The Confidence Vote is a core element of PI Planning in SAFe. It measures the trust of participants in the feasibility of the PI Objectives and in the ART’s ability to deliver them.
It is conducted in two steps:
1. Team Confidence Vote: Each team votes on their own PI Objectives.
2. ART Confidence Vote: All participants of PI Planning – teams, Business Owners, stakeholders – vote on the overall ART plan.
The typical format is Fist-of-Five:
- 5 fingers = full confidence,
- 1 finger = very low confidence.
Practical Relevance
The Confidence Vote is not a yes/no decision but a collective alignment mechanism at two levels:
- Team Confidence Vote: Checks whether teams have understood their objectives, aligned them internally, and believe dependencies and risks are manageable.
- ART Confidence Vote: All participants express their confidence in the overall ART plan and the realism of the PI Objectives.
Low scores are a signal for unresolved issues and trigger discussion, clarification, ROAMing of risks, or plan adjustments before the PI starts.
Relevance for Organizations
The Confidence Vote creates:
- Transparency & psychological safety – every voice matters equally.
- Early risk management – low scores expose unrealistic goals or unmanaged dependencies.
- Collective commitment – after clarifications, all participants can align and fully commit to the PI Objectives.
Real-World Examples
Automotive (Vehicle Integration) : A team voted “2” due to unclear supplier interfaces. After adding an enabler to resolve this, the optional re-vote rose to “4.”
Telecommunications (Network Modernization): Several participants voted low, doubting a 10-week migration goal. The work was split into two PIs with a milestone in PI 1, raising overall confidence.
Insurance (Compliance Requirements): A team voted “1” because compliance work was missing. After discussion, compliance objectives were added, creating a balanced plan that addressed both business and regulatory needs.
Practical Implementation
How is the Confidence Vote conducted?
- Format: Fist-of-Five (1 = no confidence, 5 = full confidence). Remote: digital tools like Miro, Mural, Jira Align.
- Process: Everyone votes simultaneously to avoid anchoring bias.
- Facilitation: The RTE explains purpose and scale, ensuring psychological safety.
What to pay attention to?
- Low votes are valuable – they reveal risks.
- Always ask low scorers: “What would raise your confidence?”
- Capture results in ROAM risks, enablers, or plan changes.
- After clarifying open issues, teams often conduct a second vote to show increased confidence.
What to avoid?
- Treating the vote as a checkbox exercise.
- Blaming individuals for low scores.
- Management pressure to “only vote high.”
- Overinterpreting single votes – a low score is a signal, not a veto.
CALADE Perspective
- Too often, the Confidence Vote becomes a formality. At CALADE, we position it as a trust and reflection tool:
- Low scores are encouraged and valued.
- Concerns are turned into concrete improvements.
- Outcomes are tied to ROAM risk handling and enabler prioritization.
This way, the Confidence Vote becomes a commitment engine rather than a ritual.
Related Terms
- PI Planning
- PI Objectives
- ROAM risks
- Release Train Engineer (RTE)
- ART Planning Board
- Inspect & Adapt Workshop
← back to list