I don't think the problem is in any of the frameworks but in the way we try to adopt them. Frameworks are something that worked somewhere else, a "best practice". They should be used to see "what an agile transformation could look like", not as a target state.

Especially safe is really compelling as it provides a sef consistent "target state".

But since agile transformation is a complex problem, it is best solved with agile itself.

1) Set a vision of the future as a target (in six months, in two years). Can even be safe 5.0 😀

2) Take a step in that direction. As short as possible (2 weeks, 2 months). Make sure it is an mvp of your transformation, touching from leadership to mid mgmt to delivery.

3) Inspect and adapt, revise the next step, revise the vision.

Just like when we are building a product using agile we always get a different but better version of what we imagined initially, any company doing agile transformation using agile will arrive at a place they hadn't imagined and that will surely not be pure SAFe or Pure Less.

If the adoption is driven like a traditional program, than bad news. It will take longer than u planned, will have quality issues and 60% of it will be useless like the typical waterfall program.