Agile Frameworks - SAFe - Revision history

Bishopj: /* 5. The “Coordinator / Administrator” role */

2026-05-14T23:51:08Z

5. The “Coordinator / Administrator” role

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:51, 14 May 2026
Line 998:		Line 998:
	* maintain shared platforms		* maintain shared platforms

	This is the horizontal leadership layer.		This is the '''horizontal''' leadership layer.

	==The Practical Implementation Roadmap==		==The Practical Implementation Roadmap==

Bishopj: /* 5. The “Coordinator / Administrator” role= */

2026-05-14T23:50:20Z

5. The “Coordinator / Administrator” role=

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 14 May 2026
Line 977:		Line 977:


	====5. The “Coordinator / Administrator” role=====		====5. The “Coordinator / Administrator” role====
	In SAFe terms, this role appears as:		In SAFe terms, this role appears as:

	~~* ~~Practice Lead**		* Practice Lead
	~~* ~~Chapter Lead** (Spotify model)		* Chapter Lead (Spotify model)
	~~* ~~CoP Facilitator**		* CoP Facilitator
	~~* ~~Enterprise Architect**		* Enterprise Architect
	~~* ~~Security Lead**		* Security Lead
	~~* ~~Data Governance Lead**		* Data Governance Lead
	~~* ~~Platform Owner**		* Platform Owner
	~~* ~~Capability Owner**		* Capability Owner

	These people:		These people:

Bishopj: /* Next Steps: */

2026-05-14T23:48:03Z

Next Steps:

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, 14 May 2026
Line 1,236:		Line 1,236:
	* SAFe Portfolio Kanban ''- How strategy flows into execution.''		* SAFe Portfolio Kanban ''- How strategy flows into execution.''
	* SAFe vs Scrum vs Kanban ''- When to use which.''		* SAFe vs Scrum vs Kanban ''- When to use which.''
	* How to implement SAFe in a real organisation ''- Practical, not theoretical.''

	<noinclude>		<noinclude>

Bishopj: /* 3. Why the matrix is not only acceptable — it’s optimal */

2026-05-14T23:45:28Z

3. Why the matrix is not only acceptable — it’s optimal

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 14 May 2026
Line 907:		Line 907:
	This is the horizontal dimension of the matrix.		This is the horizontal dimension of the matrix.

	====3. ~~Why the~~ matrix is ~~not only acceptable — it’s~~ optimal====		====3. The matrix is optimal design choice====
	A matrix structure solves the issues of intra-functional skill development, standardisation and learning at scale:		A matrix structure solves the issues of intra-functional skill development, standardisation and learning at scale:

Line 935:		Line 935:
	You don’t have 20 cybersecurity experts.		You don’t have 20 cybersecurity experts.
	You have 3 — and they support everyone.		You have 3 — and they support everyone.


	====4. The SAFe‑approved matrix mechanisms====		====4. The SAFe‑approved matrix mechanisms====

Bishopj: /* 2. The SAFe‑compatible matrix structure (the real one) */

2026-05-14T23:41:21Z

2. The SAFe‑compatible matrix structure (the real one)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:41, 14 May 2026
Line 854:		Line 854:
	So a ''matrix structure'' emerges naturally.		So a ''matrix structure'' emerges naturally.

	====2. The SAFe‑compatible matrix structure ~~(the real one)~~====		====2. The SAFe‑compatible matrix structure====
	SAFe actually '''expects''' a matrix, even though it doesn’t advertise it loudly. There are '''three layers''' of skill ownership:		SAFe actually '''expects''' a matrix, even though it doesn’t advertise it loudly. There are '''three layers''' of skill ownership:

Bishopj: /* How to Identify a Value Stream (The Practical Test) */

2026-05-14T23:40:03Z

How to Identify a Value Stream (The Practical Test)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 14 May 2026
Line 267:		Line 267:
	# Which teams contribute to those steps?		# Which teams contribute to those steps?
	# Can the stream be funded independently?		# Can the stream be funded independently?
	If we have definitive answers to the first five and the answer to number six is ~~“yes~~,” we’ve found a value stream.		If we have definitive answers to the first five and the answer to number six is "yes", we’ve found a value stream.

	=The SAFe Cadence=		=The SAFe Cadence=

Bishopj: /* Examples of Value Streams */

2026-05-14T23:38:26Z

Examples of Value Streams

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:38, 14 May 2026
Line 256:		Line 256:
	Apply SAFe’s Large Solution level.		Apply SAFe’s Large Solution level.
	\|-		\|-
	\| ~~Example~~ \|\| ~~Example~~ \|\| ~~Example~~ \|\| ~~Example~~		\| \|\| \|\| \|\|
	\|}		\|}



	==How to Identify a Value Stream (The Practical Test)==		==How to Identify a Value Stream (The Practical Test)==

Bishopj: /* The Core SAFe Idea: Value Streams */

2026-05-14T23:37:24Z

The Core SAFe Idea: Value Streams

Show changes

Bishopj: /* A Question of Organisation Structure */

2026-05-14T15:53:58Z

A Question of Organisation Structure

Show changes

Bishopj: /* Introduction */

2026-05-14T10:29:24Z

Introduction

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 14 May 2026
Line 503:		Line 503:
	If we skip these, SAFe collapses into theatre.		If we skip these, SAFe collapses into theatre.

	The question that could be asked is whether implementing SAFe, or indeed any other enterprise Agile model necessitates the enterprise to re-organise structurally around 'value ~~chains~~'. Personally, I am not convinced such a radical rethink is ~~either~~ necessary or practical. The point of Agile is to 'be Agile' and be able to shift focus quickly. It is not practical to restructure with every shift in the value ~~chain~~, so an enterprise Agile ~~system~~ has to enable Agility without requiring the house to be rebuilt for every new guest. Organisation structure follows other dictates from legal compliance, through geographic realities and skill concentration to functional necessities. In the days of the matrix structure experiments, enterprises were literally restructured to follow the management model, and there can be many good reasons for implementing a different physical structure, but SAFe is designed to float across and within the organisation in an intentionally multi-disciplinary environment so while some rethinking of structure and reporting arrangements might be justified a total reorganisation does not seem warranted. Having said that, there is clearly a set of specific roles and skills associated with the Agile operational model that need to have a home in the organisation so this is a topic the warrants further consideration at a later date.		Implementing SAFe is not about installing roles and ceremonies. It is about organising around value, aligning leadership, stabilising teams, synchronising planning, building architectural runway, and creating a continuous flow of value across the enterprise.

			==A Question of Organisation Structure==
			Many organisations adopting SAFe restructure around 'value streams'. While one would certainly not do that in the first interest, it is an issue that will come up at some point.

			The question that could be asked is whether implementing SAFe, or indeed any other enterprise Agile model necessitates the enterprise to re-organise structurally around 'value streams'. Personally, I am not convinced such a radical rethink is always necessary or practical. The point of Agile is to 'be Agile' and be able to shift focus quickly. It is not practical to restructure with every shift in the value stream, so I would argue that an enterprise Agile model has to enable Agility without requiring the house to be rebuilt for every new guest.

	~~Matrix organisations were incredibly good at innovation but but past a certain size they were often disastrous at operations. I know because I reviewed~~ and ~~consulted~~ to ~~a number~~ of ~~them! Organisation~~ structure can ~~have far reaching impacts on~~ the ~~performance~~ of ~~an entity,~~ and ~~rearranging around~~ a ~~single management paradigm can introduce far reaching and unintended consequences~~. ~~Caution~~ is ~~warranted~~.		Organisation structure follows other dictates from legal compliance, through geographic realities and skill concentration to functional necessities. In the days of the matrix structure experiments, enterprises were literally restructured to follow the management model, and there can be many good reasons for implementing a different physical structure, but SAFe is designed to float across and within the organisation in an intentionally multi-disciplinary environment so while some rethinking of structure and reporting arrangements might be justified a total reorganisation does not automatically seem warranted. Having said that, there is clearly a set of specific roles and skills associated with the Agile operational model that need to have a home in the organisation so this is a topic the warrants further consideration.

	~~Implementing SAFe is not about installing roles and ceremonies~~. ~~It is about organising around value, aligning leadership, stabilising teams, synchronising planning, building architectural runway,~~ and ~~creating~~ a ~~continuous flow~~ of ~~value across~~ the ~~enterprise~~.		Matrix organisations were incredibly good at innovation but past a certain size they were often disastrous at operations. I know because I reviewed and consulted to a number of them! Organisation structure can have extensive impacts on the compliance obligations and performance of an entity, and rearranging around a single management paradigm can introduce far reaching and unintended consequences. Caution is warranted.

			So the short answer is that SAFe does not require an enterprise to restructure but in practice the story might be different. Most organisations do restructure when they adopt SAFe, because SAFe exposes structural misalignments that make flow impossible. SAFe does not require it, but it may prove essential regardless.

	==The Practical Implementation Roadmap==		==The Practical Implementation Roadmap==