Authors

  • Dhanasekar Elumalai
    Fidelity Investments

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume07Issue06-15

Keywords:

SAFe LeSS Nexus scalable frameworks.

Abstract

This study aims to identify and systematically compare the main large-scale agile frameworks that companies can adopt to manage the work of large scale and distributed teams. The companies can consciously perform better decision on the choice of the framework that fits the practices and challenges of their organizations. The work employs a qualitative approach supporting an exploratory analysis identifying the processes of migration to large scale agile. First the assessment criteria for scaling agile are discussed. Second these criteria used to perform a comparative analysis fo 3 large scale agile frameworks i.e. SAFe, LeSS and Nexus. The findings reveal there isn’t a dominant large scale agile framework in all dimensions. However, framework like Nexus offer low technical complexity accommodating the changes easily while other frameworks like SAFe offer high level of scalability more demanding and deep efforts changing work processes in organization.


background image

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

135

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

TYPE

Original Research

PAGE NO.

135-143

DOI

10.37547/tajet/Volume07Issue06-15



OPEN ACCESS

SUBMITED

24 April 2025

ACCEPTED

17 May 2025

PUBLISHED

19 June 2025

VOLUME

Vol.07 Issue 06 2025

CITATION

Dhanasekar Elumalai. (2025). Scalable Agile Frameworks: Comparing Safe,
Less, And Nexus for Enterprise Adoption. The American Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 7(06), 135

143.

https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume07Issue06-15

COPYRIGHT

© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.

Scalable Agile
Frameworks: Comparing
Safe, Less, And Nexus for
Enterprise Adoption

Dhanasekar Elumalai

Fidelity Investments

Abstract:

This study aims to identify and systematically

compare the main large-scale agile frameworks that
companies can adopt to manage the work of large scale
and distributed teams. The companies can consciously
perform better decision on the choice of the framework
that fits the practices and challenges of their
organizations. The work employs a qualitative approach
supporting an exploratory analysis identifying the
processes of migration to large scale agile. First the
assessment criteria for scaling agile are discussed.
Second these criteria used to perform a comparative
analysis fo 3 large scale agile frameworks i.e. SAFe, LeSS

and Nexus. The findings reveal there isn’t a dominant

large scale agile framework in all dimensions. However,
framework like Nexus offer low technical complexity
accommodating the changes easily while other
frameworks like SAFe offer high level of scalability more
demanding and deep efforts changing work processes in
organization.

Keywords:

SAFe, LeSS, Nexus, scalable, frameworks.

Introduction:

Since the creation of the Agile Manifesto

in 2001, agile software development methods have
become mainstream in software projects that are
continuously affected by external drivers, such as
changing customer demands, shifting regulatory
requirements, and new technological advances. Since
then, academics and practitioners have devoted a great
deal of attention to agile methods. Agile methodologies,
such as Extreme Programming and Scrum, were initially
created for small, co-located, and self-organizing teams
developing software in close collaboration with
customers applying short iterations. Given the
successful adoption of agile methods in small
organizations and projects, many software practitioners


background image

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

136

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

are increasingly engaged in using these methods in large
projects and organizations. Some existing agile methods
and software practitioners, who have worked with
companies to scale agile approaches to their settings,
have promoted various agile scaling frameworks, such as
Large-Scale Scrum (LeSS)1 and Scaled Agile Framework
(SAFe) to address issues related to the adoption of agile
methods in large companies and projects. As large
organizations face increasing pressure to become more
agile, the adoption of agile scaling frameworks in the
industry has grown, to provide off-the-shelf solutions for
scaling agile methods.

Even though there is a growing div of knowledge on
agile scaling frameworks, the existing literature neglects
to investigate why companies select a specific
framework, what benefits they expect, and how
satisfied they are with selected framework. We
understand this gap in the literature by presenting our
findings on the reasons, expected benefits, and
satisfaction of organizations adopting agile scaling
frameworks of industry participants worldwide.

Agile methodologies play a vital role in software
development in teamwork from team flexibility
collaboration and have been delivering high quality
products, the need of scaling agile practices is crucial for
organizational growth, maintaining efficiency and
alignment across multiple teams. This. Paper aiming to
compare 3 popular scaling frameworks: SAFe (Scaled
Agile framework), Nexus, and LeSS ( Large scale scrum)

focusing for suitability of enterprise adoption. Let’s

examine their principle, benefits, challenges and real-
world examples providing comprehensive analysis to
guide the most appropriate framework for the needs.

1.

SAFe ( Scaled Agile Framework):

SAFe is framework designed to scale agile practices for
large organizations integrating Lean, Agile and Devops
principle structured for aligning teams, programs and
portfolios. The principles of SAFe: (Fig 1. Refer for the big
picture of the SAFe framework)

Lean- Agile mindset

Agile Release Train (ART)

Continuous delivery pipeline

2.1

Lean- Agile mindset

is combination of lean thinking

and agile principles aiming a culture of continuous
improvement, collaboration and customer focused
in an organization emphasizing the importance of
delivering value effectively and efficiently to the
changing circumstances. Lean thinking focus
maximizing value and minimizing waste encouraging
to process streamline, eliminate inefficiencies and
optimize work flow. Key principles include

Value,

Value stream, flow, pull and perfection.

2.1.1

Value defined from the customers

perspective which is derived by engaging with
customer to understand their needs and deliver
value.

2.1.2

Value stream will identify, and map steps

required to deliver value, this is adopted to
changing requirement and market conditions

2.1.3

Flow of work throughout the value stream

smoothly

and

continuous

via

iterative

development cycles.

2.1.4

Pull will produce the work based on demand

rather then forecasts in collaboration with diverse
team members.

2.1.5

Perfection by continuously improving the

process reflecting the practices.

The lean agile mindset integrates agile principles with
lean thinking creating an approach to deliver value by
encouraging Embrace change an opportunity for
improvement rather disruption, focus on value
delivering for customers and stakeholders, Optimize
flow ensuring efficient delivery of work, empower team
by making decisions and ownership of their work,
continuous learning culture and experimentation
promoted. This benefits by reducing waste and
optimizing process to deliver value faster, enhance
collaboration between cross functional teams working
efficiently together, Flexibility adapting to changing
circumstances and customer needs, Higher quality of
products and services delivered, Increased customer
satisfaction by consistent value delivered.

2.2

Agile Release Train (ART)

is one objective of

delivered value by agile teams working in synchronous,
having a fixed schedule and following a cadence of
program increments (PIs) lasting 8-12 weeks. The ART
designed aligning teams, stakeholders and business


background image

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

137

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

objectives all working towards a common goal. Key
components of ART include

2.2.1

Program increment (PI) which is a timeboxed

ART delivery incremented in a 8-12 week durations
comprising of multiple iterations.

2.2.2

Agile teams with cross functional knowledge

practicing Scrum or Kanban to collaborate and
deliver features and capabilities.

2.2.3

PI Planning a two day even kickoff each

program increment along with teams and
stakeholders together planning the upcoming PI
work.

While

setting

objectives

related

dependencies and risks identified and mitigated.

2.2.4

System demo to demonstrate the integrated

work during the PI providing visibility of progress
and gathering feedback from stakeholders.

2.2.5

Inspect and Adapt an workshop held end of

each PI to review the outcome, identify
improvements and plan for next PI comprising on
continuous improvement and problem solving.

The following are the benefits of ART ensuring teams
working towards common objective and business goals,
provide predictability schedule of delivered value
reducing uncertainty, Collaboration among teams,
stakeholders and business leaders, continuous delivery
of value through regular increments, enhances
transparency in progress, dependencies and risks. There
are challenges for ART in terms of coordination required
among multiple teams and stakeholders, managing
dependencies and integration can be complex, training
teams and coaching to adopt ART practices effectively,
change management facing resistance in organization
implementing it. (Figure 1. Refer for the big picture of
the SAFe framework)

Figure 1. SAFE Big picture depicting roles and framework

The Agile release train being powerful mechanism
scaling agile practices across large organizations
providing structured approach delivering value, helping
teams stay aligned, collaborate effectively and improve
process continuously.

2.3

Continuous Delivery pipeline represents workflow,

activities and automation to deliver new features and

capabilities encompassing the entire lifecycle of a
product from ideation to deployment that value is
delivered continuously and efficiently. Key components
of the continuous delivery pipeline:

2.3.1

Continuous exploration: Keep focusing on

identifying and refining new ideas and opportunities,
involve in market research, customer feedback and


background image

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

138

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

competitive analysis, ensure the organization
working on most valuable and relevant features.

2.3.2

Continuous integration: Integrating frequent

code changes and testing to ensure quality,
automated testing, build and integration process
used to detect issue early promoting collaboration
among teams reducing integration risks.

2.3.3

Continuous Deployment: Deployment of code

changes to production environments with new
features delivered to users quickly and reliably by
involving automated testing, release management
and monitoring.

2.3.4

Release on Demand: Allowing organizations to

release new features and capabilities as neeed and
aligning business priorities and customer needs by
involving feature toggles, canary releases and other
techniques to manage releases.

Benefits of the continuous delivery pipeline are Faster
time to market of new features and capabilities reducing
lead time, Better Quality using automation for testing
and integration process identifying issues early and
resolving

it,

Enhanced

collaboration

among

development testing and operations, Greater flexibility
responding to changing market conditions and customer
needs and finally increased customer satisfaction with
value delivered continuous keeping customers happy.

Challenges of continuous delivery pipeline are
Automation, Coordination, Change management and

monitoring. Though it’s the key to adhere for the SAFe

approach has to be tackled in order for achieving faster
delivery of features, improved quality and enhanced
collaboration among teams. (Figure 1. Refer for the big
picture of the SAFe framework)

SAFe can be done at portfolio, program and team levels,
lets know at high level from each perspective in brief.
Portfolio level it is important focusing on aligning
strategy with execution ensuring investments are
directed towards most valuable initiatives involving
strategic themes, setting investment guardrails
managing the portfolio backlog.

Strategic themes are high level business objectives
guiding the portfolio direction helping all initiatives align
with organizations strategic goals.

Investment guardrails help allocate funding different
value streams and initiatives, ensuring the investments
are balanced and aligned strategic priorities.

Portfolio backlog are list of prioritized epics and
initiatives intending for portfolio delivery by
continuously refine and prioritized on strategic themes
business value.

Agile portfolio operations involve coordinating,
supporting execution of value streams across portfolio
managing dependencies, facilitating collaboration and
ensuring teams having resources needing success. Lean
portfolio management (LPM) oversees portfolio
operations, ensuring investments aligned to strategic
goals on value streams delivering effectively. Portfolio
sync on regular cadence to review progress with
stakeholders, address dependencies to keep portfolio
on track. Governance for portfolio operation defining
guardrails complying with organizational policies and
standards.

Program level PI planning is critical event where all ART
teams come together planning the work for upcoming
program increment ensuring alignment, collaboration
and shared understanding of objectives. Setting PI
objectives with measurable objectives aiming to achieve
the PI aligned overall goals of the ART.

Team level framework used to manage work iterative
cycle emphasizing collaboration, transparency and
continuous improvement. By implementing the key
components at portfolio, program and team levels
organizations can effectively scale agile practices
delivering efficiently.

3.

Nexus :

Lets talk about this framework in terms of

scaling on large product development initiatives
involving multiple scrum teams, this approach was
created by Ken Schwaber who was one of the co-
creaters of Scrum principles. The framework aims
to enhance collaboration, integration and
transparency within the teams working on a single
product ensuring value delivered efficiently and
effectively.

The key components of Nexus:

3.1

Scrum based scaling involves applying the principles

and practices to large scale product development


background image

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

139

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

initiatives. This framework enables a structured
approach managing multiple scrum teams working on
single product. The principes of scrum-based scaling
involves

* Transparency having visibility into each other’s work

and progress, promoting an open collaboration and
communication.

* Inspection reviewing and accessing work identifying
issues/ opportunities for improvement by involving in
sprint review and retrospective

* Adaption by continuously improving processes and
practices on feedback and insights encouraging to adapt
on changing circumstances and customer needs.

* Collaboration among teams ensuring working together
effectively and involving on regular ceremonies and
communication channels.

The benefits of Scrum based scaling helps enhanced
collaboration, improved transparency, greater flexibility
and continuous improvement. There are challenges on
the approach as well like coordination of managing
dependencies and integration with multiple teams can
be complex. Effective communication requires effort
and discipline, change management could be
challenging of resistance on new practices and
framework. Training needs to coach and practices
effectively for adoption. On overcoming and adopting to
the principles will achieve better results to deliver

efficient and effective product development.

3.2

Nexus Integration Team ( NIT)

is specialized team

with the framework for ensuring multiple scrum teams
operate effectively aligned and integrated. This plays a
crucial

role

managing

dependencies,

facilitate

communication and ensure integrated product
increment meeting quality standards. The team
comprises of members having deep understanding of
product, technical expertise and strong facilitation skills,
they include 1) product owner who represents
stakeholders with well-defined prioritized product
backlog. 2) Scrum master who facilitates nexus events,
removes impediments and adhering to scrum principles
3) Integration specialists who is expert in integrating
multiple

teams

work

by

resolving

technical

dependencies and cohesive to the product increment. 4)
Representatives from scrum teams who provide insights
about teams progress, challenges and dependencies.

The following are some of the events facilitated by the
NIT team

3.2.1 Nexus Sprint

3.2.2 Nexus Daily scrum

3.2.3 Nexus sprint planning

3.2.4 Nexus sprint review

3.2.5 Nexus sprint retrospective

Fig 2. Nexus overall framework


background image

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

140

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

3.2.1 Nexus Integration team is responsible in
coordinating and integrating the work done by multiple
scrum teams ensuring the dependencies are managed
and aligning the team. They facilitate all communication
and collaboration among multiple teams.

3.2.2 Nexus sprint is synchronized across all scrum
teams working together delivering an integrated
incremental product, involving regular ceremonies of
sprint planning, daily scrum, sprint review and
retrospective.

3.2.3 Nexus Daily scrum is a sync from representatives
of each scrum team discussing progress, identify
blockers and coordinating the work. It ensures teams are
aligned and integration issues are promptly addressed.

3.2.4 Nexus sprint planning where all teams unite to plan
the work for the upcoming sprint, identifying
dependencies, set objectives and create a shared
understanding of the work being done.

3.2.5 Nexus sprint review a forum the teams
demonstrate the integrated work with all stakeholders
obtaining feedback, it also provides visibility on progress
and fosters collaboration.

3.2.6 Nexus sprint retrospective reflecting teams on
their processes and uncover improvements, focused on
continuous improvement and problem solving.

3.3 Nexus sprint synchronize all scrum teams with Nexus
to ensure all teams work together delivering integrated
increment of product. The Nexus sprint have the same
principle and practice as scrum sprint but has additional
layer of coordination and integration to manage
complexities of scaling scrum.

Key elements of Nexus sprint is 1)

Sprint planning

a

collaborative event of all scrum teams to plan upcoming
sprint facilitated by NIT aligning the work and
coordination. 2)

Daily scrum

with representative of each

scrum team to discuss and coordinate work followed by
3)

Sprint review

and 4

) Sprint retrospective

to review

the progress and continuous feedback loop to have
enhanced collaboration, improved transparency,
greater flexibility and continuous improvement.

The Nexus Sprint is powerful mechanism for scaling and
ensuring multiple teams work effectively together to
deliver high quality product increment. Through

synchronized sprints, ceremonies and continuous
improvement Nexus promotes a collaboration and
adaptability enabling organization to respond changing
market conditions and customer needs.

3.

LeSS (Large Scale Scrum)

applies principles at scale,

emphasizing simplicity and effective communication
for large organizations. The principle for LeSS:

3.

1 Scrum principles applied at scale

3.2

LeSS Framework

3.3

LeSS Huge

Lets discuss in detail on the principle emphasizes the
importance of scrum principles such as transparency,
inspection and adaptation applying them at scale to
ensure that large organizations can achieve the same
benefits as smaller scrum teams.

3.1.1

Transparency is crucial to ensure that teams
have clear visibility on the work and progress
by sharing artifacts, common sprint reviews
and open communication channels. Shared
artifacts is a single product backlog visible to
all teams ensuring everyone is aligned on
priority to understanding overall goals. The
common sprint reviews help demonstrate
their work to stakeholders and obtain
feedback promoting transparency that
everyone is aware of the progress and
challenges.

3.1.2

Inspection is essentially needed on a regular
basis to identify the issues and opportunities
to improve via synchronized sprint events
and continuous feedback loops. Sprint
planning conducted together ensuring they
are aligned on the work identifying
dependencies and risks. Daily scrum
representing each team discussing the
progress

across

cross

team.

Sprint

retrospective is held to reflect their process
and identify improvements addressing
systemic issues and collaboration across
teams.

3.1.3

Adaption is core principle enabling for
process improvement continuously to
changing requirements. This Is achieved
through iterative development, feedback


background image

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

141

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

and continuous focus on improvement, LeSS
emphasizes importance of continuous
improvement both on team and organization
level.

The basic LeSS designed for eight teams working
towards single product having single product backlog
shared sprint planning and common sprint review. LeSS
Huge is extension of basic LeSS designed for very large

organizations with more than eight teams including
additional structures managing complexity of large scale
development. Product gets divided into requirement
areas by separate product owner manage complexity to
make team focus on specific area of product. Area
prioritized product backlog is owned by area product
owner aligned to overall product goals.

Fig 3. LeSS Framework

Though the LeSS basic or the LeSS Huge framework
follows the scrum principles the only difference is the
number of teams working towards the product objective
changes. LeSS basic covers eight teams with one product
and one goal objective to obtain for the product,
whereas the LeSS Huge divides the areas of the product
separately owned by area product owner ultimately
with one product goal. In spite of all practices the
benefits of using the framework such as enhanced
collaboration, improved transparency, greater flexibility

and continuous improvement.

The challenges in coordination among multiple teams
can

be

complex

and

challenging,

effective

communication will require lot of effort and discipline,
adopting new practice and framework may get
resistance. Lot of training needs adopting Huge LeSS
practices effectively After carefully reviewing each of

the framework let’s talk about the statistics on adoption

rate for the different frameworks.

Table 1. Comparison of different frameworks

Aspect

SAFe (Scaled Agile

Framework)

Nexus

LeSS (Large Scale

Scrum)

Purpose

To scale Agile across

large enterprises,

integrating Lean and

Agile practices

To scale Scrum in

multiple teams

working on single

product

To apply Scrum

principles in Large

scale enterprise

contexts

Structure

Multi level team,

program, portfolio,

large solution

Nexus integration

team, Nexus sprint

planning, Nexus

daily scrum, Nexus

LeSS- 8 teams

LeSS Huge – upto

1000 people


background image

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

142

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

sprint review, Nexus

sprint retrospective

Roles

Release train

engineer, Product

management,

System Architect

Nexus integration

team to coordinate

multiple scrum

teams

Single product

owner, multiple
cross functional

teams

Events

PI planning, System

demo, Inspect &

Adapt, Scrum of

Scrums

Nexus sprint

planning, Nexus

daily scrum, Nexus

sprint review, Nexus

sprint retrospective

Sprint planning,

daily scrum, sprint

review, sprint

retrospective

Artifacts

Program backlog,

solution backlog,

portfolio backlog, PI

objectives

Integrated

increment Nexus

sprint backlog,

Nexus goal

Single product

backlog, Definition

of Done, potentially

shippable product

increment.

Adoption

complexity

High, requires

significant

organizational

change and training

Moderate builds on

existing scrum

practices with

minimal extensions

Moderate to high

requires deep

understand of scrum

and organizational

change

Best Suited for

Large enterprises

with complex

structures and

multiple product

lines

Organization with

multiple scrum

teams working on

single product

Enterprise looking

for simple, scalable

scrum framework

Conclusion

: Each framework has strengths and

challenges in terms of scalability, flexibility and
implementation. SAFe is highly scalable providing a
structured approach requiring significant effort
customizing and implementing. Nexus has simplicity of
scrum enhancing collaboration and integration having
moderately scalable and easy implementing. LeSS has
simplicity and effective communication with flexibility of
implementation maintaining scalability of large
organization. According to 15

th

state of Agile Report,

SAFe is the most popular scaling framework with 37%
respondents using SAFe with its structured approach
and comprehensive nature making it suitable for
complex product development needs. Nexus is used 9%
as per the Agile report based on its simplicity and
enhancing scrum appealing for moderate scaling needs.
LeSS is used 7% of respondents as per the Agile report
emphasizing simplicity and effective communication
suitable for large product development needs.

According to State of SAFe report ’25 72% o

f

organizations found Scaled agile is extremely useful in
their adoption. Based on the above-mentioned facts and
suiting the enterprise needs the respective framework
can be incorporated for better results. (Table 1 for
reference)

REFERENCES

Almeida, Fernando, and Eduardo Espinheira. "Large-
scale agile frameworks: a comparative review."

Journal

of Applied Sciences, Management and Engineering
Technology

2, no. 1 (2021): 16-29.


Putta, Abheeshta. "Adopting Agile Methods in Large-
scale Organizations using Scaling Frameworks." (2022).

Putta, Abheeshta, Ömer Uludağ, Shun

-Long Hong, Maria

Paasivaara,

and

Casper

Lassenius.

"Why

do

organizations adopt agile scaling frameworks? a survey


background image

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

143

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

of practitioners." In

Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE

International Symposium on Empirical Software
Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)

, pp. 1-12. 2021.


Turetken, Oktay, Igor Stojanov, and Jos JM Trienekens.
"Assessing the adoption level of scaled agile
development: a maturity model for Scaled Agile
Framework."

Journal of Software: Evolution and

process

29, no. 6 (2017): e1796.

Christopher, Lauren A., and Marne De Vries. "Selecting a
scaled agile approach for a fin-tech company."

South

African Journal of Industrial Engineering

31, no. 3

(2020): 196-208.

Wińska,

Ewelina,

and

Włodzimierz Dąbrowski.

"Software development artifacts in large agile
organizations:

a

comparison

of

scaling

agile

methods."

Data-Centric Business and Applications:

Towards Software Development (Volume 4)

(2020): 101-

116.

References

Almeida, Fernando, and Eduardo Espinheira. "Large-scale agile frameworks: a comparative review." Journal of Applied Sciences, Management and Engineering Technology 2, no. 1 (2021): 16-29.

Putta, Abheeshta. "Adopting Agile Methods in Large-scale Organizations using Scaling Frameworks." (2022).

Putta, Abheeshta, Ömer Uludağ, Shun-Long Hong, Maria Paasivaara, and Casper Lassenius. "Why do organizations adopt agile scaling frameworks? a survey of practitioners." In Proceedings of the 15th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), pp. 1-12. 2021.

Turetken, Oktay, Igor Stojanov, and Jos JM Trienekens. "Assessing the adoption level of scaled agile development: a maturity model for Scaled Agile Framework." Journal of Software: Evolution and process 29, no. 6 (2017): e1796.

Christopher, Lauren A., and Marne De Vries. "Selecting a scaled agile approach for a fin-tech company." South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 31, no. 3 (2020): 196-208.

Wińska, Ewelina, and Włodzimierz Dąbrowski. "Software development artifacts in large agile organizations: a comparison of scaling agile methods." Data-Centric Business and Applications: Towards Software Development (Volume 4) (2020): 101-116.