> "We adopted SAFe three years ago — half the org talks the language, none of them actually do it." ^pain A collective trust pain. The organisation adopts a methodology — agile flavour, KM framework, decision-making protocol — and on paper, runs it. In practice, teams improvise around the gaps and only do the surface ceremonies. The artefacts (templates, RACI matrices, status pages) exist for form, not for use. ## Discovery questions - "Your org has probably adopted a methodology or two - which ones outlived the consultant who introduced them?" - "Of the playbooks your org has rolled out in the last five years, how many are still followed without a manager prompting?" ^discovery-questions ## Examples - Scrum Alliance article "Zombie Scrum": organisations that adopted Scrum in name only, with no empirical process control.[^1] - Case study of failed SAFe implementation: ceremonies performed but decisions and funding stayed waterfall ("Why SAFe principles fail in practice").[^2] - SAFe case commentary: many elements can be eliminated or scaled back in practice, often leaving a superficial framework shell.[^3] [^1]: https://resources.scrumalliance.org/Article/zombie-scrum [^2]: https://agility-at-scale.com/safe/safe-principles/why-safe-principles-fail [^3]: https://www.agile42.com/en/blog/scaled-agile-framework-safe-case-study