What evidence can I provide to my manager that changing the names of Scrum roles and artifacts is a bad idea? My group is working on implementing Scrum as a project management paradigm. Our manager is on board with the decision, but on at least two separate occasions has expressed concern that, if other organizations learn that we are implementing Scrum, that there will be confusion and friction within the greater organization because we are not a software team. To answer this, he wants us to not call it Scrum and think up other names for all of the Scrum roles and artifacts. I immediately think that this is not a good idea and will create more problems than it solves; however, I'm also ready to concede that it might have that much of an effect. Is it really not as big of a deal as I think it is? If y'all foresee problems, how can I qualitatively and/or quantitatively convince him that this is a bad idea?

If it helps adoption renaming Scrum and the roles into something new is fine, but keep the values. I suggest not to map it to existing or traditional roles. Make up some new words.

I know a Dutch company which changed terminology of Holacracy (a complete system for self-organisation) in to Spark, because they got resistance with the wording and decided it would work better in their company. They say now hundreds of people are using it, so seems it could work.

The value is not in the naming, but in the framework or system itself.

Some other methods call the Daily Scrum the Huddle for example.