Fick tips om, och läste, en kanonartikel om (un)SAFe – ett ramverk som påstår sig lösa problem som Scrum, menas det (”supposedly”), lämnar efter sig. Artikeln sammanfattar väl hur den agila världen ser SAFe.
If you smell politics behind this, you’d be right. It certainly isn’t all technical. SAFe is aligned to the Big Method school of thinking, and owes much of its inheritance to the Rational Unified Process…although perhaps rather less so than Disciplined Agile Delivery. Anyway, from a Scrum perspective SAFe might be dismissed as the death-rattle of an essentially stage-gated and procedure-heavy dinosaur. It can be viewed as a reflex to agility, and not a species of it; a last-gasp relic from a prehistoric waterfall world.
Ian skriver sedan om de tre största huvudvärken han stött på när han försökt få SAFe och Scrum att fungera ihop, och fortsätter:
Now, here’s the thing. Despite these and other problems, the Scaled Agile Framework appeals to large corporations. It has currency in the boardroom and those checkbooks Ken wrote about are indeed being opened. In short, there is life in the old dinosaur yet. The reason for this is diabolically simple.
SAFe has gained traction not in spite of poor agile credentials, but rather because of them. Most organizations have only managed a patchwork approach to agile transformation. Teams rarely own their process. They face extensive dependencies and are unable to take a Sprint Backlog through to delivery without impediment. At scale, we’re still in a waterfall world and a poorly implemented one at that. In fact, I’d say that most organizations demonstrate a stage-gated culture, and not the true application of any sort of process at all. That’s why they look to SAFe. The barrier to entry is comparatively low.
Jag tycker Ians analys är klockren och kan bara instämma. Se till att läsa kommentaren med svar från Dean, hjärnan bakom SAFe, och även Rothmans kommentar: [SAFe] is an excellent RUP at scale. But it is not agile.