SAFe is so process-heavy that a startup is using it
A (long) while ago I wrote a short post on LinkedIn called 10 Lazy Responses to SAFe bashing. If you haven’t read it there is really no need to go check it out: your life will be no less rich, I’m sure of it. I spit it out in about an hour and a half because someone forwarded me yet another SAFe-bashing article and wanted to know what my response was because where I work I am The SAFe Guy. Normally I try really, really hard not to argue with idiots — especially online — but a few moments of weakness were strung together and next thing I know I’m scrolling through my photo album of my phone looking for a picture of my dog(s) that adequately conveyed laziness. Badda boom badda bing! Content.
My writing process involves sitting in my old recliner in my bathrobe my family got me for Christmas 10 years ago, drinking my first cup of coffee, and pecking on my phone. I always wanted to write the captions on the short-lived “Pop up Videos” show on MTV I think I’d be really good at it.
Recently, someone tagged me in a post on LinkedIn discussing my lazy response article (Yay attention!) and I was accused of making straw-man arguments.
In case you aren’t familiar with the term “straw-man”, it originates back to using human-shaped dummies made from straw at Renaissance festivals for weapons practice, with the implication that you were arguing against the weakest version of the opposing argument because it did not buy a ludicrously expensive prop sword and therefore cannot defend itself against you, smelly knave (one of my stock Renfest insults, you are welcome to steal it)! To a philosopher, this is possibly the most devastating insult that can be leveled. According to the Philosopher’s Code, such a challenge requires the immediate consumption of a cup of tea and a thoughtful walk- that’s how serious it is.
Me? Making a cheap argument? The audacity! The unmitigated gall! The problem in this case, however, is that it’s true. I mean it had a picture of my dog taking a nap in it: it’s not exactly scholarly in tone. It also forced me to confront the reality that I actually really love arguing with idiots online, but I try to be nice about it and not argue with individual idiots, which in turn leads to sweeping generalizations in a form of class-action lawsuit against ignorance.
Nonetheless I felt like the gauntlet had been thrown, which is another metaphor that dates back to the ancient Greeks who wore stone gloves that were so heavy they dropped them (because they were made of stone) and they fell on their toes if they weren’t careful so imagine if one of those actually got thrown at you. Yeah, ow.
I wasn’t exactly sure what to write, or how to write it, until I stumbled across Luke Hohmann’s article on the Scaled Agile website in which he described how he used Portfolio SAFe with his startup company Firstroot. Then it hit me like tripping on a stone gauntlet (ow): one of the most common critiques leveled at SAFe is that it is too process-heavy. A startup using SAFe is intriguing enough to warrant consideration as a possible Counter-Example.
According to the Philosopher’s Code, a single Counter-Example is sufficient to remove the stain to your honor from being accused of using a Straw-Man: you have now reclassified your opponent’s critique as a Sweeping Generalization That Does Not Merit a Serious Response. This ends the cycle of academic beef-having because a SGTDNMSR is not a Tier 1 insult (we are talking about Philosophy after all) and so it descalates the situation while warning that continuing to press the attack will be met with Scorn and Derision. As the kids say, mess around and find out.
Firstroot is my counter-example. A startup company, with no processes to speak of, that chose to adapt and adopt SAFe as the basis of their existence. And it’s working. While a “process-heavy startup” is not technically an oxymoron, it’s certainly a good enough counter-example to Not Merit a Serious Response.
And so, with much further ado, is Yet Another Response to SAFe-bashing… Part 2, the Medium edition. Today’s lazy strawman: SAFe is too process-heavy for everyone.
One of the most rankling aspects of “too process-heavy” is that it leaves me yelling at my screen “RELATIVE TO WHAT” and “HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH?!?”
I do actually yell in all-caps.
I decided to get started by counting the number of recommended processes when we compare SAFe to Scrum at Scale. I say recommended because nowhere in either framework is the word “must” actually used. I suppose I could use LeSS because it’s the scaling framework used by the Other Scrum, but this is a strawman article and my 10 year old is wandering around the kitchen making a giant mess and I am getting bored with this topic again but I’m forcing myself to finish this article Because Content.
Also LeSS doesn’t have much market penetration so it would be less of a straw-man and more straw-stick.
If you are on a team in a SAFe Agile Release Train (ART for the rest of this article), chances are you are using Scrum. Kanban is also technically an option (as is Scrumban) but honestly Kanban is way harder than default Scrum and I rarely recommend teams start there without expert guidance and extensive hand-holding. Based on this, let’s start with the notion that at the team level, SAFe and Scrum are identical: same events, same roles. Current score is Scrum — 0, SAFe — 0.
Now let’s add 5 teams to each and “scale.”
5 is the magic number in S@S, and 5 teams gets us to about the same size as the smallest implementation of SAFe, which is called Essential SAFe. SAFe has other collections of practices commonly referred to as “levels” but I am going to ignore that because then I have to talk about the corresponding Scrum of Scrum of Scrum of Scrum of Scrum …. bits. As the saying goes, ain’t nobody got time for that — not even overly pedantic philosophers.
Here is my side-by-side comparison of S@S and Essential SAFe, using golf scoring:
- S@S has the Scrum of Scrums, and so does SAFe. Par.
- S@S has a daily standup for the combined teams, SAFe has the ART sync. Par.
- S@S has a scaled version of Sprint Planning, SAFe has PI planning. Par.
- S@S has a scaled version of Backlog refinement. SAFe does not have this. -1 for SAFe.
- S@S has a scaled version of the Sprint Review. SAFe has the System Demo. Par.
- S@S has a scaled version of the Sprint Retrospective. SAFe has Inspect and Adapt. Par.
- S@S has the Executive Meta-Scrum. SAFe does not. -2 for SAFe.
With the first round completed… oh dear. This is a bit of a head-scratcher, isn’t it? Based on the “prescribed” essential elements of each framework, then Scrum at Scale has more processes that SAFe. Maybe it’s the number of named roles that makes SAFe so heavy?
S@S has:
- Scrum Master
- Product Owner
- Scrum of Scrum Master
- Chief Product Owner
- Executive Action Team
Essential SAFe has:
- Scrum Master
- Product Owner
- Release Train Engineer
- Product Manager
- Business Owner
- System Architect
One more role in Essential SAFe than in S@S. If I include the System Team in the spanning pallet and the SPC in foundation (which isn’t really accurate, but for the sake of argument) then we have 3 more named roles in Essential SAFe than in S@S.
You call it a tie, I call it every boring soccer game I have ever watched!
If Scrum at Scale has more prescribed processes, but SAFe has more roles, is either really more process heavy than the other?
What if I am actually beating the wrong strawman with my replica sword from the Renfest? What if the “too heavy” objection is actually relative to the One True Agile?
My LinkedIn feed is full of CEOs of one-person Agile consultancies who decry all frameworks as misguided, heavy-handed attempts at subjugation and enslavement. I found a whole thread of Scrum hate the other day which I thoroughly, deliciously enjoyed because it was basically a copy-paste of critiques leveled against SAFe and reading the righteous indignation from CSTs is satisfying in the same way that driving by the Ford F-250 getting a ticket when it was was tailgating me aggressively a few minutes ago is.
Why care about about “Startup SAFe” at all, or what this guy had to say about it? Go read (or at least skim quickly) the Startup SAFe article. If you haven’t heard of Luke Hohmann, he is a principal contributor to the SAFe framework, specifically version 5. He has also written a couple books I haven’t read because they aren’t anti-SAFe rants in my LinkedIn feed and that is all I am allowed to read these days. He has also grown and sold a company already, so it doesn’t take too much charity to assert that he knows more about both SAFe and startups than most of LinkedIn. For what it’s worth, my own startup experience is pretty modest but I have enough that I feel qualified to offer at least some informed opinions about the article and its relevance because I am a Dad and if I don’t actually know the answer to something I make it up on the spot.
Since I know you didn’t actually read the article, a one-line summary is that Firstroot is using SAFe guidance on how to decide what to build and for whom (e.g., Portfolio Canvas, Epic Hypothesis) to stay in touch with observed customer objective needs and not the founder’s I-am-a-visionary-genius fantasies. This turns out to be incredibly useful because very small companies are like the show Hell’s Kitchen except that instead of throwing people out of the kitchen Gordon Ramsey chains them to the garnish station and dinner service never ends because the restaurant is actually a Waffle House in the Twilight Zone.
What I have observed about startups is that in the early stages they are all manifestations of the founder’s psyche trapped inside Class C office spaces. Process, and respect for process, is about as common as an SPC with something useful to say about Agile at scale (HAH SICK SELF-BURN). Yet here we have a founder applying the “heaviest” scaled framework possible. What is a rational Agilist to think?
One might conclude that this is an obvious attempt by management (i.e., Luke) to preserve the bureaucratic status quo and thereby continue to micromanage the workers (i.e., Luke) and maintain control by not actually changing anything besides his fancy pants every two weeks. One might also conclude that because he is using Portfolio SAFe, this is a nearly criminally-negligent play that executive leadership (i.e., Luke) is making in order to claim they are “change agents” but in reality they Just Don’t Get It.
OR — and hear me out on this — one might conclude that perhaps SAFe might have a lot of collected insights from the best minds in business and academia that has been applied, tested, and presented in an accessible and relevant manner. Perhaps.
Wait! It’s coming together now!
A Founder.
A small startup company.
Using SAFe.
Oppressing himself.
Successfully growing and creating net social benefit for society because teaching kids participatory budgeting is pretty cool.
Oh. My. God. That’s it! The children!
He is going to brainwash the children into getting expensive and useless SAFe certifications! With an army of K-12 SPCs all using SAFe to scale their kickball games (Kickball Release Train) (trademarking that) he will be unstoppable! THAT EVIL BASTARD! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?! No that can’t be it … no one besides Dean Leffingwell is that evil… there must be some other explanation… think Gianpaolo… ohhhh aaahhh I feel a pain in my head! My mind is expanding! It hurts! Activate cognitive dissonance defensive protocols! Spit dogma! Throw insults! PROTECT THE MANIFESTO! DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!
We interrupt this diatribe to inform you that the author of the previous section has been sacked. Management apologizes for any inconvenience this might have caused.
Please excuse my lapse in sanity there, my head exploded from the pressure of contradictory thoughts existing in my brain at the same time and I needed to find a suitable replacement head, perhaps a pumpkin, that is large enough to hold my giant ego and empty enough to help me successfully continue my career as a management consultant. Time for a warm-up satirical vignette that obliquely illustrates the ever-more-diffuse point!
Executing pre-satire checklist:
- Gourd in place: check.
- Mind is empty: check.
- Mushin achieved: check.
- Japanese phrase gratuitously used to create an appearance of Zen mastery and consequently able to bill at a higher rate while actually doing less recognizable work: check.
Cue the Fred Savage voiceover!
The best way forward was go small: just the Agile Manifesto and the CEO of a One Person Agile Consultancy (C1PAC). Then, add only what you need. Starting small would be the lowest risk approach, right? Boy was I wrong!
“Stand by me” starts playing. Cue dissolve cross fade…
February 1, 2022
Dear Diary,
Well, I have to work with someone besides the CEO of a One Person Agile Consultancy if I want to accomplish more than attending a bunch of brown bags and learning that Agile is a mindset. I need a team. Hm- oh wait the Manifesto has these principles and this one says “self organizing teams”, and I am organized! I mean just look at my stack of notes from these brown bags! I take great pride in my handwriting.
February 11, 2022
Dear Diary,
I recruited a team and we have self-organized. The C1PAC seems pleased, and we had a lunch and learn Friday to celebrate. Monday we are going to start delivering value!
February 14, 2022
Dear Diary,
I promised myself this year I would clean up my language but good God today was a cluster-f-bomb. Everyone has different ideas about what we should do. The C1PAC had to have an emergency brown bag to review the values of the Agile Manifesto. Our lead developer Elizabeth turned on her camera (wow!) just long enough so that we could see her pantomiming vomiting (oh) and then she said call her when there was something to code. C1PAc said she just doesn’t get it. I wonder why does she hate Agile???
March 1, 2022
Dear Diary,
I had my monthly 1:1 with my boss today. He wanted to know how the whole agile thing was going and if the C1PAC was producing results. I presented my neatly stacked collection of printouts from the brown bags and he was impressed. I am thankful the C1PAC reminded me that non-Agile people are impressed by large stacks of paper (that whole comprehensive documentation thing) and helpfully provided the glossy printouts which he said costed us hardly anything and anyway it helped secure Leadership Buy-In so it was for a good cause, right? Also Elizabeth still is not returning my Slack messages. I also tried email, Teams, Bluejeans, LinkedIn, Quora, Github, and what I was told might be her Reddit account although I have my doubts because that person kept trying to get me to visit OnlyFans and from those camera angles it was really hard to tell who the person actually was.
March 3, 2022
Dear Diary,
This is going to be my last entry for a while. Today I met with HR, my boss, his boss, HIS boss, and our Chief People Officer. Elizabeth filed a harassment claim against me, and while I might have been able to get off with just some mandatory Harassment Training, our IT department looked at my browser history on my computer and it seems trying to track down your lead developer on a website widely used for Adult Activities is an inappropriate use of company resources. My boss said that even though he was extremely disappointed in my conduct I had many prior years of pornography-free service to the company and he offered me a 30 day severance package. I was escorted out of the building. The C1PAC offered to buy me a beer after work, but I declined because I hate Agile.
Wide shot of man walking slowly down the street, looking slightly dazed, tie loosened. He crosses the street without looking. A loud horn is heard and then the man is struck by a fast moving bus. Cut to black. Ghostly letters appear on the screen and then dissolve: “Friends don’t let friends try Agile”
This is the point at which the Righteous Guardians of True Agile step in and tell me of their heroic rescues of SAFe implementations. It seems that trying something different when something isn’t working well can lead to a different outcome. Of course, all of the institutions that are using SAFe well are not credible counter-examples because they just haven’t failed yet. They aren’t on Twitter either, talking about how successful they are, mostly because they are busy working.
I could go on and on this way with critique and refutation — there are A LOT of critiques out there, and as mentioned previously I like to argue with idiots. The best one I have read so far is by Ron Jeffries, who, unfortunately, is definitely not an idiot and probably out of my league to argue with. Mr. Jeffries isn’t pedaling any competing frameworks, so that automatically makes him 10x more credible. He also has an ACM email address which is pretty gangster. I think every serious agile coach, consultant, or C1PAC — especially those of us who use and teach SAFe on the regular — should read Ron’s article and think deeply about his observations. There is much more to write here, but the read time for this post is starting to make a Program Increment look speedy (HAH ANOTHER SELF-BURN!).
Calling SAFe “too heavy” is like saying Wikipedia is “too long.” At its core, SAFe is a collection of ideas (predominately originated outside of the Scaled Agile company) harvested from across the spectrum of the professional and academic landscape, compiled and presented on a web site that is 100% free to read. The articles on the web site are scholarly in tone, and are replete with citations and references to source material. There are plentiful suggestions on how to apply the concepts to your reality and forums where you can ask real people who are not consultants how they are applying the different elements of the framework. You don’t have to read the whole thing in one sitting.
Another coach and teacher I respect immensely started one of his classes with ‘Everyone is right, partially.” My truth is not the entirety of reality. I think we can and should passionately engage in conversations, arguements, diatribes, and off-off-off Broadway plays about the full spectrum of human experience. I am passionate about uncovering better ways of working, and helping others do the same. What the “Startup SAFe” article showed me is that the quality of the practices is correlated to the experience of the practitioners. No more, no less. If you have the ability to think critically, the curiosity to wonder what is really going on, and the willpower to avoid writing articles on Medium, you stand a pretty good chance of coming out on top.
Even if you’re a CEO of a One Person Agile Consultancy.
