3 ms·
To me, it feels like SAFe was specifically designed to insert some expensive consultants between the developers to profit off software development without doing
by lodovic 4y ago
To me, it feels like SAFe was specifically designed to insert some expensive consultants between the developers to profit off software development without doing much actual work.
Instead of working together with developers to solve a problem we now have to use these rigid structures, release trains, system teams, and sync meetings, to do our work. If I want to approach a developer in a different team I'm supposed to go through two scrum masters, and setup multiple meetings with clueless people, this is madness.
Instead of using decades of professional developer experience to make strategic decisions we now get these complex decision processes such as WSJF, designed by a group of MBAs. It only seems to complicate things.
And we have an army of clueless but very expensive people (scrum masters and "release train engineers" with minimal experience) who have been brainwashed to think that despite minimal training and experience they have some SAFe gospel to spread, they are the one source of wisdom, and developers are just a nuisance standing in their way.
- steve1977 4y ago> To me, it feels like SAFe was specifically designed to insert some expensive consultants between the developers to profit off software development without doing much actual work. That's exactly what it is. And that applies to many methodologies and management practices. In our company there are whole layers of management that are totally useless and unnecessary.