Empower your teams to deliver value in the SAFe enterprise
Making changes in your organization requires the participation of everybody on your team. Successful Agile Release Trains (ART) are made up of teams that collaborate effectively. Build the skills you need to become a high-performing team member and help get your team ready to participate and flourish in your company’s ART.
Build the skills needed to become a high-performing team member of an Agile Release Train (ART)—and learn how to collaborate effectively with other teams. Become a SAFe® Practitioner (SP) with the SAFe for Teams training!
This two-day SAFe for Teams course will give you an in-depth understanding of the ART, how it delivers value, and what you can do to effectively perform your role using Scrum, Kanban, and Extreme Programming (XP).
You will also learn how to write Stories and break down Features, plan and execute Iterations, and plan Program Increments. Finally, the program will teach you about the continuous delivery pipeline and DevOps culture, how to effectively integrate with other teams in the program, and what it takes to continuously improve the train.
The SAFe for Teams training teaches you everything you need to know to for your team’s effective contribution to the ART and its overall improvement. After taking the SAFe 4 Practitioner exam, you’ll certify as a SAFe Practitioner (SP).
Our SAFe for Teams courses are taught by one or two SPCs (SAFe Program Consultants) or even SPCTs (SAFe Program Consultant Trainers). These inspiring trainers are consultants who are active in the field and have extensive SAFe experience in training and implementing SAFe at large organizations.
During this two-day course you will learn to:
- Apply SAFe for Teams to scale Lean and Agile development in your enterprise
- Know your team and its role on the Agile Release Train
- Know all other teams on the train, their roles, and the dependencies between the teams
- Plan iterations
- Execute iterations and demonstrate value
- Plan Program Increments
- Integrate and work with other teams on the train
When you pass the SAFe 4 Practitioner exam you’ll receive a SAFe Practitioner certificate, with a digital badge to promote your accomplishment online. A one-year certified membership as a SAFe Practitioner is also included, granting you access to the SP Community of Practice.
We’ll provide you with a SAFe Practitioner certification usage guide with SP certification marks as well as access to a variety of learning resources to support certified professionals during their SAFe journey.
Didn’t pass the exam? You can try again. Each new attempt comes with a fixed fee.
Get to know the basic principles of Scaling Agile within a few minutes!
Two-day training program
The SAFe for Teams course is a two-day training program. Each course day starts at 9:00 and ends at 17:00, and includes a complimentary lunch and an afternoon break.
During the program, we’ll go into the following topics:
- Introducing the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe)
- Building an Agile Team
- Planning the Iteration
- Executing the Iteration
- Executing the Program Increment
Everyone is welcome to attend the course, regardless of role or experience. For those who intend to take the SAFe® Practitioner (SP) certification exam, the following prerequisites are highly recommended:
- Familiarity with Agile concepts and principles;
- Awareness of Scrum, Kanban, and XP;
- Working knowledge of software and hardware development processes.
After the training program, the trainer will send the participant’s details to the Scaled Academy (the accreditation organization). You’ll then receive three emails from the Scaled Academy:
- a welcome email that you can use to create your profile;
- a (mandatory) survey about the program where you can provide feedback;
- an email with a link to the exam, including instructions on how the exam works.
- Exam name – SAFe Practitioner Exam
- Exam format – Multiple choice, Multiple select
- Exam delivery – Web-based (single-browser), closed book, no outside assistance, timed.
- Exam access – Candidates can access the exam within the SAFe Community Platform upon completion of the SAFe 4 Practitioner course.
- Exam duration – Once the exam begins, candidates have 90 minutes (1.5 hours) to complete the exam.
- Number of questions – 45. Some questions are worth more points than others. For example: A question where you select 3 out of 4 options is worth more points than a true or false question.
- Passing score – 35 out of 45 (78% pass rate)
- Language – English
- Exam cost – The first attempt is included as part of the course registration fee, if the exam is taken within 30 days of course and completed before midnight on the last day. Each retake attempt costs $50.
- Retake policy – A second attempt on the exam (first retake) can be done immediately after the first attempt. The third attempt requires a 10-day wait. A fourth attempt requires a 30-day wait. Contact email@example.com for any questions about the retake policy.
After the exam, your profile will automatically be updated when you’ve passed. The Scaled Agile Academy will inform you of this. You’ll then have access to the private online community and are able to make your profile public within the Scaled Agile community. Until that moment, only you have the privilege to see your certification.
Professional Development Units (PDUs) and Scrum Education Units (SEUs)
Attending this course means that you may be eligible to apply for 15 Continuing Education – Strategic PDUs toward your continuing education requirements with the Project Management Institute (PMI) for PMP and PMI-ACP certifications.
You may also be eligible to apply for SEUs under category C, toward earning or renewing your CSP through Scrum Alliance.
A successful Agile Release Train (ART) is only as good as the teams it’s made up of. The SAFe for Teams course is intended for everyone who wants to scale up their team to be an effective contributor.
After completing this training program you’ll be able to get your team ready for the ART and collaborate effectively with other teams.
Course attendees typically include:
- Period 2 days
- Maximum number of participants:42
- Lunch included:Yes
- Payment methods:Invoice, iDEAL, CreditCard
Adam Lichnovský - Rating: 8/10
καὶ νῦν περὶ ἀρετῆς ὃ ἔστιν ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ οἶδα, σὺ μέντοι ἴσως πρότερον μὲν ᾔδησθα πρὶν ἐμοῦ ἅψασθαι, νῦν μέντοι ὅμοιος εἶ οὐκ εἰδότι.
Michal Vlha - Rating: 10/10
Clear explanation of the topic, useful examples and usage of case studies in the learning process
Ivana Kočová - Rating: 10/10
The trainer provided all the information we needed to become acquainted with SAfe and its practices and answered most of the questions we had. The rest of the questions were above the scope of the training.
Daniel Frydenlund - Rating: 10/10
Rixt was very good prepared and adapted well to all our learning goals. Excellence!
Guillermo Hernandez Contreras - Rating: 9/10
It was a very active and engaged program though some engineers might see the AGILE methodology and not understand it if a previous knowledge of V model development is available (at least from my experience)
Attila Cakir - Rating: 7/10
This was very generic, not directly covering the ASML specific topics.
Jan-Dirk van der Horst - Rating: 8/10
I liked that the trainer did not just present slide after slide, but instead chose a more interactive approach.
Mari Mnatsakanyan - Rating: 6/10
The course was will structured and interactive, which is a plus. What I missed in this course was how it is going to work for my company. This was not addressed because the tutor was not familiar with my company culture and all examples we were given were from other companies. I am aware that SAFe has already been applied in my company and I would be interested to hear about the experiences they had.
Mohamed Badr - Rating: 7/10
The course was very useful but it the huge amount of information and content is squeezed into 2 days only. I think this course should have been extended to cover the rest of the material and subjects.
Willem Beeker - Rating: 8/10
The trainer explained it very well. The location was a bit crowded. The exercises were nice and helped the team to be aware of what potential pitfalls there are.
Nick Webber - Rating: 8/10
Probably due to ASML choice but some materials seemed to be rushed. The course book seemed like a 3-4 day course, but it was fit into two days.
Wim Bor - Rating: 8/10
Like: It was not a generic SAFe training but adapted to ASML environment Not like: Second day exercise did not add value. Most of the time was spend on getting domain knowledge. not on applying SAFe. Proposal to reduce scope and use ASML example.
Peter Barna - Rating: 9/10
Good course, useful exercise, but short due to time limitation
Vasudeva Nayak - Rating: 7/10
General introduction to SAFe was done very well. However how the SAFe was tailored specifically to ASML was not that clearly explained.
Richard Claassen - Rating: 7/10
The assignments to investigate and organize are too complicated and to big to handle. It takes a few hours before you understand the meaning and the way too act. The rocket build was fun and showed more the way of work for real life.
Ali Ali - Rating: 8/10
The course was good, maybe it was a little bit too many participants.
Luca Cisotto - Rating: 6/10
The trainers the Metrology and Control teams were assigned to didn't know almost anything about how we as EUV Source Laser are going to implement SAFe for Teams; I believe this had a considerable impact on our understanding of the process. Also, We kept receiving a lot of material while the trainers were saying "this does not apply to do you and it's anyway too complicated", if that was truly the case, I don't see why I was given the material in the first place.
Garrett Guildea - Rating: 7/10
The practical aspect was good in explaining the theory. i just felt that the examples should be made a bit simpler for the exercise so that people could get a better understanding of how to do a PI event. Trainers were good on the content. Not too much theory, good balance. Location was good also.
DucVan Nguyen - Rating: 7/10
What I like: well organized in general, conveyed the message of the agile way of working, give a nice example with the satellite making , What can be improved: This training is extremely long compared to the amount of important message/information they want to convey to the audience. I think 1 day is good enough. - There are so many "new/strange" terms to describe or used in the agile framework and need to have clear explanation and examples
Patrick Thomassen - Rating: 9/10
Liked the one day session, was interesting and not too long. Trainer was good and gave good examples.
Jan Cowe - Rating: 8/10
Positive: the trainer was very good, explained it very well and could give an answer on all the questions related to the process. Despite the large group he was able to keep there attention. Negative: Large group/relative small room, especially during the PI-event. During this event it was also difficult to get started with the story's which where part of the training material. Visual management wasn't well explained. (which colors could be used for which story/issue, green=story, yellow= …, orange= …, …)
Marielle van Cauteren - Rating: 6/10
+ Enthusiastic trainer - not enough time to process all new definitions and abbreviations - exercise not clearly explained - exercises to far from reality of our project - missing reference to training agenda and related training objectives during training - too big group for training
Rafael Quintanilla - Rating: 6/10
I would have liked presentations more tailored to our organization. Furthermore, not all the trainers have were as clear introducing the new concepts of Agile.
Adrian Lara-Quintanilla - Rating: 9/10
Nice games :-). The trainer was FANTASTIC explaining everything
Frank Knipmeijer - Rating: 8/10
Very enthusiastic and knowledgably trainer.
Dries Vandenberk - Rating: 7/10
I liked the division between theory and exercise. I would like that roles get explained the first day.
Laurens van Lieshout - Rating: 8/10
like the real examples
Omar Alejandro Rodriguez Rosas - Rating: 9/10
The course was very well presented, but the information did not add too much to the knowledge I gathered actually working on a SAFe environment
Nenad Grujic - Rating: 8/10
Good side: opened discussions, prioritizing to the needs of Asml employees. Improvement can be that the examples are closer to Asml practice (it's not easy, of course).
Pablo de Oliveira - Rating: 9/10
My experience was positive, particularly in terms of content, trainers and location. Since this is a new methodology being applied at ASML, the responsibility of the roles is still not entirely clear for me.
Fatemeh Jahani Bahnamiri - Rating: 8/10
the content was very helpful and the trainer was really good
Ramachandran Hariharasubramanian - Rating: 9/10
The session was interactive and explained clearly by the trainer. The presentation and the sessions were tailored according to the participants.
Bert Dijken - Rating: 10/10
well given could, practices that perfectly well illustrating how it should work clear slides
Ankit Agrawal - Rating: 6/10
The start point of the training should start with a motivation. Why the training is needed? instead of giving a general introduction. Since the WOW in ASML id different within different teams and to adapt to something new takes time and understanding
Akhil Ambuj - Rating: 8/10
Pros: - Nice presentations and explanation of the Framework and how it works. - Trainer was quite good in presenting the course content. Cons: - Lack of rationale explaining why is it better than our current way of working. - Less interactive sessions. - In 3/4 of the entire course, nothing was new for the Software team. May be SW team would be invited only for the last part of the training.
Dmitriy Vasilev - Rating: 7/10
The training is good, but I wasn't convinced that the methodology described is what our company needs.
Mario Navacerrada - Rating: 10/10
Just one word: R-O-C-K-E-T-S
Kein-Wai Cheung - Rating: 10/10
As it was the second time I did take part in this course, I founded it quite more enjoyable as I understand faster the ideas and advice given by the teacher. Also, the exercises were quite engaging and collaborative.
Meli Mundine - Rating: 9/10
Appreciated your time, explanation and exercices to well help us understanding the agile concept
Remco Melius - Rating: 7/10
Good active presentation. Not only sitting and listening, but also actively presenting our thoughts/ideas during the sessions
Venumadhav Thaduri - Rating: 10/10
Dave Kusters - Rating: 8/10
The 2 days were perfect. Great teacher and perfect flow.
Mario Alberto Rivera - Rating: 8/10
The class assumes everybody is a software developer, and we are not! It should be adapted for nonsoftware developers; otherwise, it is not easy to understand and keep up with the class pace
Gary Mclntosh - Rating: 9/10
I was skeptical at first , but with the added training and team building assignments it eased my fears.
Daoud Gueye - Rating: 8/10
Instructor was good, but don't think he was ready to adapt the course to our current line of business
Jean Malpas - Rating: 6/10
interesting, well explained, good interaction with the trainer but too many attendees
Sally Garcia - Rating: 6/10
Conor Bryson - Rating: 8/10
The trainer was very patient with the team and informative on key questions. He got a lot into the 2 days training to help us understand SAFe.
Maria Bell - Rating: 10/10
I really enjoyed the activities and games to break up the structure of the class.
Martin Lšnnqvist - Rating: 8/10
As the level of knowledge differed so much it was hard to have a good level that caught everyones needs. For me that has been part of a few PI Plannings it was good to get more insight in the SAFe methodology.