>This is a hellhole that in no way reflects good SAFe practices. PI Planning is 2 days. 2.5 if you're partially time shifted to accommodate teams in disparate t

>This is a hellhole that in no way reflects good SAFe practices. PI Planning is 2 days. 2.5 if you're partially time shifted to accommodate teams in disparate time zones. Our PI planning consists of a combined demo session and Q&A, a combined I&A, then separate demos and I&A's for each of the ART's. That in of itself can take 1 to 2 days because of the number of demos that each ART has to include. Then 3 or 4 days of team breakouts for writing stories, a full day for draft plan review, then another 2 to 3 days ish days to take in feedback from the review and adjust the plans, then another day of final draft plans review. You can't fit that into two days. You can't even fit that into a week. But those those rituals are more core to SAFe Agile then an arbitrary time frame for PI Planning. So the 2 day limit had to be dropped to fit in the core principles of SAFe. So yes it does align and yes it follows good SAFe Practices. Didn't you yourself say that one shouldn't try to the organization into SAFe's structure? > There's so much more about this that I want to respond to but I'm going to shorten it to this: SAFe calls for planning a maximum of 2/3 of your estimated capacity (based on historic velocity) and then leaving the last 2 weeks of the PI entirely unplanned. All of this is built in buffer time specifically to ensure time built in to deal with unexpected things that will inevitably come up. Defects in production should be addressed immediately in any environment. Our sprints are loaded to 50% to 65%, with few exceptions. But with how big our team is, that means that 2/3 loading is around 40 points per sprint that needs to be planned. And our standard practice also are expected to pull in New Features / stories from the next sprint, or work on items as assigned by the PO from the backlog if things are finished on schedule. >This is simply a terrible and broken environment facilitated by people who apparently had no idea what they were doing. This is an environment where managers have exerted strict control rather than allowing people close to the problem to take the action that they know needs to be taken. Which is again...not SAFe. All our Certified SAFe Professionals says this is SAFe. The training I got aligns to what we practice. This is SAFe by the strictest definition of following processes and practices. But like Russian elections and referendums, you can have all the form, technically meet all the criteria, and have none of the of substance. And be honest... would it surprise you one bit to think that insincere ceremony isn't exactly what many so called leaders want?