LeSS and SAFe: Understanding The Differences

by

History & Origins

The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) was created by Dean Leffingwell, a software development methodologist and entrepreneur with extensive experience advising organizations on large-scale software delivery. Prior to SAFe, Dean contributed to and consulted on several iterative and agile-related approaches and tools. SAFe was first introduced publicly in 2011 and has since evolved through a series of major releases, incorporating feedback from practitioners and organizations adopting the framework at scale.

Large-Scale Scrum (LeSS) was co-founded by Craig Larman and Bas Vodde, both of whom have long-standing careers as software developers, architects, and organizational design practitioners working in large, distributed product development environments. Their work draws heavily on empirical process control, systems thinking, and organizational design principles. While LeSS was formally named and released as a framework in 2015, its foundations were laid earlier through multiple books, case studies, and experiments conducted across industries beginning in the early 2000s.

Both frameworks represent the accumulation of many years of practical experience, observation, and refinement, shaped by different perspectives on how organizations scale product development.

Market Presence, Framework Evolution, and Certifications

SAFe has achieved broad global adoption and is widely recognized among enterprises pursuing agile at scale. Its certification ecosystem includes multiple role-specific credentials aligned with defined responsibilities within the framework. As SAFe continues to evolve, practitioners often update their certifications to reflect new versions, practices, and configurations. A large network of accredited trainers and training partners supports SAFe education and adoption worldwide.

LeSS has a smaller market footprint and a more focused certification structure. Its primary certifications—LeSS Basics, Practitioner, and Executive—are designed to build shared understanding across roles rather than training individuals for narrowly defined positions. LeSS does not introduce version numbers; instead, it offers two structural configurations: LeSS, typically supporting up to eight teams, and LeSS Huge, which extends the same principles to much larger product groups.

Both frameworks support professional development, but they differ in scale, specialization, and how learning pathways are structured.

Influence of Consulting Organizations

SAFe is frequently recommended by large consulting organizations due to its comprehensive guidance, explicit role definitions, and alignment with enterprise governance and transformation programs. Its structured nature can support coordinated adoption across many teams, departments, and geographic locations, often within predefined timelines and budgets.

LeSS is more commonly supported by smaller consultancies and independent practitioners with deep expertise in organizational design, systems thinking, and product-centric development. LeSS adoptions are typically narrower in initial scope and focus on achieving depth of change within specific product groups before expanding further.

In both cases, consulting recommendations often reflect not only client needs, but also the consulting firm’s delivery model, experience base, and preferred engagement style.

Relationship with Tooling Ecosystems

Many enterprise agile lifecycle management, portfolio, and workflow tools offer explicit support for SAFe concepts and structures. These tools often include configurations for multiple backlog levels, planning events, and reporting views aligned with SAFe constructs. This integration can make SAFe adoption more straightforward for organizations that already rely heavily on such tools for planning and governance.

LeSS does not prescribe specific tools or configurations. Instead, it emphasizes selecting tooling that supports simplicity, transparency, and direct collaboration. Guidance focuses on limiting hierarchy within tools, reducing excessive work decomposition, and keeping product and sprint backlogs conceptually distinct.

Both frameworks recognize the importance of tooling, but they differ in how tightly tools are coupled to framework concepts.

Organizational Scale and Design Considerations

SAFe is designed to operate across multiple organizational layers, including teams, programs, solutions, and portfolios. Its structure allows organizations to introduce agile practices while maintaining many existing reporting relationships and management roles. This can support continuity and reduce disruption during large-scale transformations.

LeSS approaches scaling by reducing organizational complexity wherever possible. It centers on small numbers of cross-functional teams working on a single product, with minimal additional roles. In larger implementations, LeSS Huge introduces requirement areas to manage scale while preserving a simplified organizational model.

The frameworks reflect different assumptions about how organizations balance stability, coordination, and adaptability.

Team Structure and Coordination

SAFe supports multiple team types, including delivery teams and specialized supporting teams, to accommodate diverse technical and operational needs. Coordination is supported through defined roles, events, and synchronization mechanisms that help manage dependencies and integration across teams.

LeSS emphasizes feature teams capable of delivering end-to-end product increments. Coordination is primarily handled through direct collaboration between teams, shared working agreements, and common standards. Dependency reduction is treated as an ongoing improvement objective rather than an assumed structural condition.

Both approaches address coordination challenges using mechanisms consistent with their broader organizational designs.

Backlog Structure and Product Focus

SAFe employs multiple backlog levels aligned with organizational scope and planning horizons. These backlogs support strategic alignment, long-term planning, and governance across teams, programs, and portfolios.

LeSS uses a single Product Backlog shared by all teams working on the product. This model emphasizes unified prioritization, shared understanding of customer value, and frequent cross-team collaboration.

Each approach offers a coherent way to align work with organizational decision-making needs at scale.

Product Ownership

In SAFe, Product Owners focus on team-level backlogs and collaborate closely with Product Management roles responsible for higher-level prioritization and strategic alignment. This separation allows for detailed refinement while maintaining linkage to broader objectives.

In LeSS, the Product Owner role aligns closely with Scrum and focuses on overall product value and return on investment. Clarification and refinement are supported through frequent interaction with users, stakeholders, and teams.

Both frameworks define clear accountability for product direction, adapted to different scaling models.

Engagement with Customers, Users, and Stakeholders

SAFe structures stakeholder engagement through defined roles and forums that support governance, compliance, and coordination across large enterprises. Business representatives typically interact with teams through formalized channels.

LeSS encourages direct interaction between teams and users or stakeholders. Engagement models are defined during initial adoption and are intended to support rapid feedback and shared understanding.

Each approach reflects different preferences for managing communication at scale.

Integration and Release Practices

SAFe assigns integration, deployment, and release coordination responsibilities to dedicated teams and roles that support the continuous delivery pipeline across multiple teams and increments.

In LeSS, integration and release responsibilities are shared among teams using a common Definition of Done. Teams collaborate to ensure that work meets production standards within each sprint.

Both frameworks aim to support frequent, reliable delivery, while distributing responsibilities differently.

Leadership and Adoption Context

SAFe is often adopted by organizations seeking a structured, enterprise-wide transformation approach that aligns with existing governance, budgeting, and portfolio management practices. Adoption is frequently driven by centralized transformation groups.

LeSS is typically adopted in environments that prioritize product-centric development and are prepared to examine and adjust organizational structures. Successful adoption requires strong executive sponsorship and clarity around organizational implications.

In both cases, leadership engagement and alignment with organizational goals are critical to success.

Conclusion

“All models are wrong, but some are useful.” — George Box

LeSS and SAFe are both established frameworks designed to support agile development at scale. Each offers a coherent set of principles, structures, and practices tailored to different organizational contexts.

  • SAFe emphasizes structured coordination, enterprise alignment, and scalability across large and complex organizations.

  • LeSS emphasizes simplicity, empirical learning, and product-focused collaboration across teams.

Rather than viewing them as competing ideologies, organizations benefit most by understanding the assumptions embedded in each framework and selecting the approach that best aligns with their strategic objectives, constraints, and readiness for change.

References:

 

2 thoughts on “LeSS and SAFe: Understanding The Differences”

  2. @Aleksander – you are not too far off. But SAFe is an amazing business model for many, and therefore, it is very popular.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Please help us fight spam. Lets make sure you are not a robot !!!