Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) is a popular methodology for implementing agile practices at an enterprise level, but it has its critics. One key complaint is that it’s too prescriptive, with a ‘one size fits all’ approach that stifles innovation and impedes the adaptability that agile is meant to encourage. It’s also argued that SAFe can be overly complex, with a multitude of roles, artefacts, and processes that can be difficult to understand and implement effectively.

Critics also highlight SAFe’s focus on the top-down implementation of agile, which can undermine the self-organising, empowered teams at the heart of agile philosophy. Furthermore, SAFe’s emphasis on aligning with the existing corporate structure can lead to ‘faux’ agile, where the language and practices of agile are adopted superficially, without the necessary cultural change.

Finally, detractors argue that SAFe can be too focused on delivering a product, at the expense of customer collaboration and responding to change. This is seen as a deviation from the agile manifesto’s values. Despite these criticisms, SAFe remains popular due to its comprehensive approach and the comfort it provides to management in larger organisations. It’s important to remember that, like any tool or methodology, SAFe should be adapted to fit the specific needs and context of the organisation.

Go to source article: https://medium.com/agileinsider/im-not-a-fan-of-safe-here-s-why-13a860ec72ae