SAFe (Scaling Agile Framework) is gaining in popularity. Ron Jeffries recently attended a SAFe training session and has written a great review. I particularly like what Ron says about the idea of being properly Agile:
SAFe will be successful in the market. People will benefit. They just won’t benefit nearly as much as they might if they set out to do things in a fashion that truly supports Agile Values and Principles.
SAFe is good. It’s just not good enough. It provides some benefit, but endangers an organization’s progress toward really high functioning. As someone who has been in the Agile movement since before it started, I do not like it. It’s fast food. You can do better.
Neil Killick seems to have even stronger opinions about SAFe, and is quite direct about them. I like what he says in one of the comments on his blog post:
So you can go the SAFe path or the Scrum and Agile path. All you need to do i[s] figure out how big a cliff you want to deal with down the road.
I don’t personally have any experience with SAFe so I won’t make any big claims about it either way. However, I do appreciate that the popularity of SAFe, like the popularity of Agile/Scrum* will probably lead to studies showing modest qualitative improvements of 20% to 40% increases in productivity. Is this just the Hawthorn Effect at work?
When I help an organization with Agile principles and methods, I hope and expect dramatic measurable improvements. Sometimes this results in people losing their jobs. Sometimes this means people have nervous breakdowns. It can be very painful in the short term. SAFe, by it’s very name, seems to be anti-pain. That doesn’t bode well.
Here are a few other interesting links to information about the Scaled Agile Framework:
* There is no such thing as “Agile/Scrum” but that’s what lots of people call Scrum when they don’t do Scrum properly.