Scaled Agile has more prescriptive roles, output and ceremonies than traditional Scrum. For many people who are already struggling with the daily standups, the additions seem both overwhelming and excessive. For high performing Agile teams, the additional overhead feels like a drag to effectiveness.
Scaled Agile is not something to employ where your organization is operating smoothly, following Agile values and principles. When your team is energized and engaged, your customers are thrilled, and your bottom-line is where it needs to be, then you are not in need of the rigours outlined in the SAFe deployment or any other scaling guidelines. For you, the tools you’ve implemented work. Sure, you should stay informed of additional tools and stay alert for signs of shifts in your organization. But while things are working, this is not for you.
Scaling Agile, like all other methodologies, has evolved in answer to a need. Many, many companies are struggling with making Agile work or making it “stick” in their culture. Scaled Agile (SAFe 4.0 and other scaling frameworks) are designed to guide and prescribe good behaviors. And they are only necessary where those good behaviors are not happening naturally on their own.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you approach this as being an interesting challenge), organizations who have strong adherence to Agile principles are hard to find. Culture and Leadership are commonly thought of as being the cause of issues with Agile implementations. The leaders may have varying levels of support for Agile practices and may expect that the Agile culture should be a grass-roots effort (ie: should not require their active, long-term involvement). A framework that outlines specific leadership tasks and ongoing leadership deliverables can help to ensure that their support does not fizzle over time. To maintain an Agile culture, you cannot have it become the flavor-of-the-month. Leadership support must be sustained and the values must be held up consistently across the organization. Even in the most involved and enthusiastic leadership team, this level of commitment is difficult to maintain without the rigour of a framework with set expectations. With larger leadership teams or teams with some attrition or turnover, the difficulty is multiplied.
Scaling tools are not necessary in organizations that live by strong mission statements and that ensure all team members hold themselves accountable for aligning with the values. If this is working for the company, don’t change it, celebrate it. This is not a matter of “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”, as missions and values must evolve and be continually refreshed and tested for efficacy. But, if as these evolve, the leadership is able to steer the entire team to flow with the slight changes in direction, then they should continue with their tactics. It is when they find that new directions are only followed temporarily (old habits are reviving with time) or where there are serious issues (versus healthy conflict) with adapting to change, the prescriptive tools set within the Scaled frameworks are fabulous change management aids.
Being Agile is difficult. Some of the most surprising twists and turns can erode your success. Agility must be actively maintained. If you don’t feel compelled to implement the more indepth modes of Agile, still look at what they offer. You will glean from them areas where Agile maintenance has been found to need fostering and sustained care. Budgeting (how does your funding model support Agility?), leadership, employee performance evaluation, mission statements, vision communication, value-driven business modelling and prioritization, and inter-team communication plans are just some of the areas of potential weakness that are drawn out in Agile frameworks. And all are worth consideration in your Agile journey.