Thank you David! I really enjoyed your article and I would subscribe to everything in it.
SAFe drops from agile, what I enjoy. Yet they are still quoting the original sources and books as if they would still be in the framework. For me this is more like an obituary. Here went Scrum to die, here lies Lean UX, here are rotting some good Product Management practices, here we buried Innovation...
Yet - this should be obvious to every agile practitioner in seconds when looking at the process/framework. I read that making fun of companies employing SAFe is the same as laughing at the tourist with red sunburn because he didn't want to put on sunscreen.
I’m sorry you experienced this and i agree that SAFe is easy to fuck up with bad coaches/consultants but so is everything. I can’t count the amount of shitty scrumfall setups i’ve seen.
None of your points are intrinsic characteristics of SAFe. There is literally nothing stopping you from talking to the customer on a team level if practically possible. The only thing cascading down as you state polemically through “hierarchies” are big initiatives beyond the team scope where collaboration is vital (unless avoidable with good team topology boundaries).
There are many roles described in SAFe because they offer guidance in many situations. I mostly don’t need a release train engineer but i’ve has setups where it was a useful role. SAFe doesn’t prescribe anything, you still have to think for yourself which parts make sense for your setup and which parts don’t.
I agree with you that when blindly implemented through bad coaches SAFe can be a nightmare, but there’s NOTHING in SAFe that tells you to implement everything in the big picture, maintain distance from the customer, cascade everything through unnecessary hierarchies.
I like how you start your post “Warning: adverse opinion ahead. Continue if you’re up for provocative thoughts.” I love adverse opinions, I love when my thinking is provoked. Thus I am not sure why it needs a warning. Unless your audience doesn’t like thinking - but I don’t think so. So you did provoke my thinking, I thought about it and can’t follow - thus, I need a little help.
Let’s chunk it up and start with the opening statement.
“SAFe is an insult to agile.”
noun: insult /ˈɪnsʌlt/ a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or act.
Who specifically feels insulted, and by what? I would like to see some references to scornful abusive remarks or acts SAFe has made. Would you mind quoting and referencing some?
And I am puzzled about the second statement. How is that possible that someone “opting to use the framework will fail before starting.” How does that work? Can you provide more details? Can you define what they are “failing” in?
Thank you David! I really enjoyed your article and I would subscribe to everything in it.
SAFe drops from agile, what I enjoy. Yet they are still quoting the original sources and books as if they would still be in the framework. For me this is more like an obituary. Here went Scrum to die, here lies Lean UX, here are rotting some good Product Management practices, here we buried Innovation...
Yet - this should be obvious to every agile practitioner in seconds when looking at the process/framework. I read that making fun of companies employing SAFe is the same as laughing at the tourist with red sunburn because he didn't want to put on sunscreen.
This is hilarious and sadly, I have to agree!
I’m sorry you experienced this and i agree that SAFe is easy to fuck up with bad coaches/consultants but so is everything. I can’t count the amount of shitty scrumfall setups i’ve seen.
None of your points are intrinsic characteristics of SAFe. There is literally nothing stopping you from talking to the customer on a team level if practically possible. The only thing cascading down as you state polemically through “hierarchies” are big initiatives beyond the team scope where collaboration is vital (unless avoidable with good team topology boundaries).
There are many roles described in SAFe because they offer guidance in many situations. I mostly don’t need a release train engineer but i’ve has setups where it was a useful role. SAFe doesn’t prescribe anything, you still have to think for yourself which parts make sense for your setup and which parts don’t.
I agree with you that when blindly implemented through bad coaches SAFe can be a nightmare, but there’s NOTHING in SAFe that tells you to implement everything in the big picture, maintain distance from the customer, cascade everything through unnecessary hierarchies.
I like how you start your post “Warning: adverse opinion ahead. Continue if you’re up for provocative thoughts.” I love adverse opinions, I love when my thinking is provoked. Thus I am not sure why it needs a warning. Unless your audience doesn’t like thinking - but I don’t think so. So you did provoke my thinking, I thought about it and can’t follow - thus, I need a little help.
Let’s chunk it up and start with the opening statement.
“SAFe is an insult to agile.”
noun: insult /ˈɪnsʌlt/ a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or act.
Who specifically feels insulted, and by what? I would like to see some references to scornful abusive remarks or acts SAFe has made. Would you mind quoting and referencing some?
And I am puzzled about the second statement. How is that possible that someone “opting to use the framework will fail before starting.” How does that work? Can you provide more details? Can you define what they are “failing” in?