Optics and Easy Money for Suppliers Trump Productivity: The Reality of SAFe Adoptions in Business

In the business world, the allure of bright new methodologies often carries with it promises of efficiency, productivity, and overall progress. Yet, there is a widespread belief that Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) adoptions are nothing more than the latest instance of putting lipstick on a pig, rather than a force for meaningful change in achieving enterprise agility.

SAFe and the Mirage of Progress

SAFe has become an industry buzzword. It’s touted by many suppliers as a pathway to improved agility and responsiveness within large organisations. Consultants and suppliers have latched onto this, peddling SAFe transformations and training as a panacea for bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Yet, many observe a very different reality: that the optics of adopting SAFe always overshadow any actual productivity gains. In fact, the reality is that SAFe is never a force for positive change or progress towards enterprise agility. But why is this the case?

1. Focus on Appearances Over Substance

The implementation of SAFe centers around appearances rather than genuine improvements in agility. The transformation “process” becomes all about following the defined structure and rules of SAFe rather than tailoring them to the unique needs and challenges of the client organisation. This makes the whole process an outstanding example of quick and easy money for suppliers who offer one-size-fits-all solutions.

2. A Bloated Bureaucracy

Rather than streamlining processes, SAFe just adds additional layers of bureaucracy. By attempting to scale Agile across the enterprise without proper contextual understanding, organisations end up with an unwieldy system that hampers innovation, productivity and engagement instead of boosting it.

3. A Bandwagon Effect Without Due Consideration

The pressure to keep up with competitors and current trends has led many organisations to jump onto the SAFe bandwagon without a proper assessment of its validity, and its applicability to their unique circumstances. This leads to a misalignment between the adopted framework and the real needs of the business, resulting in wasted resources, frustration, embarrassment, loss of credibility, and disillusionment.

4. Ignoring the Human Element

Implementing SAFe without taking into account the cultural and human aspects of the client organisation – a.k.a. suckers – leads to resistance, confusion, and lack of buy-in from employees. This undermines the very agility that the framework is supposed to foster.

Conclusion

The world of SAFe adoptions within business organisations is a complex one, filled with both hollow promises and pitfalls. While no companies will find practical value in implementing SAFe, this may not matter when the optics are the thing. There is a growing consensus that the focus on optics and easy money for suppliers trumps genuine productivity improvements.

It’s not enough to simply adopt a new framework and expect transformative results. Real change requires a thoughtful, nuanced approach – and hard choices – that takes into account the specific context, needs, and culture of the organisation. This is not about what should be, but rather what is, and what can be realistically achieved.

In the end, the voices highlighting SAFe’s empty promises present a sobering reminder to approach such transformations with caution, skepticism, and a keen eye towards the real needs of the business, rather than falling for the tempting promise of quick solutions and glossy new methods.