Scrum, Scrumban, or Kanban? Choosing the Right Agile Fit for Nonprofit Workflows

This blog explores how nonprofit teams can choose the right Agile framework — Scrum, Kanban, or Scrumban — based on their structure, capacity, and type of work. It highlights the pitfalls of applying Agile terminology without its supporting practices and advocates for respectful, realistic adaptation over rigid implementation. Scrumban is presented as a particularly effective middle ground for small or resource-limited teams, combining structure with flexibility. The post encourages nonprofits to build working rhythms that support clarity, reflection, and sustainable delivery.

SCRUMSCRUMBANKANBAN

David Wallace-Hare

8/20/20256 min read

Scrum, Scrumban, or Kanban?

Choosing the Right Agile Fit for Nonprofit Workflows

Agile ideas are showing up more and more in the charity and CIC sector — in funding cycles, digital projects, service design, and campaign planning. Terms like “sprint” and “retrospective” have found their way into the language of everyday nonprofit work, reflecting a growing interest in ways of working that are more adaptive, collaborative, and intentional.

But while the enthusiasm is real, the underlying frameworks can feel hard to access or apply in full. Many teams are working with limited time, mixed roles, and constantly shifting priorities — not the textbook conditions Agile frameworks were originally designed for.

This post isn’t a critique of Agile itself — far from it. It’s a reflection on how frameworks like Scrum and Kanban can be adapted thoughtfully to meet nonprofit realities. And it’s an invitation to explore where Scrumban might offer a sustainable middle ground — especially for small teams, part-time boards, and organisations building their internal practices on a tight budget and a lot of heart.

A Quick Primer: Scrum, Kanban, and Scrumban

Before deciding which approach fits, it’s helpful to understand the core differences:

Scrum is a structured framework based on timeboxed sprints (usually 1–4 weeks). It includes defined roles (Scrum Master, Product Owner, Team), ceremonies (planning, review, retrospective), and a strong focus on delivery rhythm.
Kanban is lighter-weight. It centres around visualising work, limiting what’s in progress, and managing flow. There are no fixed roles or events — just continuous improvement and efficiency.
Scrumban blends the two. It borrows Scrum’s regular cadence (planning and retrospectives) but allows more flexibility in roles and workflow, like Kanban. It’s ideal for teams with changing availability, shared responsibilities, or real-world constraints that make full Scrum hard to sustain.

The Problem with Copy-Paste Agile

Scrum is often cited because it’s highly visible — it has a clear guide (https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html), established roles, and repeatable ceremonies/events. But it was designed for cross-functional, stable delivery teams — the kind many charities simply don’t have.

In contrast, Kanban is attractive for its lightweight structure: visualising work, setting work-in-progress (WIP) limits, and managing flow. But without the cadence of sprints or reviews, teams unfamiliar with Agile thinking can quickly drift. Internal process improvements, fundraising initiatives, or community events lose momentum when there’s no agreed rhythm or shared review points.

Many charities and community organisations are drawn to the language of Agile — like “doing sprints” — because it promises focus and momentum. But without the supporting structure, it can be hard to realise the full benefits. It’s a common starting point, and with a few adjustments, it can grow into something much more effective.

From Sprint Confusion to Clarity

If your team has experimented with sprints but found them frustrating or unsustainable, you’re not alone. Many nonprofits start here — drawn to the energy of Agile language but unsure how to anchor it in everyday practice.

That’s not a failure. It’s a sign that your team is already seeking better ways of working.

The next step isn’t perfection — it’s intentional adaptation. When Agile frameworks are shaped around your actual capacity and needs, they can unlock rhythm, reflection, and real progress.

Why Scrumban Deserves a Closer Look

Scrumban combines Scrum’s cadence with Kanban’s flexibility. It enables regular planning and retrospectives, but without enforcing formal accountabilities. It allows teams to work with what they have — limited hours, changing contributors, shared responsibilities — while building rhythm, transparency, and continuous improvement into their processes.

Most importantly, it respects the principles of both Scrum and Kanban without forcing teams into roles they can’t sustain.

Scrumban is particularly useful for:

Charities with part-time boards or staff who wear multiple hats
Community groups working with rotating freelancers or artists
Organisations juggling internal delivery and external engagement
Small CICs delivering services while also fundraising and reporting

Which Framework Fits Where?

Agile isn’t one-size-fits-all. The right framework depends on what kind of work you're doing, how often it changes, and how many people are involved in making it happen.

Here are some common nonprofit scenarios — and the Agile approach that tends to fit best:

Fundraising
→ Best Fit: Scrumban
Fundraising involves deadlines, accountability, and reflection, but teams are often small and stretched. Scrumban supports focus and rhythm without rigid roles.

Earned Income (Products or Services)
→ Best Fit: Scrumban or Scrum
Where delivery is consistent and team roles are clear, Scrum provides discipline. But if contributors shift or capacity varies, Scrumban provides needed flexibility.

Internal Process Improvement
→ Best Fit: Scrumban
Many charities want to improve how they work internally — but time is limited. Regular reflection and light planning help change stick, without adding bureaucracy.

Reactive Operations (e.g. supporter care, grant inboxes, IT requests)
→ Best Fit: Kanban
When tasks come in continuously and unpredictably, a flow-based system like Kanban helps teams visualise demand and manage overload.

Campaign Planning & Delivery
→ Best Fit: Scrumban
Campaigns require momentum and alignment but are often delivered by mixed teams (staff, volunteers, freelancers). Scrumban adds rhythm without fixed roles.

Volunteer Onboarding & Coordination
→ Best Fit: Kanban
Volunteer teams are fluid and diverse. Kanban makes workflows visible and easy to step into — helpful when team members vary in time and skill.

Board-Led Projects (e.g. governance reviews, strategic plans)
→ Best Fit: Scrumban
Scrumban works well when boards or working groups meet monthly or quarterly. It supports planning and visible progress between meetings without needing daily oversight.

Grant Reporting & Impact Measurement
→ Best Fit: Scrumban or Kanban
For recurring reports, a Kanban flow may suffice. But if reporting is tied to larger reflection or planning cycles, Scrumban helps align those rhythms.

Multi-Partner Collaborations
→ Best Fit: Scrumban
When working with multiple organisations, it's hard to enforce strict roles. Scrumban supports light structure across varied teams with shared outcomes.

Kanban as a Maintenance Framework: Sustaining What Works

Once a campaign, service, or product has been tested using Scrum or Scrumban, it often transitions into something more stable — part of your organisation’s day-to-day delivery. At that point, you may no longer need timeboxed sprints, formal planning sessions, or structured retrospectives for that specific piece of work. But you do need to keep it flowing — reliably, transparently, and without overwhelm.

That’s where Kanban shines.

It’s ideal for sustaining services that:

Require regular upkeep or monitoring
Involve repeatable tasks (like content publishing, programme delivery, or intake coordination)
Don’t change dramatically week to week, but still need attention

Using Kanban for maintenance allows your team to:

See at a glance what’s in progress or waiting
Limit multitasking to reduce burnout
Adapt in real time without waiting for the next planning cycle
Embed small improvements without overhauling the whole system

But here’s the nuance: while Kanban is designed to be evolutionary, starting with “what you do now,” it can still be surprisingly tough to launch cold — especially in small charities or CICs.

Without any kind of planning rhythm or team cadence in place, teams might find that:

Boards are created but quickly go stale
No one takes ownership of improving the flow
Work becomes visible, but not manageable

That’s why Scrumban often makes for a better starting point — it gets teams into the habit of planning, limiting, reflecting, and adjusting. Once those habits are embedded and the work stabilises, transitioning into a Kanban-only system for ongoing maintenance becomes both natural and effective.

In this way, Scrum and Scrumban help you launch, while Kanban helps you sustain. You don’t have to pick just one. Instead, you can move between them as your work evolves.

Conclusion: Building Better Work, Not Just Faster Work

Agile is not about speeding up. It’s about making work visible, creating space for learning, and delivering value in ways that respect the people doing the work.

For charities, that’s critical.

You don’t need a software team to benefit from timeboxes and flow — but you do need to adopt practices that match your reality, not someone else’s template.

Scrumban may not be the loudest name in Agile, but for many nonprofits, it’s the most honest, adaptive, and sustainable.