Structural Analysis

How Triad Flow™ Compares

An analytical — not adversarial — comparison of enterprise delivery frameworks. Each was designed for specific contexts. This analysis examines structural differences.

Dimension-by-Dimension

Framework comparison grid

Seven structural dimensions examined across four frameworks. Brief characterizations, not comprehensive evaluations.

Dimension
Scrum
SAFe
Spotify Model
Triad Flow™
Ownership Structure
Product Owner sets priorities; team self-organizes; Scrum Master facilitates. Authority distributed across roles.
Multiple layers — Product Owner, Product Manager, Solution Manager, Release Train Engineer. Authority distributed across hierarchy.
Squads have autonomy; Chapters provide technical alignment; Tribes coordinate. Informal authority patterns.
Three co-equal domains (Driver, Maker, Guardian) with complete decision authority at point of execution. No external approvals needed.
Execution Cadence
Fixed-length sprints (1–4 weeks). Time-boxed regardless of work state.
Program Increments (8–12 weeks) containing sprint iterations. Multi-level cadence synchronization.
Teams choose their own cadence. No prescribed iteration structure.
Flow cycles governed by readiness, not calendar. Work ships when ready — could be days or weeks.
Governance Model
Sprint Review as informal governance checkpoint. No formal risk or compliance integration.
Formal governance through Inspect & Adapt, architectural runway reviews, and compliance milestones.
Minimal formal governance. Relies on cultural alignment and trust.
Guardian embeds governance at execution point. Standards replace gates. Escalation only for exceptions.
Scaling Approach
Scrum of Scrums for coordination. Limited scaling guidance in core framework.
Extensive scaling apparatus — ARTs, Solution Trains, Portfolio layer. Adds organizational layers.
Matrix of Squads, Tribes, Chapters, Guilds. Scales through cultural practices.
Custodian, Orchestrator, Steward of Flow protect simplicity. Scales through structural integrity, not additional layers.
Ceremony Load
Daily Standup, Sprint Planning, Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospective. Four required ceremonies per sprint.
All Scrum ceremonies plus PI Planning, Inspect & Adapt, System Demos, Scrum of Scrums. Heavy ceremony overhead.
Minimal prescribed ceremonies. Teams self-determine meeting cadence.
Minimal ceremonies — completion signals, blockage escalation, risk surfacing. Structure provides the confidence that ceremonies attempt to create.
Measurement
Velocity (story points per sprint). Measures team-level throughput in estimated units.
Velocity, Program Predictability, Lean Portfolio metrics. Multi-level measurement hierarchy.
Health checks, squad satisfaction. Qualitative and team-focused.
Cycle time, lead time, throughput, outcome metrics. Measures flow and customer impact, not activity.
AI Readiness
No specific accommodation. Sprint structure persists regardless of implementation speed changes.
AI integration guidance added in later versions. Framework structure unchanged.
Flexible enough to accommodate but no structural adaptation.
Explicitly designed for AI-native execution where implementation cost approaches zero and the bottleneck shifts to judgment and governance.

Key Differentiators

What makes Triad Flow™ structurally different

Three fundamental differences that distinguish Triad Flow™ from process-based frameworks.

01

Structural vs. Process

Most frameworks optimize process — better ceremonies, refined backlogs, improved estimation. Triad Flow™ addresses the underlying structure: how authority, ownership, and accountability are distributed. Process follows structure; when structure is sound, less process is required.

02

Embedded vs. External Governance

Traditional frameworks position governance as sequential gates — external review points where work pauses for approval. The Guardian embeds governance at the point of execution. Risk assessment happens alongside building, not after it. The result is governance that enables rather than constrains.

03

Designed for AI-Native

When AI makes building nearly free, the bottleneck shifts permanently to judgment, governance, and coordination. Triad Flow™ is designed for this reality — where the constraint is not implementation capacity but the organizational ability to direct, assess, and release work effectively.

A note on this comparison

This comparison is analytical, not adversarial. Each framework was designed for specific contexts and constraints. Scrum excels for small, co-located teams. SAFe provides organizational structure for enterprises requiring coordination visibility. The Spotify Model prioritizes autonomy and culture. Triad Flow™ addresses the structural causes of delivery friction at enterprise scale.

Go deeper

Explore how the model works in detail, or read the research and publications behind the framework.

Read the Process → View Publications