The document summarizes Intel's implementation of the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) at its MDO organization. It describes how Intel transitioned from a vertical to horizontal structure with 177 scrum teams organized into 12 Agile Release Trains. While the intent was to follow SAFe principles and standard rules across the organization, variations in agile maturity and other challenges emerged. Key lessons included that SAFe is a set of guidelines rather than a prescriptive template, and successfully implementing even simple rules at scale is difficult due to factors like team sizing, co-location constraints, and pacing teams across geographies.

1. SAFe at Intel MDO
Intel Agile and Lean Development Conference - 2014
Sean Goh & Joseph Chee
MDO Process & Efficiency Team
Penang Sept 2014

2. Agenda
1. What’s on the Market
2. MDO Organization
3. SAFe Implementation at MDO
4. TIPS for success
5. Challenges

3. Process and Efficiency Team
3

4. What’s in the Market?
LeSS – Craig Larman & Bas Vodde
DaD – Scott Ambler
SAFe – Dean Leffingwell

5. SAFe

6. SAFe Principles - Intent
• Output Quality
– “You can’t scale crappy code.”
• Predictable Execution
– “Agile Release Trains – self organizing teams of agile
teams – reliably and frequently deliver value on demand”
• Alignment & Synergy
– “More value is created by overall alignment than with
local excellence”
• Up/Down Transparency
– “Transparency builds confidence, alignment and trust”

7. MDO Value Stream
All Reporting to Single
Organization
Pre-MDO reporting structure:
7

8. See the change
BO and CE are Project
Managers
MDO reporting structure:
8
5 Horizontal Org 3 Horizontal Org

9. Vision
9
Horizontals
S/C TP
DCD
Analog
PHI
MPV
Client BO
S/C TPI, fuse
Arrays, reset,
BF, scan
IO, PLL,
power/thermal
Yield, BS
PPV, CMV
SOC BO Server BO Chipset BO
Reporting structure. Responsible for the “how”
Productstructure–responsible
forthe“what”

10. ART Release Planning
Plan
Committed!!

11. Release Planning Artifacts
Sprint Planning Board
Risk Board
Dependency Board

12. Release Planning Artifacts
Sprint Planning Board
Risk Board
Dependency Board

13. TIPS for Success
1. Leadership Support & Investments
2. Team Engagement & Strategy
3. Art of Standardization.
4. Can’t scale bad teams
5. Inspect and Adapt

14. Servant Leadership

15. Team Engagement & Strategy

16. Standardization?

17. Can’t Scale Bad Teams

18. Inspect and Adapt

19. Reflection – After Action Review (AAR)
• INTENT vs. ACTUAL
– What did we intend to happen?
– What actually happened? Why?
• KEY LEARNINGS AND ACTION PLAN
– What can we learn from Previous Iteration?
– What can we Sustain? What do we need to Improve?
– What actions can be taken during the next Iteration?

20. Intent vs. Actual
Intent
• Building on our good
scrum & release planning
practices, launch ARTs
for all the products at
once in WW04
• Use SAFe as a template
to remove variation in the
organization’s execution
• Follow a simple rules
across organization to
guarantee efficiency and
adherence to agile
principles when
constructing the agile
teams and trains
Actual
• Took us a quarter to pull this
off for business reasons
– All trains finish the release on
time, but not all start on time
• 1200 engrs and tech in 177
scrums connected to 12 trains
• Variation in our agile maturity
is showing up at the train level
– Can’t scale bad/immature agile
• SAFe is not a prescriptive
template, rather a set of
guidelines about what you
might need to pay attention to.
– Trick is to figure out where to
implement as a rule and where
to experiment with an idea
• Though the rules are simple,
following them is not.

21. Intent vs. Actual (Rules)
• 100/177 Scrums are too
small/big
• 74/177 Scrums are X-
Site
• 15/177 Scrums work on
multiple trains
• 6/12 trains are run
across 3 geos
Scrum Level Rules
1. Size – 5-9 Team Members
2. Commitment – Permanent members 100%
dedicated
3. Co-Location – Same site, sitting together.
4. X-Func – Can execute value stream, end to
end, w/o handoffs
Train Level Rules
1. Size - Train can have 5-15 scrums
2. Commitment - 1 Scrum works on only 1
train at a time
3. Co-Location – max 2 geos per train with 3+
overlap hours
Accounting errors - Plans to fix – Waivers – Rule Changes
Some teams cannot follow some of the scrum rules . .

22. Just a Framework

23. Challenges
1. Conversation Over Indicator?
2. Pacing the Teams
3. Co-location Complexity

24. Conversation over
Indicators?
CAN WE COMPROMISE?

25. Pacing the Teams
CAN WE COMPROMISE?

26. Co-location Complexity

27. 27

28. Backup
Intel Software Professionals Conference -
Intel Confidential
28