How Does Decent Compare to Other Frameworks?
Spoiler alert - it scores pretty high.
Most frameworks look good in theory. But enterprises don’t live in theory.
They face bottlenecks, politics, unclear ownership, dependency chains, and failed pivots.
To evaluate operating models fairly, we define seven enterprise-grade dimensions. Each dimension measures a real-world challenge that models often fail to solve. Each framework is scored on a 1–10 scale (10 = consistently effective, 1 = consistently ineffective).
Defined Evaluation Dimensions
-
Role & Ownership Clarity
Does the model clearly assign accountability for outcomes, or does responsibility diffuse across committees, teams, or functions? -
Execution Speed
Does the model reduce dependency chains, streamline approvals, and allow decisions to be made quickly? -
Adaptability to Change
Can the model support real pivots (not just incremental adjustments) without breaking alignment or requiring excessive negotiation? -
Cross-Enterprise Alignment
Does the model prevent silos and duplication, ensuring that enterprise resources work toward cohesive outcomes? -
Financial & Investment Discipline
Can the model tie resources deployed (capital, time, teams) back to measurable outcomes and ROI? -
Risk & Resilience
Does the model proactively manage and contain risk, or does it leave vulnerabilities hidden until they cascade? -
Ease of Adoption
Can the model be introduced without major disruption? How well does it fit with existing culture, incentives, and practices?
Comparative Scorecard
| Dimension | Product Model | Agile | Lean | SAFe | Decent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Role & Ownership Clarity | 6 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 9 |
| 2. Execution Speed | 6 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 8 |
| 3. Adaptability to Change | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 7 |
| 4. Cross-Enterprise Alignment | 6 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 9 |
| 5. Financial Discipline | 5 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
| 6. Risk & Resilience | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 7. Ease of Adoption | 7 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 6 |
| Total (out of 70) | 42 | 35 | 41 | 41 | 54 |
| --- |
Analysis by Model
Product Operating Model — 42/70
- Strengths: Clear P&L for products, direct customer alignment.
- Weaknesses: Fails to resolve cross-product misalignment; shared services lack accountability.
- Pitfall: Duplication of effort across silos; little incentive to coordinate.
- Verdict: Works for product-first orgs, but misses enterprise-level governance.
Agile (Team-Level) — 35/70
- Strengths: Empowered teams, short cycles, adaptability at micro level.
- Weaknesses: Dependencies kill speed; pivots stall due to backlog realignment and approvals. Financial ROI is opaque.
- Pitfall: “Agile theater” — fast inside teams, but meaningless at enterprise scale.
- Verdict: Fantastic for execution, but inadequate for enterprise alignment or governance.
Lean — 41/70
- Strengths: Excellent efficiency gains in repeatable processes, strong cultural resonance.
- Weaknesses: Limited in strategic or financial governance; risk management is reactive.
- Pitfall: Optimizes within silos but doesn’t resolve cross-enterprise questions.
- Verdict: A valuable complement, but not a standalone enterprise framework.
SAFe (Scaled Agile) — 41/70
- Strengths: Creates structured coordination at scale, introduces portfolio-level visibility.
- Weaknesses: Overly bureaucratic, slows execution, ownership still muddled.
- Pitfall: Heavy ceremony and approvals replicate the very overhead it was meant to reduce.
- Verdict: Good for enterprises needing structure now, but rarely delivers lasting transformation.
Decent Framework™ — 54/70
- Strengths: Highest marks in clarity, alignment, and investment discipline. Execution is faster because authority is structural, not negotiated.
- Weaknesses: Requires more front-loaded effort to implement.
- Pitfall: Emphasis on accountability may lead to resistance, slowing adoption.
- Verdict: Best suited for enterprises seeking structural transformation, with the highest long-term ROI.
Conclusion
- Agile → Still best at empowering teams, but falters on dependencies, approvals, and enterprise pivots.
- Lean → Great for continuous improvement, but narrow in governance.
- Product & SAFe → Reasonable bridges, but plateau quickly in effectiveness.
- Decent → Harder to adopt, but the only model that consistently scores high across clarity, alignment, and financial discipline.
If your bottlenecks are inside teams → Agile/Lean.
If your bottlenecks are between teams, products, and functions → Decent.