The Appeal of SAFe
SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) has become one of the most widespread scaling agile frameworks adopted by large companies and organisations. Despite numerous criticisms and many documented failures, its appeal continues to grow, with enterprises willing to invest massive sums in training and disruption to implement SAFe. This seems surprising given the minimal tangible benefits realised by most SAFe adherents.
So why does SAFe remain so appealing to large, complex bureaucracies? In a word: comfort. While marketed as a way to enable agility and leanness, SAFe appeals precisely because it does not challenge the status quo nor the entrenched beliefs held in many slow-moving, hierarchical organisations.
Criticisms of SAFe
To understand this dynamic, let’s first review common critiques levelled at SAFe:
- Overly complex and prescriptive – SAFe has endless prescribed roles, processes, artefacts etc. This bureaucratic overhead hinders agility.
- Hard to tailor – The intricate nature of SAFe makes customisation impractical. Organisations must reshape themselves to fit the framework.
- Promotes “waterfall” thinking – The emphasis on upfront planning and budgets feeds an outdated sequential mindset rather than adaptiveness.
- Reduces team autonomy – The multitude of coordination points, cadences and preset workflows leave little room for teams to self-organise.
- Lots of overhead – The multi-layered structure requires innumerable meetings, planning sessions and documentation with little obvious value.
- Focused on software – Challenging to integrate with hardware-based development.
- Failure to change mindsets – By not focusing enough on culture and psychology, old ways of thinking persist.
- Poor results for small teams – The coordination needs overwhelm lighter-weight groups.
And the big one:
- Fails to deliver promised benefits – Despite claims around quality, speed, alignment etc., SAFe often delivers no measurable improvements.
Why So Appealing Then?
On the surface, we might be forgiven for thinking that these weaknesses would temper interest in what looks like an over-engineered, bureaucratic and exploitative approach. Yet SAFe resonates precisely because it neatly aligns with the innate orientation of lumbering enterprises.
Importantly, the traditional command-and-control assumptions underpinning these organisations are fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative dynamism essential for collaborative knowledge work (CKW) like software development. Still, decision-makers inevitably cling to what they know.
Organisational psychotherapy techniques can help transition teams to more adaptive behaviours, but this level of innovation is unknown to most executives.
Social Psychology
Instead, SAFe taps into the underlying psychology of social systems both enamoured by and resistant to change simultaneously. It allows decision-makers to signal adherence to “agile” thinking for PR purposes while actually fortifying traditional beliefs around command-and-control. It fosters the myth that adding scaffolding and rituals atop dysfunctional structures and ineffective ways of working can enable high-performance.
By wrapping waterfall-era assumptions in trendy Agile terminology yet never challenging obsolete ideas, SAFe holds tremendous appeal as it lets organisations feel as though they are evolving without actual introspection or change. For entrenched companies desperate for innovation yet terrified of losing control or certainty, SAFe’s contradictory promise proves irresistible. The disappointments come later. When admission thereto have become way to embarrasing to air.
ABC
Approaches like Agile for Big Companies (ABC – open sourced and in the public domain) aim to bridge this gap by enabling greater agility without upending incumbent structures and assumptions. Yet true transformation requires a willingness to surface and reflect upon long-held organisational axioms. For those unable or unwilling to fundamentally remake themselves, SAFe offers a tempting façade of progress.
Think Different