Is Kanban or Scrum better for a high-interrupt, maintenance-heavy environment?

All answers to this question.

For high-interrupt work, Kanban is almost always superior to Scrum. Scrum assumes a stable "sprint" where the plan doesn't change, which is impossible in a production-support environment. Kanban uses a continuous flow model. You can use "Classes of Service" to handle the urgency. For example, an "Expedite" lane for critical bugs that bypasses WIP limits, and a "Standard" lane for features. This allows you to respond to emergencies immediately without "failing" a sprint. Urgency is maintained by tracking Cycle Time; the team is motivated to keep that number as low as possible for every ticket.

   Answered 2025-06-07 by Susan Miller

The "Expedite" lane sounds useful, but how do you prevent the Product Owner from labeling every single request as "Expedite"? Do you have a strict policy or a "one-at-a-time" rule for that lane to ensure the team isn't constantly context-switching between five different "emergencies"?

   Answered 2025-06-09 by Richard Wilson

• Richard, we have a hard rule: only ONE item can be in the Expedite lane at a time. If a second "emergency" comes in, the PO has to choose which one to downgrade. This forces them to actually evaluate the true business impact of the "emergency" and protects the team from burnout.

     Commented 2025-06-11 by Christopher Lee

You can also try "Scrumban." It keeps some Scrum events like the Retrospective but uses the Kanban board and WIP limits for the daily execution. It’s a great middle ground for teams in transition.

   Answered 2025-06-13 by Linda Martinez

• I agree with Linda. We use Scrumban for our infrastructure team. It gives them the structure of a weekly planning session but the flexibility to handle server crashes as they happen.

     Commented 2025-06-15 by Susan Miller