Reflections on Agile and SAFe 5.0

Our story so far...

Recently, I took a Scaled Agile Framework class with LitheSpeed. The instructors were the best combination of theory and practice you could hope for. The discussions were interesting, and the class participants were engaging and thought-provoking (two terms which I never thought I'd use with a Zoom call, but here we are).

The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) can be overwhelming. It is an incredible collection of the private sector's most impressive achievements over the last three decades. Lean. Human Centered Design. Scrum. Kanban. DevOps. And layered on top an impressive layer of coordination. A first impression should either be sheer terror or admiration of the audacity of it.

A first impression should either be sheer terror or admiration of the audacity of it.

It so happens that my timing in taking this class, although coincidence, was aligned with the 20th anniversary of the original agile manifesto. If software has eaten the world, agile is the salad dressing that made it delicious. Despite the successes, there has been a tremendous amount of conversation recently on whether agile actually is anymore. Like hipsters seeking the next cool thing, it would seem that agile has finally grown up enough that increasingly the cool kids are more interested in what's next. That doesn't mean that current approaches don't have value, and we should look to understand how agile has changed.

I subscribe to the idea that all systems trend towards ossification - that they become rigid over time as participants struggle to deliver specificity, clarity, and consistency. There are organizational reasons for that; human behaviors that favor structure and prefer directive. Because of this, agile today is not agile twenty years ago. And agile tomorrow likely will not be agile today. The best systems achieve a balance of rigidity and fluidity. A homeostasis that agile as a discipline and practice, in all its many forms, still struggles to achieve. The real question is: does SAFe create that proper balance?

SAFe is a lightning rod

Find a story on SAFe success, and you'll find a story of SAFe failure. In fact the very nature of the approach is on the face of it counter-intuitive. And that was my initial reaction, it feels very much a monolith. I brought up the memo by the Chief Software Officer of the Air Force recommending Program Offices avoid SAFe during class introductions as a way to frame my own exploration of this topic. When someone actively describes an agile framework as "rigid" and "prescriptive" it catches attention.

This was juxtaposed by colleagues who have had success implementing and borrowing concepts from SAFe. And while these backports of ideas from SAFe may not fully adhere to the true Scaled Agile Framework, they are creating value more quickly for the users and customers for whom those projects deliver. Sure sounds like agile to me.

The audacity of SAFe is exactly that - the scale and interlinking of the various aspects of implementation

The audacity of SAFe is exactly that - the scale and interlinking of the various aspects of implementation. That all things being equal, an implementation of SAFe will completely transform the organization. Reality is an unkind companion to this sort of artistic target.

3 Keys to Making Sense of SAFe

Let's put aside the idea that SAFe can be perfectly executed and start pulling apart the collection of concepts, methods, and approaches that have all been brought together. This is the real value of SAFe. Collecting these concepts and even having a nominative idea of how they might work together is a monumental task. Even conceptually, it's a bootstrap framework that can immediately accelerate any organization's modernization.

This approach to thinking about SAFe isn't a replacement for spending time in a class connecting with others and learning. You should do that regardless. I want to share with you a bit about how I organized my thinking on this to maximize the value of the information presented.

1. Everything you do should generate value for someone

You've probably heard it a thousand times: always be generating value. This has been the mantra of the private sector for decades, and the top line is still the same for SAFe. Everything you do should generate value for someone, and if isn't or doesn't then you seriously need to think about why it is being done. The approach is pervasive through-out SAFe, from Lean Portfolio management to Business Agility to Agile Delivery.

What is different though, is acknowledging there is a difference between effective and efficient. Unlike a lot of Lean approaches, SAFe threads a series of needles by positioning different methodologies to embrace those two opposing concepts and make the most of them. Customer-centric is the core guiding phrase, and with a combination of identifying the critical role that design plays in understanding need and innovation in maintaining renewal of ideas and concepts. There is a lot threaded throughout SAFe that brings tremendous value to the framework via effectiveness without squeezing every little bit of waste for optimal efficiency.

What is different though, is acknowledging there is a difference between effective and efficient.

2. Build Great Teams and Give them Hard Problems to Solve

I first heard this phrase years ago during a presentation by a technology leader at LinkedIn. If there is a concept that is truly key to SAFe, this is it. Everything in SAFe revolves around the team and the interactions between teams as the organization scales delivery. The preservation of that construct is probably the single most critical aspect to maintaining flow and delivering value continuously.

Building a great team is a bit cliché these days and often overused. It is a lot more difficult in practice and this is another interesting component of SAFe. Seemingly unrelated aspects like Agile Leadership can be a critical catalyst for creating an agile-facilitating environment and enhancing team performance. SAFe also answers "give them hard problems to solve" by ensuring that there's a direct connection from business owner to team and a continuous feedback cycle of identification, delivery, and improvement.

3. Transformation doesn't mean burning the organization down

There is a concept introduced early on: the dual operating system. It suggests that institutional hierarchy isn't malleable enough to conform to a modern approach to implementing organizational agility. SAFe answers that by creating cross-functional teams in a virtual design that parallels the organization and is aligned to value streams. Now, whether that just creates new problems or not is a long debated topic in organizational design and management conversations. Still, the premise is solid and most importantly acknowledges that change in large organizations is challenging at best and occasionally impossible.

We can see similarities in this approach to McKinsey's Helix Organization model. McKinsey's model focused on decoupling the organization from the individual and then aligning them to value generation and as a recent construction will likely exist for a while before any assessment of effectiveness can be made. The dual operating model acknowledges that fighting tendencies in large organizations to align hierarchically is a lot like Sisyphus rolling the rock uphill each day.

The dual operating model acknowledges that fighting tendencies in large organizations to align hierarchically is a lot like Sisyphus rolling the rock uphill each day.

Stretch Goal: Systems Thinking isn't passé

SAFe only makes sense when you see it as a system of systems. This requires some understanding and knowledge of systems and systems thinking. Understanding a complex system is a lot like going to the Met to stare at art. It only seems like a good idea if you really enjoy it.

The concepts communicated, albeit briefly, in how SAFe talks about systems thinking is a hidden gem. In the context of nation-state competition, countries like China have used systems thinking as a center-piece of their ability to educate on the topics of critical thinking, disambiguation, relationships, and more. These concepts aren't mere philosophical tripe. They are the cornerstones of successful society and ironically enough, successful business.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others

Churchill's famous phrase always resonates with me when talking about challenges and opportunities. Yes, SAFe is intimidating. Yes, SAFe is overwhelming. So are a lot of important things, and the need to oversimply the complex does not, in fact, make them easier. Yes, making things simple is the hardest thing you'll ever do, but as any mathematician will tell you, there is a point where the solution can no longer be reduced any further.

My advice? If you're in a big organization that has experimented with agile but hasn't really seen the promised transformation you owe it to yourself to dive in deep into the concepts that SAFe puts on the table. There is too much functionally significant and effective knowledge, brought together in a single place, not to take advantage.

If you've never adopted agile, SAFe isn't the place to start. But it is a great primer into how modern organizations think. Take one or two of the concepts and employ them. Then tag in a couple more. And pretty soon you'll see a cultural change that is connecting value to delivery and restructuring how the organization approaches people and work.

Agile-Waterfall organizations create real opportunities for SAFe to come into a culture indoctrinated by process and unlikely to change overnight. It fits easily into this type of organization and creates real opportunities for change and a model of what that change could look like. This isn't to say it is easy or guaranteed, but of all the organization archetypes to consider, SAFe would likely make the biggest impact here.

Finally, if you're an agile traditionalist, it is unlikely that you'll find a lot of value in what SAFe proposes. I would instead again look to the work that has been done to link together the many components as a way to accelerate the principles and values of the original manifesto.

For me, I've already gotten a lot of value out of validating previous approaches that weren't quite so formal, and appreciate the focus on customer-centricity and value alignment. These are buzzwords used all the time and for all of SAFe's monolithic intensity, they have done their best to create a highly effective system to accomplish all that. Perhaps most importantly, it reemphasizes the idea that any agile approach is only fully successful when the entire system is agile. This is especially important in government and the topic of an upcoming article.