. You also mention issues with "inflating points" which lead to problems in reviews and retrospectives.  "Points" are not even mentioned in the Scrum Guide so maybe there could be a better way to estimate that won't cause this issue.  

We shouldn't be trying to be Agile.  We should be trying to be agile.  Agile is a noun created for marketing purposes.  The word agile is an adjective that means able to move quickly and easily. The Scrum framework provides help to make organizations agile if they need help in solving complex problems. It does not make an organization Agile.  That requires a lot of consultants and sales representatives from other companies. 

In the United States, I come across many Scrum Masters who misunderstand Kanban and think it's Kanban when it's not.

This is what I say:Its a board divided in pieces,not Kanban.

If using a Kanban board to visual their workflow only works for them, why try to change it?  Why add more complexity to their process.

This is my experience in working lately as a developer,not as a scrum master or a P.O.

Using past information to different WIP ,creating a definition of workflow should not be considering adding complexity to the process.People don´t do that because its complex,they don´t do it because they don´t know how,or think the idea to be too different to what they are used to do, and have a fear that things will get worst.

Maybe this should be the focus of Scrum practitioners and not the introduction of Kanban.  

I think its easier to introduce the idea of continuous delivering with the support of Kanban, but as I said in the original post I know that the misconceptions are related to bad understanding of Scrum itself.