I know, it is kind of "dangerous" to tap the SAFe framework :) Not, that many people would care anymore. Or a lot of customers would care. But SAFe is primarily a training business - and usually criticizing SAFe results in being bashed by SAFe trainers.
To be honest, I also don't care about SAFe anymore. 7 years ago, after looking in any of its details, it was clear to me, this is not a skillful way. Having looked into it in 2021, my point of view was strongly confirmed.
A major problem with SAFe though is, how critique is assumed to be "bashing". Why? Not at all because SAFe is so great. But because it triggers emotions of trainers and consultants, who make a great living of something, that I interpret as uneducated intervention.
Many SAFe people argue, they would anyway not follow any of the whole "blueprints". And SAFe would only serve as entry point. I get that. And I appreciate the assumption. But I also believe, this is bad.
First of all, SAFe claims "Business Agility". And this seems more of a joke to me. If anything had to do with #BusinessAgility in the 21st century, it would not be the #Scaled#Agile#Framework. But introducing something like this with the idea to switch afterwards is stupid.
Because once introduced, you have burnt the ambition, passion and energy of lots of people. A turnaround from SAFe literally means, you need to heal the corporate culture. I'm once again about to start with such a client, internationally spread, located in Vienna.
To sum my arguments: SAFe claims #Agile by melting all buzzwords into a pot. The result is a 20th century hierarchy, spoon-feeding teams, disconnected from customers, with POs, who are not at all empowered, etc etc. It is the #agilization of an outworn organizational model.
One of the worst interpretations SAFe compiled is #Scrum. SAFe has literally castrated #Scrum and by spreading such a eunuch version of the framework across many teams, you literally nurture crap amongst large parts of an organization bottom-up.
So what, you might think. Having experienced so many SAFe handicapped clients, where we always needed to find ways out, repair and heal, it became obvious to make the ways out available. Hence 2022 we'll grow a platform, showing ways to leave SAFe. For those, who want to.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I like the #ScrumGuide. And to be honest - I do not 100% agree with everything, that's written in it. And - most important - I do not care, if people follow it. Now that's weird for a person, who delivers official trainings via Scrum Alliance you might think?! Well, let's talk.
First of all, the Scrum Guide is not the bible. Its authors have been editing it many times since its first publication. And they needed to make a lot of tradeoff decisions via the community. Not every Scrum professional always loves the current version of the guide.
That said, the Scrum Guide still is the opinion, the expression of experience of its 2 authors. But way more to that: Scrum is about developing an emergent process. The moment a team starts thinking about it, there will be its very local and individual instantiation.
Like many others, I have been observing the #ScrumMaster market over the past 12-13 years. That said, the qualification possibilities have grown dramatically. The general skill of a Scrum Master too. But there is something wrong.
Average day #rates for Scrum Masters rather went down, instead of up. Large companies claim, they can get a great Scrum Master at EUR 500,- to 600,- (Western European ranges). And they miss one point: such a person would be plain stupid joining them!
Let's be frank. The first Scrum Master in the world was an experienced manager. The idea for this role was never a simple one. Bad implementations made it simple (like becoming a team secretary). But to me a Scrum Master is a skilled #organizational#developer.