Talk:Scaled Agile Framework/Archive 1

Redirect to:

Talk:Scaled agile framework/Archive 1

From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

New section on challenges of scaling

Now restructured the lead/lede paragraph to provide a more holistic overview, and introduced a new section on the challenges of scaling that SAFe seeks to address, which is the context for most of the criticisms. This means the article now includes more criticism, and there are more cited references for all the points. The 3 level vs 4 level section still needs sorting out, because it is based on SAFe v4.0. But that can be for another editor or another day. Davidjcmorris Talk 17:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of frameworks

The MOS:CAPS states that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". Software development frameworks such as Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD), Large-Scaled Scrum (LeSS), and the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) are either formal trademarks or recognized and used in the form of capitalization. These terms should be expressed in this way. The exception being the article title, which I already rest to Scaled agile framework (ie, with leading capital only). Davidjcmorris Talk 22:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really the case? I will revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed improvements to introduction

Hi, I'm Jerry and I'm here to propose updates to this Wikipedia article on behalf of my employer, Scaled Agile Inc. Some other company representatives have posted to this discussion page before, but I will be the only employee proposing updates for the time being.

I'd like to start by suggesting some clarifications to the text in the introduction.

First paragraph

I recommend splitting the opening sentence into two: "The Scaled Agile Framework (abbreviated as SAFe) is a knowledge-base of organization and workflow patterns. SAFe's content is made freely available while being a registered trademark of Scaled Agile, Inc.
In the third sentence (starting "Along with…"), I propose changing "this is one of a growing number of frameworks that seek to address" to "SAFe is one of a growing number of frameworks that seeks to address".

Some minor edits made. We need to limit the use of the SAFe abbreviation, lest it become a noise word. Davidjcmorris Talk 19:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph (starting "The primary…")

I propose changing "product management" to "portfolio and product management".
I propose removing "through governance".
After "portfolio management", I propose adding, ", to Agile program teams, to Agile development teams, out to customers".

With these changes, the sentence would read: "The primary reference for the scaled agile framework was originally the development of a big picture view of how work flowed from portfolio and product management, to Agile program teams, to Agile development teams, out to customers."

The portfolio concept is a scaling of products or programs, so instead I introduced other stakeholders as a source of work. In my opinion governance should remain as an important form of oversight -- this is implemented in different ways depending on the the level of SAFe, so governance is broad enough to cover them all in an abbreviated form. Davidjcmorris Talk 19:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the same paragraph, I propose replacing "With the collaboration of others in the agile community, this was progressively refined and formalized, then included in a 2007 book. Since then, the framework has continued to be developed and released into the public domain, also supported by an academy and an accreditation scheme for third-party consultants" with the following content:

"SAFe has been progressively refined and formalized through collaboration of others in the agile community. Early concepts of the framework were described in 2007 and 2010 books. Since then, the framework has continued to be developed and released publicly. SAFe is also supported by an accreditation program for internal enterprise professionals and third-party consultants."

This corrects existing language by noting both books (see 2010 book info here) and replacing mention of an academy with the accreditation program. This page might be helpful for providing a better understanding of the agile community.

Changed to progressively refined and then first formally described in a 2007 book (I recommend considering if there is utility in referencing the later book to support other sections). Changed to shared publicly. Replaced third-party consultants with those who seek to implement, support, or train others in the adoption of SAFe. This should covers anyone (whether internal or third-party) and removes the snark in referencing consultants. Davidjcmorris Talk 19:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph

Finally, the last sentence of the introduction currently says, "Although SAFe has been recognised as the most common approach to scaling agile practices, it has been criticised for being too top-down and inflexible." I propose expand this to say:

"There are over 40 published case studies describing the application and results from applying SAFe in multiple industries. Although SAFe has been recognized as the most common approach to scaling agile practices across the enterprise, it has been criticized for being too top-down and inflexible."

Information about case studies can be found here.

Are there any volunteer editors who are willing to review and discuss these proposed changes? Your help is appreciated. Thanks. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidjcmorris and Walter Görlitz: I see you've both contributed to this talk page in the recent past. I'm inviting you to participate in this discussion, if you'd like, in case you don't "watch" this page. Thanks. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the additions, but I don't see a problem with the content as it currently stands. I'll review it when I have a chance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. The case studies are of interest, but are all published on the Scaled Agile website. Wikipedia recommends citing authenticated independent sources over primary sources. If you have third-party material that substantiates this point, then it could be worth including. However the point is already well made that SAFe is the most common approach. Davidjcmorris Talk 19:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and for making some changes to the article. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]