Question: There are three roles defined in Scrum: Team, Product Owner and Scrum Master. There is no project manager, instead the **project manager job is spread across the three roles**. 

For instance:

* **The Scrum Master:** Responsible for the process. Removes impediments.
* **The Product Owner:** Manages and prioritizes the list of work to be done to maximize ROI. Represents all interested parties (customers, stakeholders).
* **The Team:** Self manage its work by estimating and distributing it among themselves. Responsible for meeting their own commitments.

So in Scrum, there is no longer a single person responsible for project success. There is no command-and-control structure in place. That seems to baffle a lot of people, specifically those not used to agile methods, and of course, PM's. 

I'm really interested in this and what your experiences are, as I think this is one of the things that can make or break a Scrum implementation.

***Do you agree with Scrum that a project manager is not needed? Do you think such a role is still required? Why?***

Answer: 
In one of the projects I worked, when it turned into Scrum, our earlier project manager alternatively took the roles of Product Owner and Scrum Master. It sort of worked for the 6 months I spent with that team, although it was not ideal (for me). He was the kind of guy who wanted to keep things under tight control, but did it fairly well (i.e. letting the team do its job and make its decisions when it was appropriate).

The background of this was that the company was in a dire financial situation, although we (the team) got to know about it only some time later. So there was a reason to keep everything under tight control, to ensure that only the absolutely necessary stuff is being built, and the first version of the product is delivered on time.
One of the main problems with the traditional project manager role is that it separates authority from responsibility. The PM has complete authority over the project organization - (s)he decides what tasks need to be done, by whom, in what order, etc. But (s)he's not held accountable for the completion of these tasks or the quality of software that is produced. The team members are the only ones responsible. This creates a huge communication overhead, as to put back authority and decision in sync with operational work, team members constantly have to report everything that is done to the PM in addition to the rest of the team. It also creates a feeling of dispossession, powerlessness and a loss of purpose with the team members, which is a large source of frustration and discouragement.

Agile somehow puts these notions back together - the authority over work organization is held by the team as a whole (through release, iteration and daily meetings) so that everyone feels like they can have a say in the matter, in return of which each of the team members has to take responsibility for producing quality software that works and make a strong commitment towards that goal. You could thus theoretically get rid of the project manager.

Once you've said that, there are still duties traditionally assigned to the PM which still need to be taken care of though - lunivore described them quite accurately.

As [this article](http://flowchainsensei.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/lay-off-the-managers/) suggests, in truly multi-skilled teams, one thing you could do is discard the project manager role, redistribute its duties among the team members and have former PMs become regular team members.