Why SAFe Might Not Be the Best Fit for Agile Scaling
Written on
Chapter 1: Understanding SAFe
As someone with over a decade of experience in agile software development, including significant exposure to the SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework), I have some reservations about its effectiveness. SAFe aims to apply Agile principles to larger organizations, utilizing components such as Release Trains, Program Increments, budgeting, and DevOps practices. While there are undeniable advantages to adopting SAFe, particularly in certain contexts, it is crucial to recognize its shortcomings as well. Below, I outline seven key reasons why SAFe may not be the ideal solution for organizations aiming to enhance their technology delivery.
Section 1.1: Misuse of Story Points
One of the fundamental principles of Agile does not stipulate that teams must measure work in a uniform manner using story points. Story points are intended to assist teams in breaking down tasks into manageable sizes, thereby making deliverables less complex and improving workflow. However, SAFe often promotes larger batch sizes due to extensive upfront planning, which contradicts the iterative approach typically favored in Agile methodologies.
SAFe seeks to standardize story points across teams, primarily to facilitate comparison and measurement of team productivity. This approach undermines the original purpose of story points, which is to serve as a discussion tool among developers rather than a metric for performance evaluation.
Section 1.2: Impact on Technical Debt
In organizations implementing SAFe, technical debt may accumulate as its prioritization is shifted to management rather than remaining at the team level. Since most technical debt originates within teams, this top-down prioritization can hinder timely resolution and result in systems that are slower and more vulnerable.
Chapter 2: Operational Challenges with SAFe
The first video titled "5 Signs You Don't Feel Safe In the Present" discusses how operational stressors can impact team dynamics and performance in SAFe environments. It emphasizes the importance of addressing underlying issues that may hinder productivity.
Section 2.1: Delivery vs. Support Conflicts
When SAFe is applied to operational roles such as technology support or maintenance, it can create tensions between delivery and support functions. Support teams often need to respond to issues in real-time or work in short cycles, which is incompatible with the longer Program Increment timelines dictated by SAFe. Agile frameworks that promote flow, like Scrum with Kanban, are typically more suitable for these types of tasks.
Section 2.2: Team Collaboration Issues
The emphasis on deliverables and accountability through project managers can discourage teams from collaborating effectively. Team members may be more focused on their own performance metrics rather than on aiding other teams, which contradicts the values of Agile frameworks like Scrum.
Section 2.3: The Fallacy of Ideal Dev Days
SAFe often employs the concept of ideal development days for estimation, a notion that many practitioners recognize as unrealistic. A more effective approach involves analyzing similar past deliverables to establish realistic timelines, reducing the influence of optimism bias. Emphasizing empirical data is essential for maintaining agility and making informed adjustments based on observed outcomes.
Section 2.4: Value Misalignment
The focus on delivery volume and adherence to management-imposed deadlines can distort the concept of value within SAFe. This often leads to neglecting the actual needs of end-users in favor of meeting predefined objectives. When deadlines are inevitably missed, the rigidity of the Program Increment structure exacerbates the problem, resulting in incomplete increments and subsequent disruptions.
Section 2.5: Retrospective Limitations
While PI planning includes a retrospective component, it often lacks the depth and timeliness necessary for meaningful evaluation. Short and frequent feedback loops are essential for effective retrospectives, yet in SAFe, these are frequently treated as an afterthought, leading to missed opportunities for improvement.
In conclusion, SAFe was designed as a response to the frustrations of traditional top-down project management methodologies, but its implementation often reverts to similar rigid structures. Some proponents consider SAFe to be a transitional framework, but it lacks a clear path for organizations to move beyond it. For many companies, particularly smaller ones, SAFe may not be necessary at all; instead, organizations might benefit from adapting their processes to better fit their existing structures.
If you have thoughts or experiences regarding SAFe, I invite you to share them in the comments or reach out directly. Engaging in discussions about agility, software development, and organizational change is always welcome. Thank you for taking the time to read my insights!
The second video titled "When Someone Says I DON'T FEEL SAFE" explores feelings of insecurity in workplace environments, relevant to discussions around SAFe and its implications for team dynamics.