SAFe, or scaled agile framework, was developed by Dean Leffingwell and Drew Jemilo to address a businesses’ evolving needs. When it was created, software development teams were largely reliant on traditional project management techniques. SAFe was developed in response to organizations’ increasing need to adapt rapidly to market changes while still maintaining high quality. Today, it is one of the most popular agile development approaches.
SAFe is methodology that promotes alignment, collaboration, and teamwork among agile teams. SAFe was formed from a combination of three bodies of knowledge: agile software development, lean product development, and systems thinking. SAFe plays a crucial role in enabling businesses to scale their agile practices as they grow. SAFe is available in four configurations: Essential, Large Solution, Portfolio Solution, and Full These configurations are intented to provide a flexible and adaptable framework for organisations of all sizes. SAFe is designed for large-scale operations, so it can be easy to overlook the most fundamental factor: coding quality. Organisations should ensure their engineering practices are up-to-date and thorough before committing to SAFe implementation. When organisations do not practice modern architecture, development, and testing techniques, they end up worse off than they were before.
Scalable agile also leads to more predictable release schedules. Coordination lets enterprise software companies know when products, features, and components will be released. Consequently, this enables scaled agile teams to commit to customers and plan sales, marketing, operations, and customer service accordingly. Middle-management oversight is critical to deliver SAFe’s Agile Release Train on schedule. These schedules involve the completion of work across multiple products or projects. Specific portfolios at the organisation’s top level have broader scope of responsibilities and remain abstract to those below, for example scrum teams — the ones who are doing the work. In SAFe, the big picture is paramount rather than their details. The result is longer development cycles and planning cycles. A Sprint is intended to deliver products to the market at the earliest possible stage, so delivering them later would be a violation of the agile manifesto.
SAFe teams have assigned rigorously defined roles. While it is challenging to swap roles permanently or temporarily in SAFe, there is potential for adaptability. Rather than empowering scrum teams to manage their own needs, SAFe encourages external dependency instead. However, team members able to completely own their work is the target right approach. This approach will usually be experimental at first until teams are able to actually be able to do it. In SAFe teams are seen as delivery units rather than strategic members. With SAFe’s “Portfolio” level, unlimited customer solutions can be potentially funded. Lean Portfolio Management consists of epics (large projects that develop significant solutions) that are approved and incorporated into each value stream. Consequently, many decisions are made at the top, not by those with the most experience who are responsible to do the work. Teams should be well equipped and believe in Agile methods. A collaborative working environment is necessary to make innovation possible. Without such a solid foundation, the implementation of SAFe would be doomed.
With a Scaled Agile team, extensive and complicated projects are managed and coordinated far more effectively than can be handled by a single scrum team. Consequently, this urgent coordination and cooperation is triggered by a fervent desire to get a product to market. The SAFe method integrates Scrum, Lean UX, and DevOps methodologies. While lean concepts are easy to apply, synchronising them with agile principles continues to prove challenging. However, combining these methodologies within SAFe can lead increased confusion rather than improving its effectiveness. Although SAFe has been developed over years of research, it remains a complex framework that even experienced individuals may find difficult to fully comprehend. Stakeholders often struggle to agree on methods and values. Sometimes, this complexity may conflict with the agile principle of ‘individuals and interactions over processes and tools.’
Despite SAFe’s inherent flexibility, there is a growing need for even more adaptability to meet the unique requirements of different departments. SAFe’s planned, hierarchical, and standard-driven operations can pose limitations. Implementing SAFe may cause significant organisational changes, making maintaining independence for some functions challenging. SAFe implementation relies heavily on “Program Increments”. Pre- and post-event planning is essential to the creation of these program increments. Ideally, program increments allow teams to identify the dependencies between other teams and prioritise their corresponding objectives. Program increment plans, however, often become outdated due to unforeseen developments since they are usually built on predefined assumptions and features. Even when new information emerges, commitments made during program increment meetings are usually rigid and are difficult to change. The term ‘Epic’ was previously used to describe prominent user stories that could not be completed in a single Sprint. SAFe defined an ‘Epic’, however, as a project of sufficient importance to warrant detailed analysis and an evaluation of its potential return on investment. Understanding this fundamental difference is crucial to avoid confusion and ensure readiness when comparing epics.
Analysing all project pipelines is essential before moving forward with epics. To decide which projects to advance, stakeholders must agree on the epic’s purpose and definition. Their agreement is crucial for the successful implementation of SAFe. In addition to its complex workflow and processes, SAFe is managed at multiple levels. The goal is for each function or department to have control over its area of responsibility. Ultimately, this slows the workflow due to how teams function and make decisions, because they are not independent. The decisions of one team may affect the decisions of another — this may cause a bottleneck, or maybe even a paradoxical scenario. Whose decision matters most? The SAFe framework emphasises planning and team retrospectives. Inconsistent attendance at team retrospectives makes implementing necessary changes difficult for program managers. Instead of assessing whether SAFe principles are working, retrospectives often focus on “assessment charts.” Instead of focusing on outcomes, retrospectives tend to focus more on processes.
Despite providing a structured method for scaling agile practices, the Scaled Agile Framework faces significant challenges. For SAFe to be successfully implemented, organisations must address complexity, rigid structures, and potential misalignments. The SAFe concept of “customers” extends beyond end users. Value streams encompass financing and other collaborators who have a stake in the outcome. When misunderstood, SAFe may seem more project-oriented than product-oriented. An overly simplistic interpretation may focus on delivering processes, features, and securing outputs on time with little consideration for their outcomes. It is crucial to evaluate and understand SAFe’s potential drawbacks.
The official SAFe website features boasts more than 60 success stories. However, it doesn’t include case studies of less successful implementations, which can lead to a biased view. Before selecting SAFe for their purposes, organisations should thoroughly research its potential downsides. A supportive work environment, flexibility, and a focus on people are crucial for overcoming these obstacles. Adapting SAFe to an organisation’s specific needs and cultivating a continuous improvement culture can help mitigate its shortcomings. By adopting SAFe thoughtfully, organisations can drive innovation, efficiency, and success in large-scale agile transformations. Using SAFe, you can define organisational and workflow patterns across your enterprise. This framework guides roles, responsibilities, work plans, management, and values.
