SAFe Criticism, Deconstructed: The SPC Role

There is a lot of criticism out there about SAFe. Leaders trying to achieve agility at scale often find the landscape confusing and, at times, frightening. Some criticism is fair and worth addressing. Some is just framework-war noise.

As a Professional Scrum Trainer and a SAFe Fellow/SPCT, I get a front-row seat to these arguments. I also see a pattern: many criticisms that sound like SAFe criticism are really criticism of poor SAFe implementation. I often call this SAFe Theater: the organization looks agile on the surface, but people are going through the motions without enough understanding, ownership, or commitment.

One reason this happens is the way organizations use the SPC role.

The SPC (SAFe Practice Consultant) is the person certified and positioned by SAFe to help lead an organization’s SAFe adoption. Responsibilities include embodying an agile mindset, leading change, implementing SAFe, coaching, and training, especially around flow and business agility.

SAFe is explicit about defining different roles at various organizational levels. These include Scrum Masters at the team level, Release Train Engineers (RTEs) at the ART (Agile Release Train) level, and SPCs who work across teams, portfolios, and the broader journey. SPCs often operate within a Lean-Agile Center of Excellence, providing strategic guidance and coaching across the organization.

This makes the SPC crucial to whether SAFe is understood and applied well. You can compare it to an experienced Scrum Master focused on helping the organization understand and apply Scrum, not just run events.

To become an SPC, one must complete the Implementing SAFe class, a four-day program covering principles, practices, mindset, and implementation strategies. While the class is valuable, the problem lies in what follows: After passing a multiple-choice exam, individuals are certified as SPCs, with no real test of their ability to train, coach, or implement SAFe effectively in the real world.

In that sense, becoming an SPC is similar to becoming a certified Scrum Master, Product Owner, or Project Manager. The credential says something. It does not say everything.

When experienced professionals attend the Implementing SAFe class, they can gain useful insights that improve their ability to lead change. VP Engineering leaders, PMO leaders, and experienced agile coaches can become strong partners for change, and the SPC certification can be useful when paired with real experience.

The fact that SAFe includes a “train the trainer” model where SPCs can train others in their organization, goes one step further than the Scrum model. Scrum Masters are expected to coach/train/mentor their teams and organizations. In the Scrum world, the Scrum Master focuses on informal on the job style training. In the SAFe world SPCs are enabled to deliver formal certified training.

In the right hands, this model can help organizations scale training faster with less reliance on external trainers. The train-the-trainer fan-out model is one reason SAFe spread so quickly.

The problem arises when organizations or consultants treat the SPC certificate as sufficient proof of expertise. Without proper experience, new SPCs are often thrust into positions where they are expected to deliver training or lead transformations without adequate knowledge or capability.

Some consultants simply add the SPC credential to their resume to make more money, and organizations sometimes have unrealistic expectations, assuming the certificate alone is enough. When poorly equipped SPCs deliver training or facilitate implementations, it results in what I call “SAFe Theater,” where people are just going through the motions without real understanding or belief in what they’re doing.

This is not limited to SAFe. Scrum Master certification helped Scrum spread, but it also created dysfunction when organizations treated the certificate as a substitute for real agile expertise. That path leads to Scrum Theater or Agile Theater just as easily.

Enterprises need to adjust their expectations of what the SPC certification means. They should look for outcomes, experience, capability, and fit as well.

Organizations should ask probing questions during the hiring or contracting process. For example, asking SPCs to share stories about their experience coaching, training, or facilitating value streams can reveal much about their capabilities. Additional certifications like Professional Scrum Trainer (PST) or PSM III can also indicate broader expertise and experience.

As a community, we must discourage unprofessional or unethical behavior by setting clearer standards for what professionalism looks like. This could include agreeing on what readiness looks like for training or consulting and expecting an SPC to say NO when they’re not yet ready to take on certain responsibilities.

The SPC model has real potential, but only if we are willing to address the challenges that come with it. A stronger ecosystem will not come from defending every implementation. It will come from being honest about what good implementation actually requires.

If you are trying to develop stronger SPC capability in your organization, explore the SAFe advisory path.