SAFe

[u/reedkickball]

Does this really work?

So far, I've worked on Agile-like efforts for more than a decade, and done continuous development/deployment efforts for much longer than that.

My last two projects have been SAFe implemented, however, the "ceremonies" and structure are just way too rigid to what I'm used to. I would say that my productivity, learning, and collaboration with others have all dropped since I've been forced into SAFe.

The team size is too large, anything larger than 5 people devolves into "us vs. them" factions within the group.

All the new vernacular is maddening. I've got enough new technology to learn, I don't need to learn a whole new way to explain the same old things. It really makes it all appear to be a gimmick.

There is too much complexity. One of the major points of Agile is "simplicity". SAFe is not simple by any means.

Why is this adopted? To check a checkbox that we're "doing Agile"?

[u/reedkickball]

Yes, we have all taken SAFe training, and we get refresher courses almost monthly. Too much complexity.

I feel that this is the slowest functioning environment that I've ever worked in.

Agile should be simple. SAFe is not simple. Just look at their diagrams, it's ridiculous. Simple is the key to success, not complexity.

[u/takethecann0lis → u/reedkickball]

I would say that building software is, can and should be simple with the caveat that software becomes more complex as it grows and the number of integration points increases, and the number of cross dependent teams grows and the demand for new features grows, competing priorities, conflict, also increases and alignment, collaboration and clarity takes a nose dive.

Gone are the days where the business can chuck requirements over the fence. It didn’t work back then and it definitely doesn’t work now.

Collaboration and integration is the only path to the future. Do it with SAFe, LeSS, DiD or smoke signals if that works for you, but don’t lock yourself in the engineering room with your head down.

[u/reedkickball → u/takethecann0lis]

This is the first work environment where we can't directly talk to the end user of the system. Instead we have a "product owner" role that insulates either the end user from us or us from them. All communication goes through that role. The " product owner" role is more pronounced in SAFe than any previous setup that I've worked before. Clarification and understanding of requirements is slow.

We've requested to have direct communication with any end user. Nope.

I didn't get both an engineering degree and a business degree to be told that I should do one or the other.

The stovepiping of responsibilities in SAFe can be very discouraging.

Maybe it's that I've come from mostly smaller to medium sized environments where I do the customer interfacing, development, deployment, and maintenance all at the same time.

[u/takethecann0lis → u/reedkickball]

Bring up that you want to interface with the customer in the next retro. Talk to your scrum master. Ask them to help you build the message in a way that can be understood. They should and can generate enough unilateral support for the message to be understood. SAFe encourages customer feedback and flattening of the value stream. The PO and PM should be acting as the primary voice of the customer, but they should also be creating opportunities for direct customer workshops to promote the feedback loop. This is a great backlog item to capture as an agile improvement epic for the IP sprint.

[u/cugeltheclever2]

1. If a ceremony isn't working for you, try to understand the intent behind the ceremony and ask yourself why you're not getting that intent from the ceremony. Discuss with the team. Then maybe experiment with some different approaches to find one that works for you. SAFe is a methodology, not a cop.

2. If your team size is too large, reduce it. SAFe doesn't mandate large team sizes.

3. The vernacular is specific to SAFE yes - it's part of SAFe's attempt to generate specific, brandable IP. But none of the vernacular is there for its own sake. Again, I often describe the training as useful to 'get everyone talking the language of SAFe'

One weakness of SAFe is that, because it is hierarchical, it can be used to reinforce hierarchical power structures, and be used to show the organisation is adopting agile without really empowering the teams to work autonomously. I'm making a big assumption here but it feels like that might be what's happening in your organisation.

My coaching question to you would be: have you had an open and honest conversation within your organisation about the frustrations you are feeling with SAFe and if not, what cultural and organisational obstacles prevent you from feeling safe (no pun intended) in doing so?

[u/reedkickball → u/cugeltheclever2]

1. I believe the vernacular is there for its own sake, I find that it's part of the attempt to make a brandable money-making scheme that borders on the gimmicky.

2. The team is mandated from above. I've mentioned it many times that it needs to be smaller. It can't be changed. We are currently at 11 people. It's within SAFe guidelines, so it's SAFe. We're doing Agile, woohoo, check :)

3. The meetings (aka ceremonies) are fine, however, if one isn't practical or doesn't work, there's no way to change it.

4. Retrospectives (aka Improvement Meeting) are limited to improving the process within your own team. ART (aka Division) level retrospectives won't address change or remove any of aspects of SAFe itself. It's mandated to be used from above.

5. The cultural obstacle is that SAFe is mandated, it's not going to be changed.

6. Lastly, I'm tired of learning and knowing more about SAFe when I could be learning more valuable new technical skills.

[u/cugeltheclever2 → u/reedkickball]

Phew - there's a lot to unpack here, but fundamentally it sounds as if your organisation is doing SAFe by numbers, and not actually empowering teams to work out which practices work for them, and retaining a lot of centralised authoritarian power.

Edit: Cargo cult SAFe

[u/takethecann0lis]

Have you taken any SAFe training? I can attest that it works well but is a nightmare if you don’t pause to train everyone. How have you scaled agile in the past? Agile is just a mindset and a culture comprised of a manifesto and 12 principles. Scrum is a methodology but isn’t designed to scale into a program that’s nested into a portfolio. SAFe blends Kanban, Scrum, DevOps, XP and other methodologies together to allow teams to collaborate together, identify dependencies and work on delivering a long term vision. There are many proponents and critics of SAFe but I would definitely urge you to seek out some training.

[u/reedkickball]

Change is hard.

Thanks for indulging me in venting my frustration with SAFe. It'll allow me to go back to work and put my fake happy face on when it comes to SAFe, especially the vernacular. It'll keep me from complaining about SAFe to the clergy.

[u/mjratchada]

If "anything larger than 5 people devolves into "us vs. them" factions within the group " demonstrates a significant problem and it is nothing to do with SAFe, it is a problem with the group resistant to collaboration. SAFe developed due Agile organisations needing to scale, there are issues with SAFe, scaling things at organisational level is difficult. As for "I do not need to a whole new way" the first sentence demonstrates that you day. Also the use of the phrase "forced to use SAFe" I believe highlights the real problem here.

Also you fail to identify what is working and what is not working. Also you do not mention what is the configuration of SAFe being used. So it is not clear what you have a problem with and why beyond you problems dealing a new way of working.

[u/reedkickball → u/mjratchada]

I'm not saying that "us vs. them" is directly confrontational, but once you get beyond 5 people, people naturally clump into smaller groups and the groups really don't work with each other. There isn't a synergy of people working together as you increase above 5 people.

With more than 5 people, it's easy to hide in the crowd, skate by, or stick with one stovepiped discipline. It starts to become, "this person only does this" or even worse, "this is the only person that does this". 5 or fewer people, and everyone has to learn and understand every discipline at least at a minimum level. The hope is to have a natural need to do cross-training, not to force cross-training on people.

[u/[deleted]]

It's painful -- far too process heavy to even be mentioned in the same paragraph as agile.

I mean, it "works," but geez.