Talk:Scaled agile framework

Addition of background?

Hello again. I am back with another proposal for improving this Wikipedia article. The article as is jumps straight to the "Challenges of scaling agile principles and practices" section, which seems like it might be confusing for readers who are trying to learn more about the framework. I think the article could be improved by providing readers with background information about the framework first, then discussing challenges later in the article.

I'd like to suggest adding a new "Background" section with a brief and simple overview of the framework:

The scaled agile framework (SAFe) was originally developed by Dean Leffingwell, and is now owned by Scaled Agile Inc., a company he co-founded in 2011. Leffingwell continues to serve as the chief methodologist for SAFe. Scaled Agile is based in Boulder, Colorado, and expanded into a larger office space in early 2018.

Since the initial launch of SAFe 1.0 in 2011, Scaled Agile Inc. has provided four major updates, culminating in the current version 4.5 as of 2018. The network's adoption rate increased by approximately 50 percent between 2014 and 2015. As of 2017, SAFe had become the most used method framework for scaling agile, adopted by up to 45 percent of enterprise level companies, according to cPrime's 2017 report on scaling agile.

References

I'm open to suggestions, and can answer questions here. Like before, I am submitting this request on behalf of Scaled Agile Inc. and won't be editing the article directly. Thank you to volunteers for considering and discussing this request. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It reads more like an ad for Scaled Agile Inc. to me, but I'll let others comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy that some of that would add to the information already on this article, but it would need to be toned down to avoid being a company promotion page. Any other thoughts. Davidjcmorris  Talk  20:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Davidjcmorris and Walter Görlitz: Thanks. Can you clarify which parts should be toned down? With some pointers I can try to propose some alternate wording. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Anything that is trying to sell the product rather than just describe it encyclopedicly describe it could be stripped. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There are different comments on different subsets of your suggestion:

• All the information about Dean and the office location is not appropriate on this page. If you want, you could create a page on Dean Leffingwell (or even on Scaled Agile, Inc). If you want examples of how that can be done, check out the page on Dave Snowden.
• Not sure what you mean by "the network's adoption rate", there is no mention of a network up to this point.
• We could legitimately add the reference for 45% saturation to the existing commentary about its market position. I just added it.
• The remainder of the points are fairly well covered in the remainder of the article. Davidjcmorris  Talk  01:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Davidjcmorris: Thanks for your help here. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed updates to the SAFe framework section

Hello. Once again, I am back with suggestions for this Wikipedia article for editors to consider. This time, I'd like to revisit a discussion a colleague of mine had previously tried to bring to this page: updating the article to better reflect SAFe 4.5. Given that "The SAFe framework" section appears to be based on 4.0, it is no longer accurate about the types of implementation and levels.

The major changes between 4.0 and 4.5 are the following:

• Adding "Essential SAFe" as the new most basic configuration of SAFe
• Other configurations build upon Essential SAFe to add features that might be needed by organizations with more complex or specific needs, including:
  • Portfolio Level, which adds to Essential SAFe to configure as Portfolio SAFe and incorporates portfolio concerns, such as strategy and investment funding, lean budgeting, value stream definition and mapping, innovation across multiple value Streams, and lean governance
  • Large Solution SAFe adds Large Solution Level to Essential SAFe: it does not include Portfolio but is structured for enterprises and projects requiring contribution of multiple Agile Release Trains (ARTs) and Suppliers
  • Full SAFe includes Essential SAFe plus Portfolio Level and Large Solution Level, for very large enterprises building large products / solutions
• Addition of Lean Startup model and Lean UX process to guide through creating a final solution, via a minimum viable product or minimum marketable feature, respectively
• Addition of Scaleable DevOps and continuous delivery pipeline; DevOps helps enterprises break down silos and empower each Agile team, ART, and Solution Train to continuously deliver new features to end users
• Finally, 4.5 has an implementation roadmap that provides a pattern for organizations adopting SAFe. The Roadmap consists of an interactive graphic linked to a series of articles that describes the major activities that have proven to be effective in successful SAFe implementation

The full details of the differences in 4.5 are shown here

Unlike my previous requests, I don't have prepared material to add here, as I'm wondering how editors want to address this. What's the best way to try to update this section? Should the existing details be replaced entirely with ones specific to 4.5? Thanks. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

That entire section is sourced with a WP:PRIMARY source. It should probably be deleted unless as WP:SECONDARY source can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the section is due some attention, but would counsel against removal so that the community can remediate it. Updating it to reflect the latest edition makes sense. I will pay this some attention this weekend. Davidjcmorris  Talk  22:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Some attention" is an understatement. If you want to work on this, go ahead and restore after you've found sources. If it hasn't been remediated until now, why would a few days matter? Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess we can work from that too. Why? Indeed. It was purely a suggestion. We had a three-day weekend, so I thought I would have time. I have nothing invested either way. Keeping chilled and moving forwards. Davidjcmorris  Talk  11:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a pity when content is removed in spite of a request to collaborate. However, what is done is done. Reinstatement just risks tit-for-tat edits. That wouldn't be collegiate either. Focusing on the rump that has been left, it is now completely unreferenced and the remaining content is still out of date, referring as it does to SAFe 4.0. I will work on content to bring this up-to-date with 4.5. The worth of the removed content can reconsidered another day. Davidjcmorris  Talk  23:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, Davidjcmorris, and Greyfell: Would this book (specifically, pages 87-89) work as a source? If so, I've written the following content (and had some help with the formatting) that is supported by the book and could be used in place of the current section. I see that Greyfell has already removed much of the previous content, so this would replace the short paragraph that is there now.

Framework content

Framework As of 2018, the most recent version of the framework is SAFe 4.5, which was released in July 2017. This version added the following key extensions: Essential SAFe and Configurability Innovation with Lean Startup and Lean UX Scalable DevOps & Continuous Delivery Implementation Roadmap SAFe Configurations In version 4.5, there are four configurations of SAFe: Essential, Portfolio, Large Solution and Full. Essential SAFe is the most basic configuration. The starting point for implementing SAFe, it describes the most critical elements needed to realize the majority of the Framework's benefits. Portfolio SAFe is for enterprises that build solutions that also need to incorporate portfolio concerns. These may include strategy and investment funding, lean budgeting, value stream definition and mapping, innovation across multiple value streams, and lean governance. This configuration adds the Portfolio Level to Essential SAFe. Large Solution SAFe is intended for enterprises that are building large and complex solutions that require the contribution of multiple Agile Release Trains (ARTs) and Suppliers, but do not require portfolio considerations. It consists of Essential SAFe and the Large Solution Level. The Full SAFe configuration is for large enterprises who build large solutions and also require portfolio strategy and governance. It includes Essential SAFe, along with both the Large Solution and Portfolio levels. In the largest enterprises, multiple instances of Full SAFe can be deployed. Lean Startup and Lean UX SAFe's Lean startup guidance embraces the highly iterative, hypothesize-build-measure-learn cycle. Specifically, this model can be applied to any Epic-level initiative, whether it arises at the Portfolio, Large Solution, or Program level. No matter the source, the scope of an Epic calls for a prudent and iterative approach to investment and implementation via a minimum viable product (MVP). The MVP provides feedback on the decision to persevere with the Epic's remaining work, or pivot to something of more value. The Lean UX process starts with an outcome hypothesis: Agile Teams and UX designers accept that the 'right answer' cannot be known in advance. Rather, they apply Agile methods to avoid Big Design Up Front (BDUF), focusing instead on creating a hypothesis about what business outcomes to expect from a new 'minimum marketable feature' (MMF). Teams then implement and test the hypothesis incrementally. This results in faster feedback, which steers the solution toward success more efficiently. Scaleable DevOps and the Continuous Delivery Pipeline Scaleable DevOps and the continuous delivery pipeline help accelerate the build-measure-learn cycle to support faster innovation and more frequent releases. DevOps is a culture and a set of technical practices that provides communication, integration, automation, and close cooperation among everyone needed to plan, develop, test, deploy, release, and maintain a solution. DevOps helps enterprises break down silos and empower each Agile team, ART, and Solution Train to continuously deliver new features to end users. The SAFe Implementation Roadmap SAFe's Implementation Roadmap provides a pattern for organizations adopting SAFe. The Roadmap consists of an interactive graphic linked to a 12-article series that describes the major activities that have proven to be effective in successful SAFe implementations. These steps are based on SAFe adoptions from large enterprises across a various industries

If so, here is inline citation markup: <ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qppNDwAAQBAJ|title=Enterprise Agility for Dummies|first=Doug|last=Rose|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|date=February 2, 2018|pages=87-89}}</ref> Thank you, all. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The book looks fine like a reliable source, although I'm sure better ones could be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Davidjcmorris: I see you've added some information about the framework. Thank you for this! I'm not sure if you saw the collapsed content I shared above, but I wonder if you might consider adding content around Lean Startup and Lean UX as well as Scaleable DevOps and the Continuous Delivery Pipeline. Also, since we've discussed possible secondary sourcing, I did want to share this book as an additional source for this section, specifically as an additional source for the DevOps material. The DevOps aspect of the current framework is specifically discussed on pages 158, 159, and 163. Here is a formatted version for a citation: <ref>{{Cite book|title=Agile Almanac Book 2: Programs with Multi and Virtual-Team Environments|issn=098466937X|pages=158, 159, 163|date=2017}}</ref> With this source and the Dummies one both discussing Scaleable DevOps in SAFe 4.5, my hope is that at least some detail about this can be included. Thanks, JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Challenges section

Hello again. While editors are considering updates for the framework section above, I wonder if you'd consider moving the "Challenges of scaling agile principles and practices" section below the "SAFe framework" section? Diving straight into challenges, before even providing readers with background information and an understanding of the framework, does not seem appropriate. Some of the sources used in the "challenges" section appear to be blogs, and possibly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Might you be willing to take a look at this sourcing, as well as the blog source used at the end of the introduction ("it also receives criticism for being too top-down and inflexible")? Thank you. JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Until the framework section is cleaned-up through reliable, third-party sources, I don't think rearranging the article will actually make this any clearer. Once it is expanded in a neutral way, the two sections should probably be combined into a single summary, per WP:CSECTION. It's better to explain the different strengths and weaknesses organically, rather than present them as opposing sides.

Context matters, so while normally the blog would need to be attributed as an expert opinion, in this case it's merely supporting content which is explained and sourced later in the article. An article's lede should be a summary of the body, and since these criticisms are supported in the body, the source doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Also, I'm just now noticing that "knowledge base" in the first sentence is a WP:BUZZWORD, as it sounds impressive but explains very little. It's obviously derived from promotional materials (SAFe® is an online freely revealed knowledge base of proven, integrated patterns for implementing Lean-Agile development.")[1] but this buzzword salad is extremely poor writing for an encyclopedia. If the goal is clarity the lede should be a priority. We don't care about how Scaled Agile describes this, we are interested in how we can neutrally explain this to readers. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I agree, the article needs improved sourcing and reworking throughout. I've made some suggestions and provided sources above. If you're looking for secondary coverage of the principles, see page 88 of Enterprise Agility For Dummies (same as seen here). I hope this helps. Do you have any specific questions or requests for moving forward? JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I have a few other thoughts regarding the usage of a blog post to source "it also receives criticism for being too top-down and inflexible" in the introduction. 1) If the information is covered in the article, does it need to be sourced in the introduction? 2) The use of this blog post as a source seems problematic because it's a personal blog and represents one person's opinion, and it isn't actually that clear that it says the framework is "too top-down and inflexible". The post's overall point seems to be that processes and tools in general, with SAFe as an example, are not ideal for agile practitioners. The author's point seems to be more focused on the need for individualized approaches. 3) It feels like there's a lack of equity and therefore surely an impact on neutrality if blog posts from experts are used to include details that are critical of SAFe but not for neutral or positive information about the framework; wouldn't it be best to focus overall on limiting to secondary sourcing? Thanks, JB at Scaled Agile (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Request edit on 31 March 2019

I suggest to replace "(45% of respondents chose SAFe as their framework of choice for scaling agile.)[15][16]"

at least with "(45% of respondents to a survey, of a Training company only training SAFe as a agile scaling framework, chose SAFe as their framework of choice for scaling agile.)[15][16]

as the reference article link to "According to a report created by cPrime, Scaling Agile Report 2017, 45 percent of respondents chose SAFe as their framework of choice for scaling agile." and cPrime focusing on SAFe training. This does not look like an independent source.

Even better would be to delete this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raumplanung (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The source offers the information that anyone actually curious about the content will need. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, the quoting is missleading and the source is not independent. This reflects also the source of the sentence before where is stated that "While SAFe has been recognised as the most common approach to scaling agile practices" with e.g. a source https://www.brainguide.de/upload/publication/b0/2c3xg/c51b33fd2c6a9d032a7387f3273b9c62_1402133130.pdf where in the source itself the only part about SAFe is "The “scaled agile framework”(SAFe)has showed a strong growth in usage in the last year andis seen as a good basis for the future enhancement of agile principles in thedownstream innovation process. (Scaledagileframework, 2014)" referencing ultimately the advertising page of SAFe. I really question the independence of the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raumplanung (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The {{request edit}} template is for editors who have identified having a conflict of interest with respect to editing an article. No such disclosure has been made by the requesting editor, thus, the question of the appropriateness of this claim or its source is one which may be handled outside the purview of the template. The requesting editor is asked to continue discussing the article's proposed changes here on the talk page — and if no conflict of interest exists — to make these changes themself if they see fit to do so, preferably in accordance with the consensus of local editors. Regards,  Spintendo  17:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Not freely available?

I cannot find any substantiation of the claim that SAFe is made 'freely available'. The FAQ states that community access is granted only after taking a course, and I haven't found a free course offering. In addition, you can lose access. You must have attended a course recently, have an active certification, or purchase a membership. That doesn't meet any definition of 'freely available' that I'm aware of. I propose changing 'made freely available' to 'made available to to people who take courses, pay for membership, or maintain certifications through Scaled Agile Inc.' I'd also propose using the FAQ references I've used here. Or, an explanation (with references) of what is freely available and what isn't. --IntermediateValue (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Criticism

@Cs02rm0: ignored my comments about not having criticism sections as laid-out in WP:NOCRIT and my claim that the sources should be reliable (not blogs) by reverting me and claiming it's "expert opinion". So Renee Troughton, author of the Agile Forest blog is an expert? She's trying to self-publish a book and can't get funding for it but she is a podcaster, and not everyone can do that. And Sean Dexter is a Product/UX Designer. I'm not sure that makes Sean an expert either. Please use only reliable sources and incorporate the criticism into the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I will consider taking the sources to WP:RSN for an official position if no one enters the discussion here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that Andy Dingley, who has been stalking my edits, has decided that these sources and the section are valid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)