Which scaled agile or scaled scrum systems are you using in your organization?

I've been exploring different perspectives on SAFe and recently came across some comments by Jeff Sutherland, one of the co-creators of Scrum. He highlighted several shortcomings of SAFe, such as its complexity, potential to slow down productivity, and the critical need for business agility at the executive level, which he feels SAFe doesn't adequately address.

For instance, Sutherland mentioned that at Intel, the introduction of scaling frameworks like SAFe actually led to a slowdown in productivity and frustration among management. As a result, the company rejected these frameworks, with "scrum" even becoming a disliked term within the organization. He emphasized that the complexity and bureaucratic nature of SAFe could hinder true enterprise agility.

Additionally, Sutherland argued that successful agile transformations require business agility at the executive level. He pointed out that without this, 53% of agile transformations fail, with 67% of those failures being terminal, meaning the company goes out of business. He used the example of EMC, which had thousands of people doing Scrum but failed to achieve enterprise agility and was eventually bought by Dell.

Sutherland also shared examples of companies like Toyota and John Deere, which successfully implemented Scrum at Scale to achieve significant improvements in productivity and business agility. He advocates for Scrum at Scale as a more effective approach to achieving enterprise agility compared to SAFe.

Given your extensive experience with implementing SAFe over the past 15 years and your familiarity with other frameworks, do you find the issues Sutherland raised to be true in your experience? How have you navigated these challenges, if at all, within your implementations?

Additionally, I know that Jeff Sutherland has a vested interest in promoting Scrum at Scale since he developed it. This potential conflict of interest might influence his critiques of other frameworks like SAFe. From your perspective, how do you weigh the benefits of SAFe against the critiques offered by proponents of other frameworks like Scrum at Scale?

I'd love to hear your insights on this!

First of all: if the organization need to scale agile then it is because things were done wrong from the beginning. But it is normal. Most organizations bought the model implemented in software which is bottom-up. Agile was born for a top-down implementation. And critical to understand: a method will not make you agile. Second: I am not surprised by Mr Sutherland words. I am in agile from 1986 (in software field and outside software field that was the place were it was formally born in 1991) and if you see the history you will find the way of behave of Mr Sutherland. Third: because my duties in different companies that belongs to different domains I have the opportunity to try in the practice most of the frameworks you listed above BUT I am not a fan or advocated of one in particular. THE KEY THING (sorry for the capital, it is to empathize) is to understand the actual organizational architecture to decide which best fits. If you ask me, most of then try to make a patch trying to find the way to scalate the actual way of working without results (again, it depends on the actual situation) except for SAFe which is more close to the original definition of agile that, as I mentioned, was born outside the software domain taking three pillars when it was definied: what today is called customer centricity, systemic theory and quality. With that said, SAFe is not a framework technically or "academic" speaking because it prescribe instead of diagnosing and leaving you free to complete the framework with the tools, practices and techniques that best fit. But I am using it and mainly implementing it as the selected process to follow inside companies transformation.  from time ago, and it worked at least in the companies where I was using it including my actual company which is the greatest consulting company in the world.  No matter SAFe are changing things constantly. LAST: forget about the numbers and statistics. It is difficult to find an organization that is independent enough not to be biased or that clearly publishes the method used to obtain the statistics starting with the sample selection method. My recommendation: understand the actual situation and the desire future situation to achieve then make some small pilots or proof of concepts based on the analysis. Just to put this in terms of something you can find in the PMI´s documentation it is the work a business analyst do each time organizations need to put strategy in the practice.

Thank you for your detailed response and for sharing your extensive experience with various agile frameworks, including SAFe.

Regarding your statement that "if the organization needs to scale agile then it is because things were done wrong from the beginning," I wonder if this applies to all situations, especially for startups. Many startups begin with small, highly flexible teams and, as they grow, the need to scale agile practices arises naturally due to increased team sizes and project complexity. This doesn’t necessarily mean things were done wrong initially; rather, it reflects the evolution and growth of the organization. Scaling agile is often about adapting to new challenges and maintaining agility while expanding.

Your points about the necessity of a top-down approach and the pitfalls of a bottom-up implementation are thought-provoking. However, do you think that startups might benefit more from bottom-up approaches when it comes to scaling Scrum due to their typically smaller size and need for rapid adaptation and innovation? In such environments, could team autonomy and flexibility be more effective than rigid, top-down management structures?

My intention behind this line of questioning was not to seek a perfect framework or prescriptive approach for all circumstances but to get a general feel for what others have found effective in various contexts. Understanding a broad range of experiences helps us make more informed decisions tailored to our specific needs.

Given that I'm based in the USA and you are in Argentina, I wonder if there are differences in how scaling Scrum frameworks are approached and implemented based on regional factors. In some cultures, hierarchical structures and top-down management styles are more prevalent, which can affect the adoption and success of scaling frameworks like Scrum that emphasize team autonomy and self-management. Conversely, cultures that value collaboration and flat organizational structures may find it easier to adopt and scale agile practices.

I'd love to hear more about your experiences with these frameworks in different regions (if applicable) and any specific examples you might have. Your insights have been helpful.

I appreciate your passion and insights.