If a Value Stream is bigger than the recommended ART size, SAFe recommends splitting it by development process steps and organizing the trains around those steps respectively.

Question

Options

• ATrue
• BFalse

• A
  23% (12)
• B
  77% (40)

Explanation

False is correct because SAFe explicitly advises against splitting Value Streams by development process steps (e.g., design → build → test). Organizing ARTs around sequential process phases recreates waterfall-style handoffs between trains, introducing dependencies and wait times that destroy flow - the very thing SAFe is designed to eliminate.

Why A (True) is wrong: Splitting by process steps aligns teams around functions or phases rather than value delivery. This creates tightly coupled trains that cannot independently deliver end-to-end value, violating a core ART principle.

What SAFe actually recommends: When a Value Stream exceeds the 50–125 person ART size limit, SAFe recommends splitting by sub-systems, architectural components, or customer segments - each ART should own a coherent slice of the solution that can flow independently.

Memory tip: Think of the acronym FLOW - SAFe trains are organized to optimize Flow of value, not Functions of work. If splitting by process steps would force trains to hand off work sequentially like a relay race, it's the wrong split.

No community discussion yet for this question.