You're not really addressing the claim, which is whether or not Scrum actually works, i.e. is an improvement over any other method. I am not aware of any empirical, experimental or theoretical justification.
Anything you currently practice can be used as a yardstick. However, I don't think that practitioners should be spending time on this research. That IMHO leads to exact problems that the article whines about.
The idea that retrospectives are akin to scientific method is laughable. Maybe in 18th century that would fly, but there is lot more to scientific research than "continue doing what works and change what doesn't" (at the very least, following observations without theory leads to cargo-culting, which actually sums up the overall Scrum experiences pretty well).
I'm not addressing your claim because I suspect it's not the main reason people use Scrum, in practice. I'm saying it's a political tool, and any debates around its "effectiveness" are pointless as the real benefit is keeping management away. The efficiency gains that you discuss would be pennies on the dollar in comparison.
Anything you currently practice can be used as a yardstick. However, I don't think that practitioners should be spending time on this research. That IMHO leads to exact problems that the article whines about.
The idea that retrospectives are akin to scientific method is laughable. Maybe in 18th century that would fly, but there is lot more to scientific research than "continue doing what works and change what doesn't" (at the very least, following observations without theory leads to cargo-culting, which actually sums up the overall Scrum experiences pretty well).