Benefits have been lower. However, this is (presumably) due to SAFe. The focus of the training (leading safe) is on "informing" instead of "enabling". Sooo many concepts, models, frameworks are addressed or named. This makes it impossible to empower at all. I think that's a shame. My feedback to SAFE would be to choose only 20% of the different topics but to enable an exercise for each topic. Otherwise, there is only an overview of what is included in SAFe. And that is a collection of all good practices - well known to the experienced agilist. For every newbie agilist (probably) not understandable due to 2 slides (but you have only heard the topic once).
However, I thought all the exercises we did were good. I would like more of that.
Regarding the tool, I also think that Miro would offer a better experience.
Delivery of the trainer was great. Participant participation was very low. I missed the beginning, maybe you could invest more in building trust in the group to motivate the participants to participate more actively.
In general, I always recommend the 4C model from "Training from the Back of the Room" for the modular structure of a training course.
Thank you very much for 2 very informative days. I had a lot of fun and learned a lot. :)
Show original
Translation
Yes, I absolutely feel the feedback. And I've already looked at where we go deeper. Usually it's even more tasks and even more high level. And in my trainings there is always 4C :-)
I'm glad you were still able to take something away with you!
If you have any questions, you know where and how to find me!