![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
If you look at https://safedelusion.com you can read what a great many number of people in the agile community think about SAFe. Also people having developed methods and practices that are being 'adopted' by SAfe. It's not pretty. How do we reflect the fact that the main experts within their fields of empiricism, whether design, scrum, or lean innovation, are extremely negative about SAFe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MazSpork ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find any substantiation of the claim that SAFe is made 'freely available'. The FAQ states that community access is granted only after taking a course, and I haven't found a free course offering. [1] In addition, you can lose access. [2] You must have attended a course recently, have an active certification, or purchase a membership. That doesn't meet any definition of 'freely available' that I'm aware of. I propose changing 'made freely available' to 'made available to to people who take courses, pay for membership, or maintain certifications through Scaled Agile Inc.' I'd also propose using the FAQ references I've used here. Or, an explanation (with references) of what is freely available and what isn't. -- IntermediateValue ( talk) 16:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Cs02rm0: ignored my comments about not having criticism sections as laid-out in WP:NOCRIT and my claim that the sources should be reliable (not blogs) by reverting me and claiming it's "expert opinion". So Renee Troughton, author of the Agile Forest blog is an expert? She's trying to self-publish a book and can't get funding for it but she is a podcaster, and not everyone can do that. And Sean Dexter is a Product/UX Designer. I'm not sure that makes Sean an expert either. Please use only reliable sources and incorporate the criticism into the article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
SAFe definitely isn't without criticism
[1]
[2], but this article hardly reflects that, limiting any mention of criticism to half a sentence in the introduction, while also asserting as fact that SAFe promotes alignment, collaboration, and delivery across large numbers of agile teams
and generally reading as promotional. I'm thinking of taking this article on, but I'd like to solicit thoughts and opinions before I start making edits. –
Clockwork
Soul
17:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot of information in this article, such as the concepts it is based on. But there is no description of the actual framework. What are the ceremonies (if that's the right term)? What are the roles? What is the cadence? What are the artifacts? How about its processes? FreeFlow99 ( talk) 14:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
If you look at https://safedelusion.com you can read what a great many number of people in the agile community think about SAFe. Also people having developed methods and practices that are being 'adopted' by SAfe. It's not pretty. How do we reflect the fact that the main experts within their fields of empiricism, whether design, scrum, or lean innovation, are extremely negative about SAFe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MazSpork ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find any substantiation of the claim that SAFe is made 'freely available'. The FAQ states that community access is granted only after taking a course, and I haven't found a free course offering. [1] In addition, you can lose access. [2] You must have attended a course recently, have an active certification, or purchase a membership. That doesn't meet any definition of 'freely available' that I'm aware of. I propose changing 'made freely available' to 'made available to to people who take courses, pay for membership, or maintain certifications through Scaled Agile Inc.' I'd also propose using the FAQ references I've used here. Or, an explanation (with references) of what is freely available and what isn't. -- IntermediateValue ( talk) 16:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
References
@ Cs02rm0: ignored my comments about not having criticism sections as laid-out in WP:NOCRIT and my claim that the sources should be reliable (not blogs) by reverting me and claiming it's "expert opinion". So Renee Troughton, author of the Agile Forest blog is an expert? She's trying to self-publish a book and can't get funding for it but she is a podcaster, and not everyone can do that. And Sean Dexter is a Product/UX Designer. I'm not sure that makes Sean an expert either. Please use only reliable sources and incorporate the criticism into the article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 21:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
SAFe definitely isn't without criticism
[1]
[2], but this article hardly reflects that, limiting any mention of criticism to half a sentence in the introduction, while also asserting as fact that SAFe promotes alignment, collaboration, and delivery across large numbers of agile teams
and generally reading as promotional. I'm thinking of taking this article on, but I'd like to solicit thoughts and opinions before I start making edits. –
Clockwork
Soul
17:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot of information in this article, such as the concepts it is based on. But there is no description of the actual framework. What are the ceremonies (if that's the right term)? What are the roles? What is the cadence? What are the artifacts? How about its processes? FreeFlow99 ( talk) 14:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)