The fact that badly implemented Scrum can devolve into something terrible, doesn't mean that it always does. I have often seen Scrum that didn't really work right, or simply got ignored, but I've also seen it work right. At a major company even (the Dutch railway company NS). Though they didn't work with egg timers, and managers certainly had no business messing with the Scrum process in the way this author is describing.
The point of Scrum is that the team controls the process, and management can only listen. When done right, the team dictates to management what they need.
Also: "If you're tracking velocity, your best-case scenario will be that management realizes it means nothing, even though they're tracking it anyway, which means spending money and time on it."
No, the best-case scenario is that management doesn't even see your velocity, unless they ask for an estimate when things will be done. That is the only thing these points are actually for: estimating how much work there still is to be done, and when you can roughly expect the whole thing to be finished.
The author gets way too much uninformed management involved in his Scrum. He shouldn't do that.
The point of Scrum is that the team controls the process, and management can only listen. When done right, the team dictates to management what they need.
Also: "If you're tracking velocity, your best-case scenario will be that management realizes it means nothing, even though they're tracking it anyway, which means spending money and time on it."
No, the best-case scenario is that management doesn't even see your velocity, unless they ask for an estimate when things will be done. That is the only thing these points are actually for: estimating how much work there still is to be done, and when you can roughly expect the whole thing to be finished.
The author gets way too much uninformed management involved in his Scrum. He shouldn't do that.