3 ms·
Interesting insight. I probably never was part of a real by the book SAFe environment then. In all SAFe projects I took part never was there a second backlog.
by sdoering 5y ago
Interesting insight. I probably never was part of a real by the book SAFe environment then.
In all SAFe projects I took part never was there a second backlog. Or if there was one (once) the reasoning was:
"Let'sput everything from tech in there. We will revisit it once we have done the important/business-relevant stuff."
My take away message is that no matter what, business either cares for security or it doesn't. No framework will help against the priorities of product/management if they are aligned against security.
- brightball 5y agoYour description is really why it’s so important. The two backlogs combined with PI planning that lets developers lay out the best course of action based on the priorities they’ve been handed is core to the entire approach. Developers are expected to have a lot more control in SAFe. Like anything else though, it boils down to leadership understanding that giving up total control is more effective for the company. Usually technical leaders understand that.
- kodah 5y agoA company and managers not respecting refactor is a culture problem, having two backlogs that are weighted differently is just a workaround to the culture problem. That culture usually isn't from managers being ignorant of the value of refactor, it's that incentives for them (bonuses, etc) are aligned against the latter backlog. If you fix the incentive, all the other pieces will fall into place.