A new permits-plan-review feature team has a relatively stable Feature backlog and benefits from iteration goals, but a director says they should “upgrade” to Kanban because it is more advanced. What should the SM/TC coach?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Kanban is not a black belt you award after Scrum. A permits feature team with a stable backlog and useful iteration goals is already in a good SAFe Scrum neighborhood. Upgrade talk is prestige, not flow.
Full Explanation
A new permits-plan-review feature team with a relatively stable Feature backlog and useful iteration goals should stay with SAFe Scrum when the work fits; Kanban is a context choice, not a promotion. Directors who say the team should "upgrade" to Kanban are talking prestige, not flow. Many ART teams reasonably use Scrum when they can plan a coherent iteration goal against a stable backlog.
Switching to Team Kanban immediately so the team looks more mature fails because optics are not a method-fit criterion. Keeping Scrum only until they miss a PI Objective, then "promoting" them to Kanban fails because treating Kanban as a penalty or badge after a miss ignores context. Alternating Scrum and Kanban every iteration fails because churn prevents either method from stabilizing learning.
Exam caveat: SASM wants coaches who select methods from work characteristics, not from a maturity hierarchy. Operational check: confirm the permits team's backlog stability and iteration-goal usefulness, keep Scrum while that fit holds, educate the director that Kanban is for different arrival patterns, and revisit method only when evidence of misfit appears. Coaches should document the permits team's current fit evidence so prestige arguments can be answered with flow data rather than opinion.