In discussing the application of the SAFe Large Solution with other transformation coaches, I have realized that when a large organization is implementing SAFe for a significant transformation it is challenging to determine the boundaries of the Large Solution from the functions of the Lean Portfolio and Agile PMO. For a well functioning SAFe transformation this distinction is critical to align with the SAFe House of Lean as well as the 10 SAFe Principles.
Large Solution boundary guidance
My experience indicates that the overhead (or tax) of the Large Solution should only be paid if it is solving a solution delivery issue. The issue should be limited to: 1) Dependencies within an Epic 2) Supplier co-ordination. This sounds simplistic, however the costs of the Large Solution should be reserved for these limited applications.
In order to illuminate the need to draw these boundaries it is helpful to the identify and describe the costs of the Large Solution in terms of specific costs in new roles, Large Solution events and additional costs on the ARTs within the Large Solution. The additional roles are the Solution Architecture, Solution Management and Solution Train Engineer that if filled properly will consume at minimum three senior members of the organization and could be many more. The responsibilities of creating Solution Architecture and Solution Backlog to provide PI Planning guidance and participation in PI execution with the aligned ARTS demands full time engagement of the Solution level roles. This additional engagement with the aligned ARTs places additional demands on the ART leadership roles (System Architect, Product Management, and RTE.) Paradoxically, the better defined the Large Solution the fewer individuals will be required in Solution level roles, the less time will be required to complete the Solution Activities and the fewer distractions to the aligned ARTs.
The issues/challenges that should not drive ARTs being included into a Large Solution are 1) Common Architectural guidance, 2) ARTs aligned to the same Operational Value Stream, 3) Portfolio Funding, 4) common strategic theme, 5) planned future integration…
Need for Solution Intent does not indicate Large Solution!
Early in a recent engagement, I was completing a Leading SAFe course and a participant and leader of the group I was coaching announced that “We are a Large Solution because we need to implement Solution Intent.” This comment was insightful to their experience with agile development and the recognition that the Architecture and Systems Engineering components of SAFe Solution Intent were missing from their previous experience. This highlights a common mistake of taking the appearance of Solution Intent on the Large Solution level of the SAFe configuration as a directive for Large Solution. Your SAFe transformation may require the goodness of the Solution intent for Portfolio or Essential configurations as well. What this is intended to convey is that if you meet the criteria of a Large Solution boundary guidance you will need the Solution Intent construct. However, many SAFe transformations require Solution Intent to support the alignment of multiple ARTs around a common architectural guidance.
How Lean Portfolio Management fills the gaps better
Starting with the set of issues/challenges identified as reasons for NOT implementing the Large Solution: 1) Common Architectural guidance, 2) ARTs aligned to the same Operational Value Stream, 3) Portfolio Funding, 4) common strategic theme, 5) planned future integration… I will elaborate on how the LPM activities would better address these issues/challenges.
- Common Architectural Guidance – Enterprise Architecture is a key role in multiple functions of LPM and is described an important contributor the Architecture and Design artifacts of Solution Intent. Placing this responsibility with the EA role will both enhance EA engagement but also provide a more consistent application of the architectural guidance.
- ARTs aligned to the same Operational Value Stream – The cadence and synchronization functions of Portfolio Operations describe specifically the activities and responsibilities for this scenario.
- Portfolio Funding – With portfolio funding (Strategy and Investment Funding) should come Lean Governance functions of the LPM. To use the Large Solution to address the gaps in either of these LPM functions is not going to filly resolve the gaps while creating addition issues with current ART execution.
- Common Strategic Theme and 5) Planned Future Integration – These have the same answer in the creation of a robust Solution Intent model (see other blog poses on Solution Intent.) A robust Solution Intent model would be better described as an “Enterprise Intent” with the inclusion of Strategy, Strategic Themes (OKRs), Portfolio Vision in the Solution Intent. These Enterprise/Portfolio level artifacts along with NFRs would have alignment of all levels of the architecture would better resolve this challenge.
Enterprise Agility 