The Scaled Agile Framework is complex. Or maybe you're a hypocrite.

When I look at the number of posts shared on this professional network that address the topic of SAFe, it becomes clear that it's a popularity phenomenon, comparable, for instance, to Barbie's premier. And it makes perfect sense, if you consider the similarities between those who write those posts and those who rushed to the cinemas to watch such a masterpiece.

Badmouthing SAFe has become a sign of status, wisdom, knowledge. Those who haven't yet published a post harshly criticizing this framework, are not accepted in the social gatherings of the self-proclaimed Agile elite nor are they qualified to discuss anything on the subject.

The most common criticism is that SAFe is extremely complex and has barely anything to do with agility. And this is genius! You don't need to know anything about the framework; all you need is a screenshot of the Full SAFe configuration and a comment like: 'Seriously, Dean? All of this to develop a product? You got it completely wrong.'

I had a similar discussion with my daughter a few years ago when she confronted me with the fact that she had to learn how to write when, in reality, all she needed was to know how to speak. "Instead of writing, I can record audio. Why make things more complex?" she asked.

My daughter (6 or 7 years old by that time) showed an innocent but genuine belief when she was asking that. There was no hidden agenda nor any kind of hypocrisy on her side. What we are about to discuss, however, comes at a completely different level.

Is LeSS less complex than SAFe?

The following image shows a perspective of how the LeSS framework looks like. It's aims at scaling the Scrum framework, which, in its essence, is applied to a single team up to 10 people, more or less.

Next, we have an image of the SAFe framework, a set of integrated principles, practices, and competencies for achieving business agility using Lean, Agile, and DevOps. In this case, I'm sharing the Essential SAFe configuration, used in the vast majority of SAFe' implementations.

Those who are familiar with both frameworks will see a lot of similarities in some of the key elements and working principles. For instance, there is Product Management and Product Owners in SAFe, compared to Product Owners and Area Product Owners in LeSS. You can also think of Product Backlogs and Area Product Backlog in LeSS in much the same way as you think of ART Backlogs and Team Backlogs in SAFe. Naturally, they are not exactly the same thing, as the frameworks present them differently, but the essence of the problem they seek to solve is the same.

Other examples of obvious similarities include (SAFe | LeSS):

• Principles
• Continuous Learning Culture?| Continuous Improvement
• Implementation Roadmap | Adoption
• Lean-Agile mindset | Lean Thinking
• Continuous integration | Integrate continuously
• System Demo | Sprint Review
• Inspect and Adapt | Sprint Review + Overall Retrospective

And I could go on with the list.

When I look at this, its seems quite a stretch to claim that SAFe is complex while LeSS is not. Maybe it is complex, but perhaps LeSS's 6% market share isn't enough for the Hypocrites to bother. Or maybe because it's fully aligned with their interests (more on this on the last part of this article).

Books and more books

I'm sure everyone has heard about user stories and the crucial role they play in any Agile initiative. Just a post-it where we write a sentence, a few statements, and a number. Incredibly useful and deceptively simple. Nevertheless, Mike Cohn needed 304 pages in his (excellent) book 'User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development' to describe their use.

Let's consider another example: Retrospectives. We all understand the importance of retrospectives for continuous improvement. As a concept, it's straightforward (a team ceremony to discuss how to do things better and continue what's working well). Yet, Esther Derby used 186 pages to explain how this can be achieved.

In a more recent example, Maarten Dalmijn dedicated 256 pages of his book to the topic of the Sprint Goal, nothing more than an intention statement with the purpose of keeping a team focused during the sprint they've just started.

These three examples together make up 746 pages. If you add to these the 368 pages that Mike Cohn wrote about Agile estimates and Planning and the 322 pages that Jeff Patton dedicated to help us understand the benefits of user story mapping, we have 1,436 pages to explain five topics, all of which are addressed in SAFe as key components of its operation."

I don't recall seeing any criticism in professional media about how these simple topics were presented and described in these five books! Many of the people who read these excellent materials are the same ones who, every day, write the usual criticisms about SAFe without ever bothering to read, for example, the three articles listed below where these topics are included.

Please note that I made a reference to these five topics just to make my point. There are dozens of other topics where this attitude prevails. And if you disagree with me, that's probably because you are an...

Hypocrite

SAFe came and stole a market that had long been dominated by the same players. Scrum trainers, Agile coaches, and all sorts of self-proclaimed experts, saw themselves for many years as gods and the only ones qualified to explain Scrum (and therefore, according to them, Agility). They always argued that Scrum is the only required framework for developing software products, regardless of the context.

With the emergence of SAFe in the frameworks landscape, these hypocrites saw their market diminishing in favor of a more comprehensive offering that adapts to an ever-evolving reality. And that, indeed, pisses them off. The goldmine that allowed them to live of something that didn't require new knowledge and only repeating the same thing year after year has come to an end.

SAFe is not complex, but rather the reality it represents, which goes far beyond any other framework. I see a lot of people irritated with how SAFe keeps changing almost constantly. Well, it's just a reflection of the current reality and that's what VUCA is all about. When someone says that SAFe is not Agile, I agree 100%. Agile is just one of the elements that support the framework. Curiously, over the years, the overwhelming majority of changes had nothing to do with Agile itself but rather with other aspects that have gained increasing importance and found their place within the framework.

So, you are pissed while you are reading this, it's probably because you're a hypocrite. I would suggest that you invest your time accepting that reality is changing and try to keep up with it instead of polluting professional media with posts that distill frustration.