The last week was a whirlwind. I muscled my way through Sprint planning with my development team. Then, I studied for and passed my Lean Portfolio Management test from the SAFe organization. Finally, I found myself reading David Foster Wallace and spending time with my family in the Wisconsin Dells. Yes, it was exhausting, but it was worth every moment. Since I have earned credentials from SAFe, I feel compelled to say a few words which will contribute to the debate about scaling agile at large organizations.
It is no secret that the agile community has some deep schisms. The no-estimates and the estimates cohorts are bitterly divided. The debate has become so toxic that people who used to be colleagues no longer speak to each other. People have closed Twitter accounts, and attacks between the two factions are personal and filled with abuse. It is a shame because most of us involved in the debate want to deliver better software.
The other major fault lines in the agile reformation are those who practice the Scaled Agile Framework for the Enterprise, or SAFe for short, and those who use a different approach to apply agile to large organizations. The debate between these factions is just as toxic as the no-estimates debate. I understand why so many people are hostile to SAFe. First, SAFe lacks credibility in the engineering community, with software engineers in a survey saying they are dissatisfied with SAFe. Next, credibility with the Agile community is low because none of the original signatories to the Agile Manifesto have endorsed SAFe as a way to address agile for large organizations. Finally, the popularity of SAFe in large organizations creates a counter-cultural backlash.
These three factors combine to create a powerful feeling of contempt and resentment in the agile community. It is rare to hear SAFe people speak at either the Scrum Alliance Gathering or the Agile Alliance conferences. Instead, they have their conference separate from other organizations. It is a clear division that is reinforced by money and pride.
I have embraced Agile since 2009. I earned credentials in Scrum in 2013 and SAFe in 2017 before letting them expire. I know enough about agile to realize it is not a magic bullet to cure the dysfunctions at large corporations. As Aristotle said, there is a difference between right and wrong, and people will choose the right path if they know the difference and are educated about it. Over twenty-five years of working in the business world have provided me with numerous counter-examples to Aristotle's thesis. People can be callow, selfish, uninspired, and destructive; a toxic culture will defeat even the best agile implementation.
I feel a similar way about SAFe. In the hands of a newly minted SPC who only worked as a project manager, SAFe is a tool for mass destruction. However, with skilled scrum masters, trained and knowledgeable product owners, and an executive team willing to learn new ways of leadership, SAFe is a tool that can improve a business's ability to deliver value to customers.
Agile is growing. The growth means that there will be debates and disagreements about how to help organizations do it properly. I am not arrogant enough to proclaim one authentic way to help organizations achieve agility. I am sufficient enough as a servant leader to understand that at the end of the day, success is not following a set of rules but rather delivering value to customers and helping the people we work with improve. Anything else feels like a toxic debate.
Until next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment