SAFe® Framework in practice: opportunities, limitations, and the responsibility behind it

I am often asked what I actually think of SAFe®. Between the lines, the same expectation often resonates: “Let's be honest – does it really work, or is it just the next big framework?”

My answer is rarely convenient, but honest: “It depends on how serious you are about it.”

SAFe® is neither a panacea for complex organizations nor the much-cited bureaucratic monster it is sometimes portrayed as. It is a framework. And like any framework, it only works if you understand what it is intended for. It can provide guidance, create stability, and enable collaboration – or it can restrict, paralyze, and cement old ways of thinking. It is not the framework that decides, but how it is used.

In practice, I often see SAFe® being introduced as a quick fix for structural problems: too many projects, unclear priorities, lack of coordination between IT, business units, and management. But a framework alone does not solve any of these challenges. SAFe® requires clarity, consistency, and, above all, a willingness to rethink responsibility. Those who introduce the framework without honestly questioning leadership, decision-making processes, and collaboration will ultimately only build a new structure on old patterns.

SAFe®, the Scaled Agile Framework, was developed to apply agile principles across multiple teams, departments, and hierarchical levels. While Scrum or Kanban often only work at the team level, SAFe® offers a scalable structure that even complex organizations can use to align themselves with agile principles.

SAFe®, the Scaled Agile Framework, aims to bring agile working methods to multiple teams and levels. At first glance, this sounds quite pragmatic:

Instead of each team doing its own thing, everyone plans and delivers at the same pace. At its core, it's not about more processes, but about more synchronization – about making sure the big picture fits together.

According to SAFe®, everyone delivers at the same pace, known as the Program Increment (PI). This common rhythm ensures that priorities, dependencies, and goals are coordinated across the board.

SAFe® brings structure and transparency, especially where many departments work together on a product and IT, specialist departments, and management often talk past each other. This is because SAFe® focuses on value streams – the continuous chain of activities that generate customer value. Teams, products, and portfolios are organized along these value streams, not along traditional departmental boundaries.

It provides roles, rituals, and planning cycles to prevent complexity from becoming a stumbling block. Used correctly, it provides clarity instead of even more bureaucracy.

SAFe® is based on the principles of Lean, Agile, and DevOps and has a modular structure. This combination is no coincidence: Lean provides the basis for efficient value streams, Agile brings iterative development and customer focus, and DevOps ensures that development and operations work together seamlessly.

There are different configurations depending on the size and needs of the company:

Essential SAFe® – the basic version, which focuses on the team and program level.

Large Solution SAFe® – for large, multi-part systems with many dependencies.

Portfolio SAFe® – combines strategic corporate management with agile implementation.

Full SAFe® – the most comprehensive form, integrating all levels.

These levels are interlinked and form the backbone of a scaled agile organization. SAFe® clearly describes which roles (e.g., release train engineer, product manager, or system architect) and artifacts (e.g., backlogs, vision, objectives) are necessary to ensure transparency and alignment.

The goal is not only to make individual teams faster, but also to promote business agility – that is, an organization's ability to adapt quickly and effectively to change. This agility arises when strategy, structure, and culture are aligned.

SAFe® provides a connecting framework for this:

It translates corporate strategy into operational work packages.

It creates transparency about priorities, capacities, and progress.

And it promotes continuous improvement at all levels – from teamwork to corporate management.

Properly understood, SAFe® is not just a set of rules, but an organizational model for learning and adaptability – a bridge between classic corporate management and modern, agile working methods.

The current version—SAFe® 6—has made a few adjustments. The focus is now even more on “flow,” i.e., smooth value streams. The following topics are becoming more prominent:

Efficiency

Continuous improvement

Hybrid working models

What's new is less the “what” than the “how”: SAFe® 6 shifts existing principles more toward value stream, flow, and continuous improvement – but at the same time demands more clarity in leadership. This is better suited to a working world in which not everyone is located in the same place anymore.

What I particularly appreciate is that SAFe® doesn't just think about software or IT, but takes the entire value chain into account. The goal is to embed agility at all levels – not just to make individual teams faster, but to improve their interaction.

And that is precisely where the biggest challenge lies: the more comprehensive the framework, the greater the risk that it will eventually become rigid. SAFe® 6 brings structure and clarity, but if misunderstood, it can also become a new constraint.

I assist companies with SAFe® implementation and see time and time again that the framework itself is rarely the problem. What matters is how people deal with it.

The SAFe® roadmap makes it clear: a thorough SAFe implementation is not a sprint, but a marathon. Managers must share responsibility, make decisions transparent, and stay on the ball. Sounds logical, but this is exactly where many companies fail.

My favorite comparison: SAFe® sets the tempo and distributes the sheet music, but the musicians themselves have to play. If everyone only looks at their own instrument and no one listens, it sounds out of tune—no matter how good the conductor is.

The biggest misconception about SAFe®? Many believe it is just a new organizational model. In fact, it is a model for behavior. Ultimately, everything depends on whether you are willing to

share responsibility,

communicate openly, and

not hide conflicts.

Introducing SAFe® is therefore not a question of processes, but rather a test of maturity. You can't just give instructions and check it off your list. It requires genuine design – and that starts at the top. Leadership here means not delegating, but leading by example.

Without this attitude, only new structures on paper will emerge. The old way of working will remain. And then? Then suddenly the SAFe® label will be stuck on the same old folders. Nothing else will change.

Many of my clients work in areas where terms such as “agile” or “framework” tend to elicit skepticism rather than enthusiasm. To be honest, I can understand that. Especially in areas where stability, traceability, and clear responsibilities are required, agile methods can quickly appear to be a risk.

But business agility does not mean chaos, but rather flexibility in thinking. And that is exactly what small and medium-sized businesses need – perhaps even more urgently than large companies. Markets are changing at lightning speed, customers expect quick responses, and skilled workers are looking for meaning rather than hierarchy.

SAFe® in SMEs can help to master this balancing act between stability and adaptability. Not by turning everything upside down, but by managing leadership more consciously: Where are fixed structures needed, where is more freedom required, where is acceleration necessary?

SAFe® has long been a topic of interest for Projektron GmbH. Several years ago, a major customer planned to optimize its Germany-wide train schedule using a project managed with this method. We had mapped the model for them in a specially designed module. However, during the implementation, the customer's corporate headquarters stopped the project and forced them to fall back on existing software solutions within the group.

We initially ran the method as “Scrum for Scrum teams.” Since we have been working on our BCS software with several teams using Scrum since 2010 and want to expand to six teams in the near future, targeted training was a logical step.

The training, which took place in Peniche, Portugal, yielded an important insight: the teams whose results are to be summarized do not have to work according to Scrum or even the same method. For agile organizations, Scrum and Kanban are suitable approaches to work organization, but other team-specific process models are also possible.

Specifically, we adopted release planning, in which all teams participate. The release presentation for all teams was already institutionalized beforehand. A valuable by-product of the seminar was the insight that product managers should also meet twice a year to discuss cross-release strategic ideas and concrete product management goals.

SAFe® does not solve all problems, but it is a powerful tool for bringing clarity to complex structures. It creates focus and improves collaboration—provided you use it with common sense.

Those who introduce SAFe® just to “be agile” will quickly be disappointed. But those who use it to better connect people and goals gain structure without losing flexibility.

In short: SAFe® is not a dogma. It is a framework within which you can achieve a lot – if you are willing to move yourself.