CAPM Practice: Explain when it is appropriate to use an adaptive approach

Scaled agile frameworks (SAFe, LeSS, Disciplined Agile) address the challenge of coordinating multiple agile teams working on related products or programs. A single team's sprint ceremonies don't coordinate cross-team dependencies, shared architectures, or program-level releases. Scaled frameworks add coordination mechanisms while attempting to preserve agile principles. They are necessities when team-level agile practices are insufficient for enterprise-scale coordination.

**Why not A:** While financial regulations may influence project governance, they are not the primary driver for adopting scaled agile frameworks. SAFe, LeSS, and similar frameworks emerged from coordination challenges, not regulatory mandates, and they are used across industries well outside financial services. Compliance requirements are addressed through governance overlays, not framework selection.

**Why not B:** Scaled agile frameworks are designed to preserve agile principles at enterprise scale, not to replace agile with waterfall. Frameworks like SAFe explicitly extend iterative, incremental delivery to program and portfolio levels. The goal is more agility across more teams, not a reversion to plan-driven sequential execution.

**Why not D:** Adding ceremonies and documentation is a common criticism of poorly implemented scaled frameworks, but it is not their intended purpose. Well-applied frameworks like LeSS actually minimize overhead by eliminating duplicate roles and unnecessary coordination layers. The value proposition of scaled frameworks is alignment and flow, not additional process weight.