Scrum@Scale and SAFe are two popular frameworks when scaling agility across large organizations. While Scrum@Scale emphasizes flexibility and decentralized control, SAFe offers a highly structured approach that integrates Lean, Agile, and DevOps principles. This article explores their key features, differences, and how each framework supports agile scaling beyond development teams.
Scrum@Scale Framework
Key features
Scale, developed by Jeff Sutherland, addresses this need by scaling Scrum across organizations while promoting flexibility and decentralization. Although more structured than LeSS (Large Scale Scrum) or Nexus, Scrum@Scale is a powerful framework designed for growing agile practices beyond product development, extending them to leadership and other departments.
Unlike frameworks that limit agile practices to software or product teams, Scrum@Scale aims to create agility across all areas of an organization. The framework introduces two cycles: the Scrum Master Cycle for continuous improvement and the Product Owner Cycle for aligning business goals with product vision. Together, these cycles ensure synchronization across the organization, enabling agility in departments like marketing, sales, and HR. This holistic approach distinguishes Scrum@Scale from frameworks like SAFe, which is more focused on the technical aspects of scaling.
Core Principles
Scrum@Scale emphasizes a maximum of five teams per Scrum of Scrums (SoS). This limit ensures that communication remains manageable and that teams can collaborate effectively. Larger groups tend to face coordination challenges, so limiting the number of teams in each SoS reduces overhead and helps teams maintain agility. While frameworks like SAFe support larger team structures, Scrum@Scale’s emphasis on smaller, tighter units enables faster decision-making and problem-solving.
One of the distinctive features of Scrum@Scale is its approach to scaling through nested hierarchies. Rather than enforcing a rigid, top-down structure, Scrum@Scale allows for Scrum of Scrum of Scrums (SoSoS) layers to be created as needed. This enables scalability without sacrificing agility. The Executive Action Team (EAT) and Executive MetaScrum Team (EMS) sit at the top of these hierarchies, aligning organizational strategy and resolving high-level impediments.
This nested, modular approach contrasts with LeSS or Nexus, which focus on smaller-scale coordination and fewer layers of hierarchy. Scrum@Scale’s structure can accommodate larger organizations more effectively, though it comes with a higher degree of complexity and overhead.
Scaling agility with Scrum@Scale
Scrum@Scale offers a scalable framework that promotes agility across entire organizations, not just development teams. Its focus on small, manageable team groups and nested hierarchies allows for efficient scaling without sacrificing flexibility. While more complex than LeSS or Nexus, Scrum@Scale’s holistic approach ensures that agility can be achieved across all levels of an organization, making it a robust solution for companies looking to scale Scrum beyond its traditional boundaries.
SAFe Framework
Key features
The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) is a comprehensive and widely adopted framework designed to help organizations scale agile practices across large enterprises. Developed by Dean Leffingwell, SAFe integrates principles from Lean, Agile, and DevOps to provide a structured approach for scaling agile methodologies.
Core Principles
SAFe is built on ten core principles that guide its implementation, including taking an economic view, applying systems thinking, and decentralizing decision-making¹. These principles ensure that SAFe aligns with the broader business goals and promotes a culture of continuous improvement.
The framework is structured into four configurations: Essential SAFe, Large Solution SAFe, Portfolio SAFe, and Full SAFe¹. This modular approach allows organizations to adopt SAFe incrementally, starting with the essential elements and scaling up as needed. This flexibility is a key differentiator, enabling organizations of various sizes and complexities to implement SAFe effectively.
Comprehensive Guidance and Roles
One of the standout features of SAFe is its detailed guidance on roles, responsibilities, and processes. It defines specific roles such as Release Train Engineer, Product Owner, and System Architect, ensuring clear accountability and streamlined workflows². This level of detail helps organizations avoid common pitfalls associated with scaling agile practices, such as role confusion and misaligned objectives.
Integration of Lean and DevOps
SAFe uniquely integrates Lean principles and DevOps practices into its framework. Lean principles focus on maximizing value while minimizing waste, which aligns with agile’s emphasis on delivering customer value. DevOps practices, on the other hand, ensure continuous delivery and integration, fostering a culture of collaboration between development and operations teams². This integration helps organizations achieve faster time-to-market and improved product quality.
Comparison with Other Frameworks
When compared to other scaling agility frameworks like Large-Scale Scrum (LeSS), Scrum@Scale, and Nexus, SAFe stands out for its comprehensive and prescriptive nature³. While LeSS and Nexus focus primarily on scaling Scrum practices, SAFe provides a broader toolkit that includes Lean and DevOps principles. This makes SAFe more suitable for organizations looking for a holistic approach to scaling agile.
Scrum@Scale is designed to scale Scrum across large organizations. It focuses on a decentralized approach, enhancing collaboration and communication through structures like the Scrum of Scrums and Meta-Scrum¹. Unlike SAFe, which introduces new roles and a hierarchical structure, Scrum@Scale extends existing Scrum roles and practices, allowing for organic growth and flexibility². This makes Scrum@Scale less prescriptive and more adaptable, but it requires a strong foundational understanding of Scrum to implement effectively².
Proven Success and Adoption
SAFe’s widespread adoption and proven success further highlight its effectiveness. More than 20,000 organizations worldwide have implemented SAFe, and over one million professionals have been trained in its practices². This extensive adoption is a testament to SAFe’s ability to deliver tangible business results, such as improved employee engagement, faster time-to-market, and higher product quality.
Scaling Agility with SAFe
In summary, SAFe’s unique combination of Lean, Agile, and DevOps principles, along with its comprehensive guidance and modular structure, make it a standout choice for organizations looking to scale agile practices. While other frameworks like LeSS, Scrum@Scale, and Nexus offer valuable approaches, SAFe’s prescriptive nature and proven success make it a reliable and effective solution for achieving business agility at scale.
Scrum@Scale vs SAFe
| SAFe | Scrum@Scale |
| Highly structured | Special teams: EAT, EMS for the whole organization |
| Planning Intervals of 8-12 weeks | Planning Interval of one Sprint (1-4 Weeks) |
| Special Sprint: Innovation and Planning (IP) Iteration | Scrum of Scrums maximal 5 teams that work directly together |
| Clear implementation roadmap | Building a scaled agility for the whole organization |
| Technical roles scale (Solution Architect) |
When to use which Framework
Scrum@Scale
Scrum@Scale provides an effective framework for transforming an entire organization into an agile one. While this restructuring can be challenging, it is particularly well-suited for new organizations, helping to build agility from the ground up. Unlike SAFe, Scrum@Scale has fewer rules, offering more flexibility in how teams collaborate. However, the hierarchical structure and strong roles of the Executive Action Team (EAT) and Executive MetaScrum (EMS) can potentially undermine the agile principle of self-organizing teams. To avoid this, it’s essential that the concept of servant leadership is consistently embraced and practiced.
SAFe
This framework offers the most structured approach for guiding companies in adopting a scaled agile mindset. Although there is a lot to learn, its structured nature can assist organizations with limited agile experience in transitioning to agile practices. However, it is primarily effective for large-scale projects; for smaller initiatives, the Agile Release Trains (ARTs) may become unnecessarily complex and may not deliver significant benefits. While the Planning Interval (PI) provides teams with a clear understanding of the product’s short-term vision, it may also result in companies deploying less frequently than is optimal
Curious to learn more ? Discover our other insights: Mastering Scrum Scaling: LeSS vs Nexus Explained | Collaboration Better’s The World
References