I’m not a SAFe consultant. I’m certified but I consult on a lot of things: Postgres and application performance tuning, DMARC deployment, pipeline automation an

I’m not a SAFe consultant. I’m certified but I consult on a lot of things: Postgres and application performance tuning, DMARC deployment, pipeline automation and organizational process. I’ve also never certified anyone in SAFe professionally. The principles work but I’m not a believer in adopting it strictly in organizations. Instead I observe and recommend improvements in existing companies once I understand their dynamics. In many cases, aspects of SAFe are effective recommendations. Whether you formally follow the PI Planning approach to get everybody together or you find a better fit for remote staff, letting your devs plan 10 weeks at a time instead of 2 is beneficial for everybody. And cuts down on a lot of every 2 week meetings to support it. And all I’ve shared is my own experience. I constantly see straw men arguments against it posted. When you scrap the SAFe with Scrum approach and replace it with SAFe with Kanban 90% of the ceremonial meetings go away. Most devs I talk to don’t even realize there’s supposed to be a backlog that they prioritize without having to consult the business side of the house. There’s no question that the anti-SAFe crowd has legitimate gripes with bad environments. Their concerns aren’t any more valid than the concerns of anti-Scrum proponents who have been in bad environments. It’s trying to solve a hard problem but under the hood it’s just best practice after best practice smooshed together. Get the scrum ceremony out and SAFe gets a lot cleaner for everyone involved. You’re basically just adding more ceremony if you use scrum within SAFe. If you use Kanban, you trade for much less frequent ceremony so you can focus. SAFe instructors are taught WITH the scrum ceremony and IMO that is the root of all of the blowback.