Evaluating SAFe®: A measured response to SAFe® critisim
SAFe®, the Scaled Agile Framework®, is – according to their own words – the world’s leading framework for Business Agility. SAFe® integrates the power of Lean, Agile, and DevOps into a comprehensive operating system that helps enterprises thrive in the digital age by delivering innovative products and services faster, more predictably, and with higher quality.
SAFe® often draws criticism for being rigid rather than agile. Critics argue that it merely masks traditional phase gate processes under the guise of agility. But is this criticism justified, or does SAFe® offer substantial benefits under certain conditions? This article explores the effectiveness of SAFe® in fostering organizational agility and its impact on delivering value.
Table of contents
The Essence of Agility in Business
Firstly, it’s essential to understand that the primary objective of any business, from manufacturing to non-profit sectors, is to deliver valuable products and services to their customers. In an increasingly volatile environment marked by rapid technological advancements and shifting market dynamics, agility becomes crucial. These conditions lead to changing customer needs and preferences, prompting the question of what constitutes a “valuable product” in the eyes of customers under the current circumstances. A company’s agility is measured not by a binary scale but by how well it adapts to these challenging conditions. Instead of asking, “Is SAFe® truly agile?”, we should consider whether SAFe® can enhance a company’s ability to thrive in complex scenarios.
How SAFe® Facilitates Value Delivery
To assess SAFe’s® utility, we begin with its basic structure: Essential SAFe®. This setup includes Agile Release Trains (ARTs), which are groups of up to 125 individuals across 5-12 cross-functional teams. These teams converge approximately quarterly during a two-day event called PI Planning. This event aligns high-level goals and plans the delivery schedule, fostering coordination and risk management. Despite skepticism about the agility of quarterly planning, this structure supports faster and more frequent adjustment and alignment pivotal for navigating complex environments compared to a classical waterfall approach. By providing room for the teams to adjust to and integrate new insights into their work the approach increases its ability for adjustment and team level self-organization towards aligned goals.
Pre-Transformation Scenarios in Organizations
Many organizations are siloed, with minimal communication across departments, which can hinder agility. SAFe® aims to unify these groups, align goals, and open direct communication channels. Even without further changes, such alignment can significantly enhance operational effectiveness.
Key Factors for Achieving Sufficient Agility
Focus on customer satisfaction
The main indicator for a companies’ success is its ability to create value for the customers. Quick and regular feedback, and close collaboration with customers not only improve their satisfaction but also make developers happier and the process more cost-efficient. The cost efficiency in agile approaches doesn’t come from delivering more of the same faster; rather, it arises from the ability to learn early which parts of the product deliver the most value and which don’t. This focus on continuous learning and adaptation helps direct efforts toward what truly matters. Strong product ownership also helps prevent scope creep and keeps the project on track.
A team is only a team if they have a common goal
Teams need a shared purpose – otherwise it’s just a group of people. That’s true on the team level as well as for the ART level. To set up an agile release train only makes sense if the teams work on the same product or have other dependencies they need to manage. Otherwise, SAFe® imposes a lot of regular meetings that make no sense if the people don’t need to resolve issues together. Adapting the ART and team composition as well as the communication structure should be part of the retrospectives.
Authors
