What result comes from traditional 'at the end' quality and compliance?

The result of traditional ‘at the end’ quality and compliance is that it leads to missed opportunities for iterative compliance assessment1. This means that the quality and compliance activities are deferred until the end of the development cycle, when the solution is already built and ready for testing. This approach increases the risk of finding defects and non-compliances late in the process, which can cause delays, rework, and waste2. It also prevents the teams from getting early feedback and validation from the compliance authorities, which can help them adjust and improve their work incrementally3. By applying the SAFe principle of building incrementally with fast, integrated learning cycles, the teams can integrate quality and compliance into their regular flow of work and deliver solutions that meet the regulatory and industry standards more efficiently and effectively4.

1: Government - Building in Quality and Compliance - Scaled Agile Framework 2: Quality vs. Compliance: What is the difference and what are the common pitfalls? - Honeywell 3: Achieving Regulatory and Industry Standards Compliance with the Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®) 4: Principle #6 – Visualize and limit WIP, reduce batch sizes, and manage queue lengths - Scaled Agile Framework