In late 2018 my organization embarked to SAFe (version 4.5). SAFe is about scaling agile development for organizations. SAFe is quite popular: 30% of organizations responding to the 13th Annual State Of Agile survey follow it "most closely". But it is also controversial. Googling for why SAFe is not agile resulted in ca. 47.5 million hits and Ron Jeffries in The Nature of Software Development (introduced in Quintessence of (agile) software development) argues that it’s not necessary to scale agile development.[1]
Dominik Berner, a former work mate concludes on his blog: "while SAFe is not ideal in the long run it is a valid start for organizations just starting their agile journey". And I fully agree. Because I doubt it generally works to throw radically different agile ideas at "agility novices" (based on Dreyfus model of skill acquisition), who want clear instructions.
The agile manifesto and "more agile" frameworks like Scrum keep things intentionally open in contrast to more prescriptive processes like RUP. But frameworks and processes need to be tailored. Without experience tailoring is a challenge. Which elements of RUP are not important and can be left away? Or what additional element is required to make Scrum work for your specific situation?
So I wonder how close SAFe gets to the sweet spot of a viable starting point. Being more specific than light-weight approaches while keeping certain aspects open.
And I appeal to focus arguments, advice, and trainings on how to tailor processes and gradually move towards the agile manifesto principles and values instead of refusing SAFe as a matter of principle.