Like any other agile tool, the success of the Scaled Agile Framework^® (SAFe^®) lies in its alignment with both the users’ needs and the overarching organisational culture. Here Darryl Wright, Enterprise Agile Coach and PM-Partners Training Facilitator, discusses how agile coaches and leaders can better assess if and when SAFe fits into their context.

In the digital era, conversations brimming with provocative statements are not uncommon. My social feeds are frequently inundated with them. But as an Enterprise Agile Coach, I find the Scaled Agile Framework^® (SAFe^®) to be one of the most heated topics of debate.

I’ve often seen inflammatory comments that call the framework’s legitimacy and effectiveness into question. Remarks like: ‘Any agile coach who uses SAFe should be ashamed of themselves’, ‘SAFe is not Agile’, and even calls to arms like ‘Grow a pair – publicly decry SAFe now!’

Like me, you might find this type of behaviour strange. I’ve always viewed SAFe as one of the tools in my agile toolbox, and, like a tradie presented with a tricky scenario, I try to choose the tool that I think is best suited to the problem at hand. I’m sure I’m not alone. A far more constructive conversation, then, would be how we develop the art and skill of knowing when and how to deploy each tool.

Understanding Shu Ha Ri

Throughout my agile coaching journey I’ve found great utility in the Shu Ha Ri model, which describes the stages of human learning to mastery:

Shu – beginners follow a specific set of instructions, obeying the rules rigidly

Ha – intermediate learners experiment and test different options, but still lean on guidance

Ri – masters create their own approaches beyond known frameworks.

For instance, if a team is new to agile (at the Shu stage), overwhelming them with options and detail may lead to confusion. Conversely, providing an experienced agile leader well versed in agility (possibly at the Ha stage) with a specific path to follow might seem restrictive.

Understanding where the team or organisation is on their learning journey before offering advice or guidance is key. This involves probing and listening to the people we are supporting by asking open-ended questions, such as:

• What is the problem you’re trying to solve?
• What would good look like?
• What minor change signifies progress?

Based on their responses, we can then ascertain their level of maturity and ensure we align our assistance to their specific needs.

SAFe^® and the Shu Ha Ri model

This approach not only helps us pinpoint where a team or organisation is on its agile journey, but which tool or tools to utilise. So, let’s apply these techniques to the question of SAFe.

Shu-level SAFe^®

Those in the ‘Shu’ phase may mistakenly think that the way to achieve business agility is to just spin up enough agile teams. They typically overlook the need for proper training and the role of inter-team and inter-department dynamics. In fact, major agile transformations have floundered because of these misconceptions.

This is where SAFe can be extremely helpful. Its fundamental structure is based around the concept of a virtual organisation (called a ‘train’), which consists of a team of agile teams aligned to a common value stream, supported by detailed guidelines. For beginners, SAFe is akin to a meticulous recipe, laying out every step along the way. It ultimately boils all this down to the simple, Shu-level credo: “Train everyone, launch trains.”

Ha or Ri-level SAFe^®

As organisations progress to the Ha or Ri stages, they will have outgrown rigid instructions and their relationship with SAFe should therefore also evolve. Much like an experienced chef they can now mix and match from different recipes.

A Ha-level company might cherry pick elements from SAFe and blend them with aspects from other frameworks. By the Ri-level of mastery they may only use SAFe as inspiration, exploring and drawing from the huge array of content and ideas and then innovating beyond its constraints. Unlike the Shu phase, they would no more adopt SAFe verbatim as they would any of the other approaches out there.

The essence of customer-centricity

At the heart of my approach is a commitment to needs-driven customer-centricity. To discern people’s requirements it’s often necessary to dig a little deeper. I find this typically reveals that teams and leaders have quite different needs. Often, teams need leaders to remove obstacles, while leaders expect teams to take ownership and responsibility for delivering outstanding results. Yet, in many organisations there’s a disconnect between the two and a detrimental pattern emerges:

1. Teams face obstacles or blockers to progress.
2. The team is not trusted or empowered to solve the problem on their own, so they escalate it to the leaders.
3. Leaders, distant from the ground reality, either delve into the details so they can acquire enough knowledge to make a decision, or make a rushed decision, often leading to more problems down the line; in either case, costing both time and money.
4. This pattern disempowers teams and disincentivises them from trying to solve problems next time, and instead they acquire what we call ‘learned helplessness’.
5. Leaders are now more likely to get pulled into operational tasks and away from strategic leadership, resulting in a loss of vision and purpose… and so the cycle continues.

SAFe^® and customer-centricity

Rather than applying tools and processes that support and even reinforce the above cycle, it’s pivotal to ask, “What behaviour does this drive?”. This can also offer clarity on when SAFe is a good option.

For example, if the prevailing culture of the organisation is ingrained command-and-control, then SAFe will most likely be misinterpreted and misapplied. All this will do is further reinforce top-down approaches, reducing autonomy at the team level.

Conversely, if an organisation is already aligned with an agile mindset at the team level but is struggling to scale agile principles more broadly, SAFe can bridge that gap. It provides the structure to drive those agile behaviours from teams to the organisation at large, guiding leadership towards fostering agility at all levels.

At the end of the day, those of us in the agility space would be far better served by collectively lifting our ability to choose the right tool for the job at hand, and helping others do the same. Rather than debating whether SAFe is good or bad, it’s vital to understand where an organisation is on its agile journey and whether SAFe is applicable.

When used appropriately, SAFe can catalyse an organisation’s transformation towards genuine business agility. However, just like any tool, its success lies not in its inherent features, but in the hands of those wielding it.

To find out how PM-Partners can help with your agile coaching needs, or to uplift your team’s understanding of agile principles and SAFe, contact our expert team online or call 1300 70 13 14 today.

SAFe® and Scaled Agile Framework® are registered trademarks of Scaled Agile, Inc.