Lean & Agile

Enterprise Frameworks
Using SAFe 4.5 to Manage U.S. Gov’t
Agencies, Portfolios & Acquisitions
Dr. David F. Rico, P MP, C SEP, F CP, F CT, A CP, C SM , S AFE , D EVOPS
Twitter: @dr_david_f_rico
Website: http://www.davidfrico.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfrico
Agile Capabilities: http://davidfrico.com/rico-capability-agile.pdf
Agile Cost of Quality: http://www.davidfrico.com/agile-vs-trad-coq.pdf
DevOps Return on Investment (ROI): http://davidfrico.com/rico-devops-roi.pdf
Dave’s NEW Business Agility Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTvtsAkL8xU
Dave’s NEWER Scaled Agile Framework SAFe 4.5 Video: http://youtu.be/1TAuCRq5a34
Dave’s NEWEST Development Operations Security Video: http://youtu.be/X22kJAvx44A
DoD Fighter Jets versus Amazon Web Services: http://davidfrico.com/dod-agile-principles.pdf
 Author Background
 Gov’t contractor with 35+ years of IT experience
 B.S. Comp. Sci., M.S. Soft. Eng., & D.M. Info. Sys.
 Large gov’t projects in U.S., Far/Mid-East, & Europe

 Career systems & software engineering methodologist

 Lean-Agile, Six Sigma, CMMI, ISO 9001, DoD 5000
 NASA, USAF, Navy, Army, DISA, & DARPA projects
 Published seven books & numerous journal articles
 Intn’l keynote speaker, 200+ talks to 14,500 people
 Specializes in metrics, models, & cost engineering
 Cloud Computing, SOA, Web Services, FOSS, etc.
 Professor at 7 Washington, DC-area universities 2
Strategy vs. Tactics — Sun Tzu

3
Definition of PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
 Portfolio. Subportfolio, program, project, operations
 Portfolio Mgt. Manage these to achieve strategic obj.
 Objectives. Includes efficiency, effectiveness, & value

VISION
MISSION
STRATEGY & OBJECTIVES

PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
OPERATIONS PROGRAMS & PROJECTS
ORGANIZATIONAL RESOURCES
Skrabak, J. L. (2013). The standard for portfolio management (Third Edition). Newtown Square: PA: Project Management Institute. 4
 Lean & Agile FRAMEWORK?
 Frame-work (frām'wûrk') A support structure, skeletal
enclosure, or scaffolding platform; Hypothetical model
 A multi-tiered framework for using lean & agile methods
at the enterprise, portfolio, program, & project levels
 An approach embracing values and principles of lean
thinking, product development flow, & agile methods
 Adaptable framework for collaboration, teamwork,
iterative development, & responding to change
 Tools for agile scaling, rigorous and disciplined planning
& architecture, and a sharp focus on product quality
  Maximizes BUSINESS VALUE of organizations, programs,
& projects with lean-agile values, principles, & practices
Leffingwell, D. (2011). Agile software requirements: Lean requirements practices for teams, programs, and the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
5
 Models of AGILE FRAMEWORKS
 Numerous models of agile portfolio mgt. emerging
 Based on lean-kanban, release planning, and Scrum
 Include organization, program, & project management
ESCRUM SAFe LESS DAD RAGE SPS
- 2007 - - 2007 - - 2007 - - 2012 - - 2013 - - 2015 -
 Product Mgt  Strategic Mgt  Business Mgt  Business Mgt  Business  Product Mgt

 Program Mgt  Portfolio Mgt  Portfolio Mgt  Portfolio Mgt  Governance  Program Mgt

 Project Mgt  Program Mgt  Product Mgt  Inception  Portfolio  Sprint Mgt

 Process Mgt  Team Mgt  Area Mgt  Construction  Program  Team Mgt.

 Business Mgt  Quality Mgt  Sprint Mgt  Iterations  Project  Integ Mgt.

 Market Mgt  Delivery Mgt  Release Mgt  Transition  Delivery  Release Mgt

Schwaber, K. (2007). The enterprise and scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2008). Scaling lean and agile development: Thinking and organizational tools for large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ambler, S. W., & Lines, M. (2012). Disciplined agile delivery: A practitioner's guide to agile software delivery in the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Thompson, K. (2013). cPrime’s R.A.G.E. is unleashed: Agile leaders rejoice! Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.cprime.com/tag/agile-governance
Schwaber, K. (2015). The definitive guide to nexus: The exoskeleton of scaled scrum development. Lexington, MA: Scrum.Org 6
 Agile Enterprise F/W COMPARISON
 Numerous lean-agile enterprise frameworks emerging
 eScrum & LeSS were 1st (but SAFe & DaD dominate)
 SAFe is the most widely-used (with ample resources)
Factor eScrum SAFe LeSS DaD RAGE SPS
Simple      
Well-Defined   
 Web Portal  
Books    
Measurable 
 Results   
Training & Cert 
 Consultants 
Tools 
Popularity   
International   
 Fortune 500   
Government  
Lean-Kanban  

Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) comparison. Retrieved June 4, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com/safe-comparison.xls 7
Portfolio Management — Box

8
 Scaled Agile Framework (SAFE)
 Proven, public well-defined F/W for scaling Lean-Agile
 Synchronizes alignment, collaboration, and deliveries
 Quality, execution, alignment, & transparency focus
Portfolio

Large
Solution

 Program

Team

Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved July 4, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 9
 SAFe SCALING
 SAFe created to address Scaling & Discipline
 Early models such as Scrum & XP were scalable
 SAFe introduces Enterprise & Portfolio integration

Portfolio

Large
Solution

 Program

Team

Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 10
 PfMP vs. SAFE vs. Scrum
 Scrum created to address Agile team mgt.
 SAFe created to address Agile program mgt.
 PfMp created to address Portfolio management

PMI PFMP Portfolio

Large
Solution
SCALED AGILE
 FRAMEWORK Program

SCRUM Team

Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. 11
 SAFe GOLDILOCKS Zone
 Traditional project management is scope-based
 Agile project management is primarily time-based
 Batchsize, capacity, & time key to market response
WATERFALL AGILE LEAN
CONSTRAINTS Scope Time Cost Batchsize
BUSINESS
VALUE

RESOURCE MARKET
PERFORMANCE RESPONSE
ESTIMATES Cost Time Scope Capacity Time
Scope Drives Time Drives Batchsize Drives
Resources Scope Lead/Cycle Time
Rico, D. F. (2017). Lean triangle: Triple constraints. Retrieved December 17, 2017, from http://davidfrico.com/lean-triangle.pdf
Sylvester, T. (2013). Waterfall, agile, and the triple constraint. Retrieved December 16, 2017, from http://tom-sylvester.com/lean-agile/waterfall-agile-the-triple-constraint 12
Pound, E. S., Bell, J. H., Spearman, M. L. (2014). Factory physics: How leaders improve performance in a post-lean six sigma world. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
 SAFe ANTI-PATTERNS
 SAFe is NOT a U.S. Government Hierarchy
 SAFE is NOT a Contract Hierarchy/Bureaucracy
 SAFe is DEFINITELY NOT a Waterfall Life Cycle
PORT-
FOLIO
LARGE
SOLUTION

PROGRAM

TEAM

PORTFOLIO Portfolio

LARGE Large
SOLUTION Solution

PROGRAM Program

TEAM Team

Rico, D. F. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) arguments: Point vs. counterpoint. Retrieved December 17, 2017, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-arguments.pdf 13
 SAFe EPIC-MVP Teams
 SAFe cross functional teams cut across levels
 Inc. portfolio, solution, program, & team functions
 Purpose is to shepherd epics through value streams

Epic-MVP
Teams

Rico, D. F. (2017). A short scaled agile framework (SAFe) case study. Retrieved December 17, 2017, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-case-study.pdf 14
 SAFe CROSS FUNCTIONAL Teams
 SAFe Epic-MVP teams consist of diverse personnel
 Teams range from Epic owners through development
 Include scoping, analysis, planning, & implementation

● ONE TEAM VS. HIERARCHY

Dev Product
Epic Enterprise ● ALIGNMENT OF WHOLE TEAM
Owners Architect
Team Owner
● BOTTOM UP DECISION MAKING
Scrum
Master
Lean
Portfolio Mgt
 PREFERRED BY U.S. GOVERNMENT
● LEAN, JUST-IN-TIME, FRICTION-FREE
● CODIFIES LEAN-AGILE BEST PRACTICES
System Product Solution Solution
Arch/Eng Mgmt Arch/Eng Mgmt
● FULL TRANSPARENCY & COMMUNICATION
RTE STE

 HHS, CMS, CDC, NIH, SSA, VA, DOD,

GSA, USPTO, USPS, NGA, CIA, ETC.

15
Rico, D. F. (2017). A short scaled agile framework (SAFe) case study. Retrieved December 17, 2017, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-case-study.pdf
 SAFe EPIC Evolution
 Portfolio & program epics begin at top levels
 Epics scoped, analyzed, & split by tech. architects
 Narrow epics are built, tested, deployed, & evaluated
Epic-MVP Portfolio
Evolution
Large
Solution

 Program

Team

Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved July 4, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 16
 SAFe PORTFOLIO Level
 Business objectives mapped to strategic themes
 Enterprise architecture, Kanban, & economic cases
 Value delivery via epics, enablers, and solution trains

AGILE PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT Strategic Lean-Agile

● Organize around solution trains Themes Budgeting
● Communicate strategic themes
● Empower decision makers
● Provide visibility and governance Visibility & Enterprise
● Guide technology decisions Governance Architecture
● Apply enterprise architecture

Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved July 4, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 17
 SAFe LARGE SOLUTION Level
 Economic framework and solution train budgeting
 Agile architecture, solution train engineer & Kanban
 Solution deliveries via capabilities and release trains

AGILE SOLUTION TRAIN MANAGEMENT Solution Cadence &

● Cadence and centralization Intent Synchronization
● Local solution train governance
● Solution train roles and budgeting
● Fixed and variable solution intent Localized Customer
● Capability flow with Kanban Governance Validation
● Frequently integrate to validate

Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved July 4, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 18
 SAFe PROGRAM Level
 Product and release management team-of-team
 Common mission, backlog, estimates, and sprints
 Value delivery via program-level enablers & features

AGILE RELEASE TRAINS

● Driven by vision and roadmap Alignment Collaboration
● Cross functional collaboration
● Apply cadence and synchronization
● Measure progress with milestones Value
● Frequent, early customer feedback Synchronization
Delivery
● Inspect, adapt, and improve

Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved July 4, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 19
 SAFe TEAM Level
 Empowered, self-organizing cross-functional teams
 Hybrid of Scrum PM & XP technical best practices
 Value delivery via empowerment, quality, and CI

AGILE CODE QUALITY Product Customer

● Pair development Quality Satisfaction
● Emergent design
● Test-first
● Refactoring
● Continuous integration Predictability Speed
● Collective ownership

Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved July 4, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 20
 SAFe ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
 Basic SAFe RACI matrix (role, resp., cons, inf.)
 Product owners & arch. resp. for epics & enablers
 Multi-level product owners, architects, & facilitators

Rico, D. F. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Roles & responsibilities (raci) matrix. Retrieved August 29, 2017 from http://www.davidfrico.com 21
 SAFe METRICS
 Late big bang integration increases WIP backlog
 Agile testing early and often reduces WIP backlog
 CI/CD/DevOps lower WIP, Cycle Time, & Lead Time
KANBAN BOARD CUMULATIVE FLOW DIAGRAM

LEAD TIME & CYCLE TIME PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

Nightingale, C. (2015). Seven lean metrics to improve flow. Franklin, TN: LeanKit. 22
 SAFe METRICS—Cont’d

Leffingwell, D. (2015). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved June 12, 2015 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 23
 SAFe METRICS—Cont’d
 Basic SAFe metrics & assessments at all levels
 Many are rollups of burndown, velocity, & bus. value
 Multi-level kanbans, backlogs, & performance tracking
Lean Portfolio Metrics Comprehensive but Lean set of metrics that can be used to assess internal and external progress for an entire portfolio.
Portfolio Kanban
Portfolio

Ensures Epics and Enablers are reasoned and analyzed prior to a PI boundary, prioritized, and have acceptance criteria.
Epic Burn-up Chart Tracks progress toward epic completion, i.e., Initial estimate, Work completed, and Cumulative work completed.
Epic Progress Measure At‐a‐glance view of the status of all epics in a portfolio, i.e., Epic X, progress, and current vs. initial est. story points.
Enterprise Scorecard Four perspectives to measure performance for each portfolio, i.e., Efficiency, Value delivery, Quality, and Agility.
LPM Self Assessment Structured, periodic self‐assessment to continuously measure and improve portfolio processes.
Value Stream KPIs Set of criteria or KPIs to evaluate value stream investments, i.e., revenues, innovation, intangibles, and lean metrics.
Solution Kanban Board Ensures Capabilities and Enablers are reasoned and analyzed prior to PI boundary, prioritized, and have acc. criteria.
Solution Predictability
Solution

Aggregation of individual predictability measures for ARTs to assess the overall predictability of Solution Trains.
Large

Solution Performance Aggregation of individual performance measures for ARTs to assess the overall performance of Solution Trains.

Economic Framework Decision rules to align work to financial objectives of Solution and guide economic decision‐making process.
WSJF Prioritization model used to sequence jobs (e.g., Features, Capabilities, and Epics) to maximize economic benefit.
Cost of Delay A way of communicating the impact of time on the outcomes we hope to achieve, i.e., combining urgency and value.
Duration (Job Size) Length of time required to complete an epic, enabler, capability, or feature, i.e., size or complexity in story points.
Feature Progress Tracks feature and enabler status during PI and indicates which features are on track or behind, i.e., plan vs. actual.
Program Kanban
Program

Ensures Features are reasoned and analyzed prior to a PI boundary, prioritized, and have acceptance criteria.
Program Predictability Aggregation of Team PI Performance Reports to assess the predictability of ART, i.e., planned vs. actual business value.
Program Performance Aggregation of team metrics collected at end of PI, i.e., functionality (velocity, etc.) and quality (tests, defects, etc.).
PI Burn-down Chart Shows progress toward PI timebox to track work planned for PI against work accepted, i.e., iterations vs. story points.
Cumulative Flow Graph to visualize amount of work waiting to be done (backlog), work in progress (started), and completed (validated).
Art Self Assessment Structured, periodic self‐assessment to continuously measure and improve program processes.
CD Pipeline Efficiency Measures efficiency of steps in terms of touch and wait time, i.e., analysis, backlog, build, validate, deploy, release, etc.
Deployments and Releases Deployment and release frequency progress as a ratio of deployment to production vs. product release frequency.
Recovery over time How often physical or logical rollbacks performed by overlaying points in time for deployment, release, and rollbacks.
Innovation Indicators
Team

Hypothesis measures of MMF and MVP business outcomes based upon actionable innovation accounting measures.
Hypotheses Tested Number of successful vs. unsuccessful hypothesis tests (with goal of increasing the number, frequency, and success).
Team Performance Individual team metrics collected at end of PI, i.e., functionality (velocity, etc.) and quality (tests, defects, etc.).
Team Kanban Ensures Stories and tasks are reasoned and analyzed prior to a PI boundary, prioritized, and have acceptance criteria.
Team Business Value Estimate of actual business value achieved for each team’s PI objectives during a PI demo by customer and agile team.
Team Self-Assessment Structured, periodic self‐assessment to continuously measure and improve team processes.

Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved September 18, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 24
 SAFe CASE STUDY
Healthcare PORTFOLIO
Enterprise Datamart DW
Epic Owners Ent. Arch AWS S3
Portfolio Level
S. Jones T. Smith
Epic-MVP Kanban
Strategic
Healthcare Lean Budgets KPIs, MOAs,
Objectives Lean Portfolio Management MOEs, Etc.
Vision Government Staff
Value Streams
Coordination
Solution Solution
LARGE SOLUTION
Demo Demo
Strategy I&A I&A
Large Solution
Architect Sol Mgr Customer

Pre

Pre
IV&V
Cost-Benefit Analysis SAFe Backlog

Post

Post
D. Reed J. Gold Databricks Benefit Admins.
(SAFe Dashboards)
Roadmap Compliance WSJF
Analysis

Kanban
SysML/Data Models SOLUTION Large Solution Integration Team Solution
STE Systems
TRAIN
J. Rogers LARGE SOLUTION AoA/Tradeoffs NFRs
AWS, Redshift, Databricks, etc.
Architecture U.S. Customer Reqmnts.
Business Owners Continuous Delivery Pipeline PROGRAMS
• L. Stevens
Security
• S. McCloud
Continuous Continuous Continuous Release
• J. Da Silva Vision Roadmap Lean UX Exploration Integration Deployment on Demand
Product Managers
Business • D. MacIntyre System Demos System Demos
• A. Montana I&A I&A
PI Objectives Data Model, AWS, &
• M. Paschale
Program Program API API API API Databricks Compliant

Planning

Planning
Planning

System Architects
Infrastructure POs CSMs System Designs & APIs

PI

PI
PI

• J. McCrory DM A DM B DM X DM Y
• J. Marriott
• V. Sorenson Business Analytics

Data Program RTEs

Program Increment
Program Increment

• D. Rich Program Data Warehouse

• R. Facemire Dev Teams
• E. Bluementhal Customer Intake
Systems Built-In Quality
Data Processing with DevOps
SW • Plan
Metrics FW • Execute Financial Management
• Culture
HW • Review • Automation
Scrum Kanban • Retro Special Services
• Lean Flow
• Measurement
JIRA Backlogs Develop on Cadence • Recovery
Lean-Agile SAFe SAFe SAFe Portfolio SAFe
Leadership Team Values House Principles Roadmap Coach
25
 SAFe CASE STUDY Governance
Healthcare PORTFOLIO
Enterprise Datamart DW
Epic Owners Ent. Arch AWS S3
Portfolio Level
S. Jones T. Smith
Epic-MVP Kanban
Strategic
Healthcare Lean Budgets KPIs, MOAs,
Objectives Lean Portfolio Management MOEs, Etc.
Vision Government Staff
Value Streams
Coordination
Solution Solution
LARGE SOLUTION
Demo Demo
Strategy I&A I&A
Large Solution
Architect Sol Mgr Customer

Pre

Pre
IV&V
Cost-Benefit Analysis SAFe Backlog

Post

Post
D. Reed J. Gold Databricks Benefit Admins.
(SAFe Dashboards)
Roadmap Compliance WSJF
Analysis

Kanban
SysML/Data Models SOLUTION Large Solution Integration Team Solution
STE Systems

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

TRAIN
J. Rogers LARGE SOLUTION AoA/Tradeoffs NFRs
AWS, Redshift, Databricks, etc.
Architecture U.S. Customer Reqmnts.
Business Owners PROGRAMS
I II III IV V VI VII VIII
Continuous Delivery Pipeline
• L. Stevens
Security
• S. McCloud
Continuous Continuous Continuous Release
• J. Da Silva Vision Roadmap Lean UX Exploration Integration Deployment on Demand

Business
Product Managers
• D. MacIntyre I II III IV System Demos
V VI VII
System Demos VIII
• A. Montana I&A I&A
PI Objectives Data Model, AWS, &
• M. Paschale
I Program
II Program
III IV
API
V
API
VI API
VII API
VIII Databricks Compliant

Planning

Planning
Planning

System Architects
Infrastructure POs CSMs System Designs & APIs

PI

PI
PI

• J. McCrory DM A DM B DM X DM Y
• J. Marriott

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

• V. Sorenson Business Analytics

Data Program RTEs

Program Increment
Program Increment

• D. Rich Program Data Warehouse

• R. Facemire Dev Teams
Systems
• E. Bluementhal I II III IV V VI
Customer Intake
VII VIII Built-In Quality
Data Processing with DevOps
SW • Plan
Metrics FW • Execute Financial Management
• Culture
HW • Review • Automation
Scrum Kanban • Retro Special Services
• Lean Flow
• Measurement
JIRA Backlogs Develop on Cadence • Recovery
Lean-Agile SAFe SAFe SAFe Portfolio SAFe
Leadership Team Values House Principles Roadmap Coach
26
 SAFe CASE STUDY Lessons Learned
 Must consider factors critical to SAFe success
 SAFe culture changes begins with bold leadership
 Leadership, contracts, experience, & coaching are key
SUCCESS FACTOR SUCCESS ELEMENTS SCORE
BUYER ENTERPRISE VISIONS, STRATEGIES, POLICIES & GUIDELINES -
 BUYER LEADERSHIP
BUYER TEAM LEADS
KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, & SUPPORT
KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, & SUPPORT
-
-
 SUPPLIER AGREEMENTS

SUPPLIER ENTERPRISE
OC, VALUES, PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES, & TOOLS

VISIONS, STRATEGIES, POLICIES & GUIDELINES

-
-
 SUPPLIER LEADERSHIP

SUPPLIER TEAM LEADS

KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, & SUPPORT

KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, & SUPPORT

-
-
 SUPPLIER EXPERIENCE
SUPPLIER ALM TOOLS
OC, VALUES, PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES, & TOOLS
MANAGEMENT, DOCUMENTS, REPORTS, & DELIVERY
-
-
 SUPPLIER COACHING OC, VALUES, PRINCIPLES, PRACTICES, & TOOLS

Holler, R. (2017). 11th annual state of agile survey: State of agile development. Atlanta, GA: VersionOne.
Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved March 1, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com
-
Rico, D. F. (2017). Lean & agile org. change: Innovative models to successfully implement process improvement. Retrieved December 21, 2017, from http://davidfrico.com 27
Rico, D. F. (2017). Lean & agile org. leadership: Some leadership history, theory, models, & 360 degree assessments. Retrieved December 21, 2017, from http://davidfrico.com
 SAFe BUSINESS VALUE Drivers

28
Rico, D. F. (2017). First start with why: What is the business case, justification, and need for SAFe? Retrieved January 2, 2018, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-why.pdf
 SAFe BENEFITS
 Cycle time and quality are most notable improvement
 Productivity on par with Scrum at 10X above normal
 Data shows SAFe scales to teams of 1,000+ people
Trade Discount John
Benefit Nokia SEI Telstra BMC Valpak Mitchell Spotify Comcast Average
Station Tire Deere

App Maps Trading DW IT Trading Retail Market Insurance Agricult. Cable PoS

Weeks 95.3 2 52 52 52 52 51

People 520 400 75 300 100 90 300 800 150 120 286

 Teams 66 30 9 10 10 9 60 80 15 12 30

Satis 25% 29% 15% 23%

Costs 50% 10% 30%

Product 2000% 25% 10% 678%

 Quality

Cycle
95%

600% 600%
44%

300%
50%

50% 300%
50% 60%

370%

ROI 2500% 200% 1350%

Morale 43% 63% 10% 39%

Leffingwell, D. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) case studies. Denver, CO: Leffingwell, LLC. 29
Rico, D. F. (2014). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) benefits. Retrieved June 2, 2014, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-benefits.txt
 SAFe ROADMAP—Top-Down (Big Bang)
 Roadmap necessary for successful SAFe introduction
 Traditional big-bang—story maps & incrementalism okay
 Keys are top-down commitment, training, & resources

Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved March 1, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com 30
 SAFe IMPLEMENTATION Pointers
 Everything begins with lean & agile principles
 Next step is smaller portfolio & simpler designs
 Final step is modular interfaces & E2E automation
 



Kim, G., Debois, P., Willis, J., & Humble, J. The devops handbook: How to create world-class agility, reliability, and security 31
in technology organizations. Portland, OR: IT Revolution Press.
 SAFe Assessments
 SAFe health radar tools rapidly emerging
 Captures most SAFe dimensions and variables
 Includes portfolio, solution, program, & team level

Elatta, S. (2015). Agility health radar. Omaha, NE: Agile Transformation, Inc. 32
 SAFe ADOPTION
 Over 200,000 SAFe professionals globally (& growing)
 Over 70% of U.S. firms have SAFe certified people
 SAFe preferred for scaling lean-agile principles

 200,000 SAFE CERTIFIED PROFESSIONALS IN 2018  45% ACCORDING TO NEW CPRIME SURVEY
Irani, Z. (2017). Scaling agile report: The first annual edition. Foster City, CA: CPrime, Inc. 33
Leffingwell, D. (2017). Foundations of the scaled agile framework (SAFe). Retrieved March 1, 2017 from http://www.scaledagileframework.com
 SAFe POINT vs. COUNTERPOINT
 SAFe is not a method of putting lipstick on a pig
 SAFe is a 21st century portfolio management model
 SAFe based on smaller batches, bottlenecks, & delays
WHAT SAFE IS NOT ... What SAFe is ...
 Way to bootstrap lean-agile onto traditional methods  Approach to implement lean-agile on large projects

  Slow process of activities, documents, & stage gates

 Codification of legislative, executive, & judicial branch
 Way to embed lean-agile deep within gov’t waterfalls
 Speed up with smaller batches, bottlenecks, & delays
 Solve big problems with light cross-functional teams
 Alternative to ineffective/inefficient waterfall standards

 Top-down, hierarchical command-n-control gov. model  Lean-agile governance model for large programs
 Heavyweight bureaucracy of waste, WIP, and red-tape  Minimal set of proven lean & agile best practices
 Traditional push-based requirements generation meth.  Pull-based, just-in-time Kanban system for key epics
 Lipstick on traditional sequential, linear, & waterfall pig  Pull-based DevOps pipeline to quickly implement epics
 Manual step-by-step prescriptive straightjacket  Way to manage commercial cloud-based tech stack
 Traditional manufacturing era portfolio management  New method of 21st century portfolio management
 Sprint Waterfalling, Scrummerfalling, or SAFerfalling  Iterative, incremental, agile, & evolutionary paradigm
 Way to swallow whole elephant & choke productivity  A method to eat a large elephant one bite at a time
 Means to build over-scoped & overregulated systems  A way to build big systems with smaller scale initiatives
 Way to flowdown bad planning decisions on dev teams  Bottoms up way to collect insights from technologists
 Method to enslave, control, and silence programmers  Method of empowerment, ownership, & craftsmanship
 Way to capture ideas from armies of middle managers  Method to efficiently implement high priority initiatives

Rico, D. F. (2017). Scaled agile framework (SAFe) arguments: Point vs. counterpoint. Retrieved December 17, 2017, from http://davidfrico.com/safe-arguments.pdf
34
 SAFe VALUES & PRINCIPLES
 SAFe is a values and principles-based reference model
 People try to turn SAFe into a set of physics equations
 SAFe offers a continuum abstract, process, & science
 VALUES - SAFe is an aggregate set of Lean AND Agile values and principles (in its PUREST form).
 PRINCIPLES - SAFe is PRINCIPLES-based like the U.S. Digital Services Playbook or Agile Manifesto.
 BEGINNERS - Beginners RUSH into a set RIGID TANGIBLE PRACTICES that support SAFe model.
  PRACTICES - These practices include rigid requirement hierarchies, PI planning, Scrum, Kanban, etc.
 REMINDER - SAFe practitioners should FIRST stop to pay HOMAGE to SAFe's values and principles.
 FUNDAMENTALS - Emphasize EVERYTHING must BEGIN and END with SAFe’s values and principles.
 TENDENCIES - Human beings are un-NATURALLY left-brained analytical and mathematical creatures.
 MISTAKES - We RUSH into hard practices, processes, tools, artifacts, contracts, plans, metrics, etc.
 TRAINERS - Trainers pummel SAFe students with its equations, processes, artifacts, and ceremonies.
 MANIFESTO - SAFe supports Agile Manifesto (collaboration, teamwork, working SW, & adaptability).
 SOFT-SKILLS - SAFe supports SOFT concepts like conversation, visualization, emotional intelligence,
 servant leadership, empowerment, simplicity, flexibility, informality, and continuous improvement.
 CONTINUUM - SAFe SUPPORTS a CONTINUUM or range of IDEAS (abstract, procedural, scientific).
 LEAN-FOCUS - SAFe is skewed towards LEAN principles such as Kanban, so it's not SAFe vs. Kanban.

  ADAPTABILITY - Don’t get wed to one set of principles, because the 21st century is moving at lightspeed.

Rico, D. F. (2018). SAFe is an aggregate set of values and principles: First, foremost, and always. Retrieved February 10, 2018 from http://davidfrico.com/safe-story.txt
35
 SAFe SUMMARY
 Lean-agile frameworks & tools emerging in droves
 Focus on scaling agility to enterprises & portfolios
 SAFe emerging as the clear international leader

 SAFe is extremely well-defined in books and Internet

 SAFe has ample training, certification, consulting, etc.
 SAFe leads to increased productivity and quality
 SAFe is scalable to teams of up to 1,000+ developers
 SAFe is preferred agile approach of Global 500 firms
 SAFe is agile choice for public sector IT acquisitions
 SAFe cases and performance data rapidly emerging

Rico, D. F. (2014). Dave's Notes: For Scaling with SAFe, DaD, LeSS, RAGE, ScrumPLoP, Enterprise Scrum, etc. Retrieved March 28, 2014 from http://davidfrico.com
36
Portfolio Management — Porter

37
 SAFe RESOURCES
 Guides to lean systems & software development
 Illustrates key principles, concepts, and practices
 Keys to applying lean ideas systems development

Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling software agility: Best practices for large enterprises. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Leffingwell, D. (2011). Agile software requirements: Lean requirements practices for teams, programs, and the enterprise. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Leffingwell, D. (2017). SAFe reference guide: Scaled agile framework for lean software and systems engineering. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Knaster, R., & Leffingwell, D. (2017). SAFe distilled: Applying the scaled agile framework for lean software and systems engineering. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Yakyma, A. (2016). The rollout: A novel about leadership and building a lean-agile enterprise with safe. Boulder, CO: Yakyma Press.

38
Dave’s PROFESSIONAL CAPABILITIES
Leadership & Strategy & Portfolio & Acquisition & Cost Estimates
Org. Change Roadmapping Program Mgt. Contracting & Scheduling

BPR, IDEF0, Innovation

& DoDAF Management
Valuation — Cost-Benefit Analysis, B/CR, ROI, NPV, BEP, Real Options, etc.

CMMI & Systems

ISO 9001 Technical Software Software Engineering
Project Development Quality
PSP, TSP, &
Code Reviews
Mgt. Methods Mgt. Evolutionary
Design

Lean-Agile — Scrum, SAFe, Continuous Integration & Delivery, DevOpsSec, etc.

DoD 5000, Statistics, CFA,
TRA, & SRA EFA, & SEM

Lean, Kanban, Metrics, Workflow Big Data, Modeling &

& Six Sigma Models, & SPC Automation Cloud, NoSQL Simulations

STRENGTHS – Communicating Complex Ideas • Brownbags & Webinars • Datasheets & Whitepapers • Reviews &
Audits • Comparisons & Tradeoffs • Brainstorming & Ideation • Data Mining & Business Cases • Metrics & Models •
Tiger Teams & Shortfuse Tasks • Strategy, Roadmaps, & Plans • Concept Frameworks & Multi-Attribute Models • Etc.
● Data mining. Metrics, benchmarks, & performance.
● Simplification. Refactoring, refinement, & streamlining.
35+ YEARS ● Assessments. Audits, reviews, appraisals, & risk analysis. PMP, CSEP,
IN IT ● Coaching. Diagnosing, debugging, & restarting stalled projects. FCP, FCT, ACP,
INDUSTRY ● Business cases. Cost, benefit, & return-on-investment (ROI) analysis. CSM, SAFE, &
● Communications. Executive summaries, white papers, & lightning talks. DEVOPS 39
● Strategy & tactics. Program, project, task, & activity scoping, charters, & plans.