Peter Stevens, over at
<p style="display: inline !important;">
<p>
</p>
<p style="display: inline !important;">
I like Mary's response a lot, where she basically states that Scrum and Kanban each have their own strengths, and each is suited for their own specific set of circumstances.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: normal; font-size: medium;">
Scrum is basically a method of accomplishing work through cadenced iterations. Kanban is a method of accomplishing work through limiting work-in-process and managing flow. I have found that some work especially creative work is more effectively managed with iterations, while other work especially naturally sequential work is more naturally managed with Kanban. — Mary Poppendieck
</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: normal; font-size: medium;">
She also stresses that, whether you choose to use Scrum or Kanban, the point is that you keep improving on your way of working, so:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; line-height: normal; font-size: medium;">
Lean would have every company view these techniques as starting points that are constantly improved, so after a few years, Scrum and Kanban should evolve and change to something quite different than their starting point. — Mary Poppendieck
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
This suits the way that I view these things very well. Use the tools most suited for the situation, and see where it leads you.
</p>
<p>
Of course, the best way to choose is to try each, and measure results. Which brings us to another question: what and how do we measure? At the moment, I'm leaning towards flow (time for work to flow through the system), and Henrik Kniberg's <a href="http://blog.crisp.se/henrikkniberg/2010/05/08/1273272420000.html">Happiness index</a>. Getting that last one adopted anywhere is going to be an interesting challenge, though...
</p>