Why SAFe May Be More Harmful Than Helpful For People And Companies Adopting Agile

In the ever-evolving landscape of organizational agility, over the last 10 or so years, many often larger organizations and companies have turned to Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) in an attempt to do what they feel will streamline processes and improve outcomes. However, while SAFe promises to scale agile practices across large enterprises, scaling is probably not the problem that needs to be addressed, and some critics argue that it may be more harmful than helpful. Let’s explore some of the reasons why SAFe probably is not the right option for companies striving to embrace true agility.?

Overemphasis on Process Over People?

One of the core tenets of agile is its emphasis on individuals and interactions over processes and tools. Agile frameworks and methods like Scrum and Kanban prioritize people and their ability to adapt and respond to change. SAFe, however, tends to focus heavily on standardized processes and hierarchical structures. This top-down approach can undermine the very essence of agile principles by placing process adherence above team autonomy and innovation.?

Impact: By prioritizing process compliance, SAFe often stifles creativity and flexibility. Teams may become more focused on following rigid procedures rather than responding to evolving customer needs or solving problems in innovative ways.?

?

Complexity and Bureaucracy?

SAFe is known for its comprehensive and detailed framework, which includes multiple layers of roles, artifacts, and ceremonies. While the intention is to provide a structured approach to scaling agile, this complexity can lead to increased bureaucracy. Organizations may find themselves bogged down by administrative overhead, detailed documentation, and extensive reporting requirements while adding layers of unnecessary processes and not accomplishing outcomes as efficiently as possible.?

Impact: The added complexity can slow down decision-making and reduce true team agility. Instead of fostering a nimble, responsive environment, SAFe’s layers of structure create bottlenecks and hinder the rapid adjustments that agile enables.?

??

Misalignment with True Agile Principles?

SAFe introduces several concepts and practices that may not align perfectly with the foundational principles of agile. For instance, its emphasis on long-term planning and large-scale project coordination, while contradicting the value of responding to change over following a plan, contradicts the agile focus on iterative development and adaptability while spending precious time trying to predict a plan of complex work. The framework’s structured roles and ceremonies create a disconnect from the more fluid, collaborative nature of agile practices.?

Impact: Companies might find themselves adopting a version of agile that is more about managing large-scale initiatives and efforts and less about fostering true agility. This misalignment can result in a superficial application of agile principles, where the core values of adaptability and responsiveness are compromised.?

??

Inadequate Focus on Culture Change?

Successful agile adoption requires a significant shift in organizational culture. It’s not just about changing processes but also about fostering a mindset that embraces continuous improvement, collaboration, and customer-centricity. While SAFe claims to provide a framework for scaling agile, it?does so by falling back onto traditional based thinking and processes?that tend to hold an organizational culture captive to hierarchical and traditional values.?

Impact: Without addressing cultural change, SAFe implementations can become a series of procedural changes that don’t resonate with employees. This can lead to resistance, disengagement, and a lack of genuine buy-in from teams, undermining the effectiveness of achieving outcomes.?

?

Risk of One-Size-Fits-All Approach?

SAFe promotes a standardized approach to scaling agile across various organizational contexts. However, the idea of a one-size-fits-all solution is problematic. Different organizations have unique challenges, goals, and cultures that may not align with SAFe’s prescribed practices.

Impact: Applying a uniform framework without considering the specific needs and context of an organization leads to suboptimal outcomes, paying more attention to how we get things done rather than allowing the people doing the work (Teams) to focus on achieving outcomes efficiently, and often creates a contention between teams and middle / upper leadership. This contention often disrupts a team's?feeling of trust which leads to a slowdown of experimentation in achieving business outcomes. Companies might struggle to adapt SAFe to their unique situations, resulting in a framework that doesn’t deliver the anticipated benefits and hinders progress.?

??

People and Resource Intensive Implementation??

Implementing SAFe is people and resource-intensive, requiring significant investment in training, coaching, and organizational change management. The costs associated with adopting and maintaining the framework is substantial, especially for organizations that are new to agile practices.?

Impact: The high cost of implementation can be a barrier for many companies, particularly those with limited budgets. The return on investment may not always justify the expenditure, especially if the framework does not deliver the expected improvements in agility and performance.?

??

Over the years, SAFe has claimed to offer a structured approach to scaling agile across large enterprises because, as proponents state, “we need to have a process to address large corporations' ability to expose and address dependencies efficiently, and SAFe does that.” However, with its emphasis on process, complexity, and standardized practices, it can be more harmful than helpful - slowing down teams’ ability to achieve outcomes, creating more emphasis on a plan over planning for complex, complicated, and often chaotic work, spending exaggerated time and money on training and hiring talent (i.e. PIs, ARTs, RTEs) and taking more and more decisions away from where it belongs which is with the people that are doing the work, the team, as well as other unexpected outcomes. Companies looking to adopt SAFe should carefully evaluate whether the framework aligns with their agile goals and organizational culture, whether scaling is indeed the problem they are needing to solve, or whether they are just adopting what an industry has claimed to solve the nature of large organizations ability to achieve business agility. After all, it’s crucial to remember that true agility is about adaptability, collaboration, and continuous improvement—principles that are overshadowed by rigid frameworks, methods, and bureaucratic processes.

Ultimately, the best approach to agile adoption is one that is flexible, context-aware, and centered on the core values of agile values and principles. Organizations should consider alternative frameworks or tailor their agile practices to fit their unique needs and goals, ensuring that they truly embrace the spirit of agility rather than merely following a prescribed set of practices.?