It’s funny how often people think about Scrum as if it’s set in concrete. You’ve probably heard it before: someone declares, “The Sprint Backlog can’t change after Sprint Planning!” They quote it like a rule from the Scrum Bible, but the truth is, that’s not Scrum at all. It’s one of the most common misconceptions out there, and it sets teams up for rigid, inflexible work—exactly what Scrum was designed to avoid.

This misunderstanding seems to persist because it’s easy to misinterpret the purpose of Sprint Planning and the role of the Sprint Backlog. When teams commit to work for the Sprint, there’s often a natural inclination to treat it as a contract, like a promise etched in stone. Stakeholders and teams alike think, “We said we’d do X, so we have to stick with X, no matter what happens.” But anyone who’s lived through an actual Sprint knows reality doesn’t play by those rules. Priorities shift, technical challenges bubble up, or new discoveries completely change the approach. Scrum, in all its wisdom, expects this and even encourages teams to roll with it.

The Sprint Backlog, according to the Scrum Guide, is “a plan by and for the developers.” It’s not meant to be a straitjacket. While the team identifies what they aim to accomplish during the Sprint, the Backlog is a living artifact. It evolves as developers inspect their progress and adapt to new information. That’s the beauty of Scrum—it allows for change, as long as the Sprint Goal remains intact.

Here’s the kicker, though. Many teams get stuck because they treat the Sprint Goal and the Sprint Backlog as the same thing. They’re not. The Sprint Goal is your north star, the why behind the work. It shouldn’t waver unless something monumental happens. The Sprint Backlog, on the other hand, is your strategy for reaching that goal. If a better way to get there emerges mid-Sprint, Scrum gives you the flexibility to adjust.

I worked with one team that took this principle to heart when a new competitor launched a similar product halfway through their Sprint. Mid-planning, they realized one of their key features needed a small pivot. They didn’t scrap their entire Backlog—they reviewed what was still relevant to the Sprint Goal, restructured their remaining tasks, and even removed a few items that couldn’t realistically fit. Instead of derailing, they navigated the unexpected and still delivered on what mattered. That’s a team embracing empirical process control, rather than sticking rigidly to a plan.

There’s another reason teams hesitate to change the Backlog: fear of appearing indecisive or overly reactive. It’s easy to look at an adjustment and think, “Are we being flaky? Are we bad at planning?” But this is where Scrum’s inspect-and-adapt philosophy shines. Adjusting the Backlog isn’t about bad planning; it’s about getting smarter as you go. No one has perfect knowledge on day one of the Sprint. Scrum is built around the idea that by inspecting progress daily and collaborating transparently, you gain insights you couldn’t have predicted upfront. In fact, refusing to course-correct when new data appears is more likely to harm your outcomes.

One challenge to overcome, though, is knowing when a change is justified versus when it’s just noise. Not every new request or challenge warrants an adjustment. That’s why collaboration between the Product Owner and the team is so critical. The Product Owner has a pivotal role in filtering disruptions, ensuring they don’t distract from the Sprint Goal. When changes are necessary, they’re involved in evaluating the trade-offs and helping the team decide how to shift the work responsibly.

It’s worth emphasizing that the Sprint Backlog isn’t a dumping ground for every new idea or problem the team encounters. Healthy adaptation involves restraint. If a change risks overloading the team or compromising quality, it’s better suited for the Product Backlog to be prioritized later.
What often gets overlooked is how the Sprint Backlog serves as a working guide, not a checklist. A team may start a Sprint with a plan, but that plan is based on what seemed like the best path at that moment. The Sprint itself is where the real learning happens. Sometimes tasks take longer than expected, or unexpected complexities pop up. Other times, feedback from testing or stakeholders can dramatically shift priorities. Clinging to the “original plan” for the sake of rigidity undermines the very purpose of Agile: to be adaptive and resilient.

One team I worked with struggled to embrace this flexibility because their leadership treated changes mid-Sprint as a red flag. They were afraid to admit to adjustments, thinking it reflected poor planning. But after we walked them through the Scrum Guide’s emphasis on adaptability, they began framing these changes as learning opportunities. They’d ask, “What new insights caused this shift, and how can we integrate them effectively?” That reframe alone helped the team build trust and make better decisions under unpredictable conditions.

Adjusting the Sprint Backlog, however, doesn’t mean the Sprint devolves into chaos. The Sprint Goal acts like a compass, helping the team assess whether changes align with their overall objective. For example, if a new priority appears and it doesn’t directly tie to the goal, the team can park it in the Product Backlog for future refinement. This ensures that mid-Sprint adjustments are intentional, not reactionary. It’s less about saying “yes” to every new request and more about staying aligned on delivering meaningful progress.

Another misconception that fuels resistance to change is the idea that adapting the Backlog makes tracking velocity or performance unreliable. That’s a common worry among stakeholders obsessed with metrics. But focusing too much on static metrics like velocity can distract from what really matters—delivering value. Instead of seeing adjustments as a problem to their tracking, stakeholders should view them as evidence that the team is learning, prioritizing, and staying outcome-driven. Velocity might fluctuate, but the quality of decisions improves when the Backlog is treated as a tool, not a constraint.

Collaboration also makes a huge difference in navigating Sprint Backlog changes. Daily Scrums aren’t just check-ins—they’re opportunities to spot issues early and recalibrate. If everyone’s siloed or hesitant to speak up, the bigger picture can get lost. Teams that foster open communication tackle challenges head-on, reshuffling responsibilities or brainstorming solutions without letting it escalate into panic.

Of course, just because the Sprint Backlog is flexible doesn’t mean teams should let it spiral out of control. Discipline matters. If a team changes their Backlog impulsively or without evaluating trade-offs, it’s no longer adaptability—it’s reactive chaos. That’s where the collaboration between the Product Owner and the developers becomes especially powerful. The Product Owner can act as a filter, ensuring that adjustments support both the Sprint Goal and the overall product vision. Developers, meanwhile, bring the technical insight to determine what’s truly feasible within the remaining Sprint window.

One principle I encourage teams to adopt is the idea of “prioritize ruthlessly and communicate constantly.” If new work arises during the Sprint, something else might need to be deprioritized. The team should treat the Backlog as a dynamic tool to keep things manageable, not as a never-ending to-do list. Communicating these trade-offs to stakeholders is part of the process—people are far more understanding when they see changes as deliberate rather than chaotic.

So why does this misconception about an unchangeable Backlog persist? In part, it’s because Agile frameworks like Scrum can feel paradoxical. On one hand, Scrum defines clear structures—Sprint Planning, ceremonies, artifacts—and some people take that to mean everything within those structures should be fixed. But on the other hand, Scrum calls for responsiveness and adaptation. Navigating that balance isn’t always easy, especially for teams new to the approach. Breaking free of rigid thinking often requires practice, patience, and clear alignment on what Scrum’s values and principles are trying to achieve.

Ultimately, the Sprint Backlog is a living, breathing document—one that evolves as the team learns and progresses. Misinterpreting it as a static list limits a team’s ability to respond effectively to change, and honestly, it misses the point of Agile entirely. Scrum thrives when teams lean into its flexibility without losing focus. Embracing that idea doesn’t just improve delivery; it creates a culture of continuous learning and shared ownership over outcomes. And isn’t that what Agile is really about?