This seems a bit of a hit piece, but it seems like a safe target as at least half the people I know seem to hold it (SAFe) in disdain. I've consulted for organ

This seems a bit of a hit piece, but it seems like a safe target as at least half the people I know seem to hold it (SAFe) in disdain. I've consulted for organizations that started using it and have a mostly negative opinion. Organizations that are in near complete disarray may find it useful; but then again, they might also find a return to old-school waterfall useful. Where I've seen SAFe not work so well is organizations that are doing reasonably well with planning, but have some deficiencies or some corners of the organization that aren't doing too well. Traditional Agile doesn't scale well above the team level (not that it's bad, it's just that benefits from its processes don't seem to be focused on that level of the organization.) Scrum of Scrums is rarely executed well and Lean and XP don't really describe practices for that echelon. (I'll have to re-read my Kanban books and see if it addresses it.) My take on SAFe is that it rigidly adds dependencies between teams, even if such dependencies are counter-productive. But like the manager who uses the daily standup as a status meeting, it seems like it's serving the "bean counters" instead of the people doing the work.