What does an Epic mean to us? Fewer layers, more clarity.

The discussion behind the label

In a project where we work with SAFe, a discussion arose about what an Epic means to us. We agreed on a direction: an Epic delivers direct business value or supports the technical or architectural foundation. That provides a starting point, but raises another question: when does dividing work into Features and Capabilities help, and when does it mainly add administration?

That discussion prompted this article. The decision process below is a proposal, not an account of steps the project has already taken. The examples are fictional too.

Value explains why; scale determines the level

SAFe distinguishes Business Epics, focused on direct customer value, from Enabler Epics, which support future business or technical needs. An Epic involves substantial change, an investment decision and an expectation that can be tested. The official description connects it to portfolio oversight, a Lean business case and a minimum viable product (MVP). [1]

Simply “delivering value” is therefore insufficient: a small improvement can be valuable too. Nor is every technical task an Enabler Epic. SAFe allows enablers at different backlog levels. A limited test-environment adjustment does not need to become a strategic initiative. [2]

A useful local working definition might be: an Epic describes a coherent change with an explicit intended outcome, either directly for users or through a necessary technical improvement. Also agree what scale, uncertainty or decision authority justifies this level. Document how your definition maps to the official SAFe meaning.

How to reach a shared decision

Start with real backlog examples and discuss them with business representatives, the Product Owner, architecture, development and Quality Engineering. Include user functionality, maintenance and technical renewal. For each example, ask: who benefits, what problem are we solving, what uncertainty are we investigating and who decides on the investment?

Consider a fictional initiative to process applications faster. “Build a new screen” describes a solution. “Staff need to re-enter information less often” describes an expected improvement. Agree how to investigate that expectation, perhaps with a small user group and observation of the work process.

The same discipline applies to technical foundations. “Modernise the architecture” is too broad. “Create a shared authorisation service so new services can apply the same access rules” makes the connection to future work concrete. Identify the risk of doing nothing and the smallest useful step. A technical delivery does not yet prove that the intended effect has been achieved.

Omitting Capabilities differs from omitting Features

A Feature connects a stakeholder need to functionality that an Agile Release Train (ART) can deliver within a Planning Interval (PI). A Capability describes a larger scope, often spanning multiple ARTs. These levels answer different coordination questions. [3]

Essential SAFe already works with Features and Stories; not every setup needs a separate Capability layer. Omitting Capabilities can therefore fit the chosen SAFe configuration without being a deviation. Removing Features altogether is different: it changes a usual connection between ART planning and team delivery. [4]

When fewer layers may help

A local simplification to Epics and Stories may be worth investigating when one team manages a clearly bounded product, has few external dependencies and the intermediate layer supports no distinct decision. The same applies when Epic and Feature consistently share the same description, owner and status. Duplicate records can consume discussion time without adding insight.

That is a reason to experiment, not proof that Features are unnecessary. Perhaps the Epics are defined too narrowly or the Feature level is being used poorly. Do more than change the ticket schema: specify where priorities, acceptance, PI objectives and dependencies will be visible instead. If a local “Epic” effectively replaces a Feature, make that translation explicit for other teams.

Keep the intermediate layer when several teams must jointly deliver a useful outcome, when separate deliveries need prioritisation or when dependencies would disappear into long lists of Stories. Contractual agreements and organisation-wide reporting can also justify keeping the existing structure. Fewer labels must not mean less clarity about responsibilities.

Make the working method testable too

Record the decision briefly: what problem does the current structure cause, what are we removing, which agreements take over its function and when will we evaluate? Over one PI, for example, compare refinement effort, decision waiting time, dependency visibility and the ability to accept work independently. Decide beforehand when to reverse the simplification.

Quality Engineering helps by asking for evidence from the initiative onward: which expectation must hold, what risk needs attention and what feedback would change our decision? User functionality and technical improvements both need acceptance criteria, quality attributes and clear ownership.

A well-chosen Epic explains why a change is needed and how we will learn whether it works. Then use the levels that help deliver that change in a controlled way. Describe a local simplification as exactly that, so everyone uses the same meaning and coordination with the wider organisation remains intact.