Since it was introduced in 2011, the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) has helped organisations manage large-scale projects by applying Agile principles across different departments. It integrates Agile, Lean, and DevOps in a way that simplifies complex workflows, making it one of the most widely adopted frameworks for enterprise agility. However, despite its popularity, SAFe doesn’t always deliver the results some organisations expect. So, why is that, and how can companies figure out if SAFe is the right fit for them?

SAFe helps organisations implement Agile across all levels, from teams to leadership. When done properly, it’s been successful in industries like software development, automotive, and aerospace. By focusing on transparency, alignment, and continuous improvement, it can lead to faster releases, higher quality products, and increased employee satisfaction.

But despite these advantages, SAFe can feel cumbersome for some organisations, especially when it’s implemented in a way that goes against one of Agile’s core principles: flexibility.

Agile transformations require a big shift in mindset—one that prioritises collaboration over hierarchy and adaptability over rigid processes. In companies where traditional top-down structures dominate, SAFe can face resistance. A command-and-control management style clashes with the decentralised, team-centric decision-making that SAFe promotes.

While SAFe provides clear roles and processes for scaling Agile, some organisations over-complicate it. This can lead to added bureaucracy, which slows down decision-making and creates inefficiencies. Rather than boosting agility, companies can end up feeling bogged down by too many layers of planning and coordination.

Sometimes, organisations pick and choose elements of SAFe without fully embracing its principles or the Lean-Agile mindset. For example, if a company neglects continuous learning and improvement, it misses out on one of the key benefits of Agile. This selective approach weakens the impact of SAFe, often leading to limited success or failure.

SAFe works best in large, complex organisations with multiple teams that need alignment. In smaller companies, or those where speed and flexibility are more important than structured scaling, SAFe can feel like overkill. The overhead required to manage the framework might actually reduce agility in companies that need to remain more nimble.

Although SAFe isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution, here are some ways organisations can increase their chances of success:

Organisations need to fully adopt the Agile mindset, which promotes decentralisation, autonomy, and collaboration. Without the right cultural foundation, even the most detailed framework will fall short.

Instead of rolling out SAFe across the entire organisation, begin with a pilot project or a small group of teams. This will help you test how well the framework fits your company, allowing you to work through any cultural or process challenges before scaling it up.

Agility is about being adaptable. Even when using SAFe, organisations need to be open to making adjustments based on feedback and results. Continuous learning and improvement are key to long-term success.

Even though there are many success stories from companies that have implemented SAFe, one example doesn’t mean it will work for everyone. Each organisation has its own culture, processes, and goals, and SAFe needs to be tailored to fit those specific needs. A rigid, one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to work in organisations that are resistant to change or not fully aligned with Agile principles.

To Conclude SAFe is a powerful tool for organisations that need to scale Agile across complex structures. But for others, especially those with cultural or process barriers, its benefits can be limited. The key to success is understanding your organisation’s unique needs, culture, and goals before adopting a framework as comprehensive as SAFe.