Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

57831Re: [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] More critical views on SAFe

Expand Messages
  • Alan Dayley
    Jun 2, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      It is fascinating to me how "Scrum has failed" in so many places where Scrum has never actually been used.

      SAFe is not evil and it may be far better than what a company currently has. The difficulty is when organizations believe that the mechanics of a framework are what will bring the benefits. The mechanics are important for supporting the appropriate mindset. Without an Agile mindset, the mechanical benefits of any framework are severely limited, at best.

      The rejection of a framework but any one company is not a whole condemnation of the framework. And SAFe largely maintains a Scrum framework at the team and program levels so, SAFe is more an endorsement of Scrum than a condemnation.

      Hopefully Fidelity is doing what works for them, in the mindset of continuous improvement that will bring them amazing benefits.


      On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:16 PM, pjessica603@... [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <SCRUMDEVELOPMENT@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


      I came across the links to these critical views on SAFe and find them rather unfair. SAFe is more and more adopted by more and more companies and it seems to succeed where Scrum has failed throughout the past may years.

      Even Fidelity Investments which was considered as a pioneer with Scrum by Ken had dropped Scrum very early on and has implemented for at least more than 10 or 15 years now something similar to SAFe called FAM with big emphasis on enterprise architecture (yes, enterprise architecture), like in SAFe.

      In addition to this, Fidelity Investments almost never hired one single ScrumMaster into Fidelity - but all project managers or, at least, Agile project managers. 


    • Show all 23 messages in this topic