Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) deals with that by funding value streams instead of projects.

https://scaledagileframework.com/lean-budgets/

Yes, SAFe does attempt to deal with this issue, but it's like moving food around on your plate - it's still there, and management still wants to tie activities to budget.

Whatever framework or philosophy or concept you use, it gets implemented by people in an organization.

If that organization is new and growing, it is graded by things like active user growth (top line); if that organization is established, it is graded by profit (bottom line).

The journey from top line to bottom line is where all the complications come in.

So I think the author is correct in their conclusion [0], but not in depth.

0. Engineers will tend to be sad in established orgs [cost centers], and happy in new orgs [product development].

SAFe, as I have seen it practiced is just waterfall by a different name.

It it certainly possible for incompetent managers to misuse SAFe, as with any other methodology. I've seen that if actually implemented as written it tends to work pretty well in large enterprises, at least in the sense of being the least bad option that allows product delivery with the level of consistency and reliability necessary to meet external commitments. Comparisons to "waterfall" are a rather silly strawman.

Do you have a specific criticism of the SAFe budgeting model, or a specific alternative to propose?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com