SAFe is not just a development model – its true value lies in orchestrating communication

When people are asked what prevents them from succeeding in their work, the answer rarely involves technology, capacity, or competence. More often than not, the biggest challenge mentioned is the lack of communication. Individuals and teams do their best — but often without a regularly shared direction. Decisions are made without an up-to-date overall picture. Priorities shift silently. Information doesn’t flow — or it only flows within role-, organizational-, or network-based silos. And even when information does move, it tends to be interpreted differently in different parts of the organization.

The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) is, at its core, a response to this challenge. It is designed to create structures for regular, shared communication and the resulting alignment — the kind of foundation that organizations and the people within them need in order to succeed.

In the pressure and constant change of everyday work, it’s only natural that SAFe is often experienced primarily through its most visible elements: ceremonies, plans, workflows, backlogs, and metrics. These are the tangible things — the ones people feel they “have to attend,” measure, and report — and so they often shape how SAFe is perceived. And that perception is often not very positive — especially in the early stages of the transformation journey.

The true value of SAFe lies much deeper than ceremonies or plans: it lies in the way it builds a shared rhythm and language of communication across the entire organization. Its built-in practices — structured events, artifacts, and decision points — continuously spark conversations about what truly matters: details, direction, priorities, and continuous improvement. This rhythm doesn’t just increase communication — it balances it. Developers define how and how much. Leaders prioritize and support. And it is in that shared cadence where trust, clarity, and alignment begin to grow — not through top-down control, but through meaningful, ongoing dialogue.

This rhythm of communication is intentionally built around recurring cycles: Planning Increments bring cadence to strategic communication, while Sprints create heartbeat for everyday dialogue. PI Plannings, demos, and Inspect & Adapt events are not ceremonies for their own sake. They are moments of engagement — aiming to foster shared understanding and trust across the board. As a sidenote, along my own journey, I’ve often heard people say, “Well, we’ve always planned, communicated, or reflected on our ways of working together.” But when I’ve asked, “Have you done that regularly and across the organization, based on the most up-to-date overall picture possible?” — the response has been often silence.

The artifacts of SAFe – such as PI Objectives, Actual Value assessments, the Program Predictability Measure (PPM), or the Confidence Vote – are not just for reporting. They are platforms for conversation. When teams write their own PI Objectives in plain language, stakeholders can better align with them on what truly needs to be delivered – and why. Between planning and evaluation, multiple shared checkpoints allow people to reflect together on the importance, value, and realization of these goals. Actual Value discussions serve as a shared mirror: did we succeed? What helped or hindered us?

The Planning Predictability Measure is not just a retrospective score – it invites broader conversations. Are the needs truly understood? Are our development structures effective? Are there too many dependencies that harm our ability to predict and adapt? These are moments that often trigger re-evaluation of how we organize development work and define deliverables.

One subtle but powerful example of communication facilitation is the Confidence Vote. Its outcome communicates, with a single number, how confident people are in their plan – and thus, how confidently stakeholders can build their own follow-up actions. It can serve as an early warning if confidence is low, but more importantly, it opens the door to discussions: what would it take for us to feel more confident? It is not a vote – it is an invitation to dialogue.

The WSJF (Weighted Shortest Job First) prioritization method also exists primarily as a conversation tool. It is not a mechanical formula for what to do next. Instead, it forces a pause – encouraging analytical thought beyond “this feels most important to me.” How much value will it deliver? How urgent is it? How big is the effort? Walking through these questions together enables prioritization decisions that people are more likely to commit to – because they helped shape them. WSJF conversations can also produce surprising results, and once again, their value lies in the follow-up discussion they provoke.

The structure of SAFe makes work visible. It produces plans, lists, and metrics. But these are only the tip of the iceberg. What you don’t immediately see – communication, shared understanding, a common vocabulary, and trust – is what makes everything else possible. A real plan doesn’t originate from a slide deck. It emerges from conversations where different perspectives meet, listen, and align.

Lasting change doesn’t come from process – it comes from dialogue. SAFe doesn’t offer a silver bullet, but it forces organizations to talk smart, regularly, and transparently. At its best, it fosters a culture where value is not an assumption but a shared understanding. Goals are not individual desires but mutual commitments. Feedback is not a formality but continuous exchange.

In the end, the success of SAFe does not depend on how well teams can groom a backlog or execute PI Planning. It depends on how well people understand one another, speak about the same things using the same language – and want to succeed together.