As we enter twenty years since Agile was introduced, Agile is typically a preferred choice for Project Management. Agile has allowed many organizations to quickly drop Waterfall style techniques with good reason. There's just one problem; when teams do not entirely settle for the shift; they usually have a mix between both approaches to managing projects called Wagile.
Waterfall has several advantages that Agile does not touch. However, it is generally better than trying to blend Waterfall with half-cooked Agile because confusion usually arises.
To explore this concept in greater detail, check out our Agile and Waterfall methodologies podcast on our YouTube channel.
In dealing with projects, waterfall development is an easy way to go. This happens by following a progression in which everything is always done in an order. This means that teams are always planning for the subsequent stage and its goals before they can move on with the implementation of the current phase so that the projects may be pursued steadily. The disadvantage attached is that you may have to start everything from scratch in case there is a need to go back to the previous phase.
The Waterfall method is already 50 years old and has spurred many other methodologies. Its structure has even been borrowed from the software development life cycle.
The beginning involves gathering requirements in order to discover what your product needs to do and why it is important to the users. In this phase remember to record everything that you learn.
Afterward, the solution is designed based on the results of your research. It is here that you come up with – or rather; try to come up with – the structure or the platform that can sustain your venture. By now you may also have to point out what exactly is needed in terms of either hardware or software.
Next , there comes the assembly stage, where different features of the product are created one after another and then put together to make one functional device. Following this would be a testing phase before finally launching the software product into the market so as not only to guarantee its productivity but also safety through performance testing as well as security audits done whenever there is a need due to new bugs or threats that emerge over time.
This way too much time could be utilized during this process isn’t wasted because automation is a great aid in this case.
Ultimately the product is released and managed, delivered to users, and periodically updated to retain its usefulness and security.
In-depth planning: With clear project requirements from your developers, the early planning of the Waterfall system aids them to concentrate on definite targets.
Reliable oversight: Ideal for large businesses and government customers who are required to comply with strict laws. Each stage allows for conformity and guarantees security standards are upheld.
Cost control: Budgeting is easier to follow when you have a purpose because Agile is more flexible in terms of structure and transparency, which makes it easier to stick to.
Less coordination: Teams work in a fixed order so that you can schedule just one team at a time. You don’t have to manage several developers concurrently.
Minimal confusion: In contrast with agile, less confusion comes with waterfall being mature hence saving on the cost of orientation for the employees. Follow-up questions for potential recruits may need to be more precise so as to ensure they understand it better.
Waterfall has its downsides, especially for large projects with changing requirements:
Inflexibility: Doesn't handle changes in features or stakeholder expectations well, making it a poor fit for medium-to-large projects where the scope might change.
Lack of innovation: Works best for well-defined projects with clear goals. Not ideal for innovative work where the end goal is uncertain.
Dependency on stable architecture: Needs a stable foundation to succeed, so it struggles with digital projects where the underlying architecture is constantly evolving.
It is close to 20 years since Agile was born as a reaction to waterfall weaknesses which limit the tool. Programmers needed to develop software that could change as needed. They choose to go for Agile because it represents a more adaptable approach that gives a chance of updated technology implementation throughout the entire development lifecycle along with stakeholders’ feedback than Waterfall does.
Rather than following a strict linear sequence, agile projects involve different teams who concurrently work on different parts of the project through short-term development cycles known as sprints which are used for course corrections. This is a method with high productivity potential but has certain requirements:
Agile brings several key benefits to the table:
Adaptability: To adjust to project changes, Agile teams can easily switch between sprints.
Faster starts: Developers can begin laying the groundwork and changing it as they progress generating less of a plan in advance.
Stakeholder support: Agile involves the stakeholders in the development process by leveraging their knowledge and expertise for assistance during production.
Continuous deployment: Agile teams, rather than delivering projects as one big piece, execute big projects in chunks, which makes it easier to deliver and integrate with methods such as DevOps and SecDevOps.
Early problem detection: Helping to identify and address issues before they escalate, agile teams early in the project lifecycle test the security and performance.
Agile’s aptitude is to foster creativity; still, when tasks are left wide open, they could continue indefinitely and carry away from what was initially planned. This leads to a certain reputation for Agile. Here are some shocking facts to consider:
Inflexibility during sprints: Always flexible as it is, Agile could be difficult and costly to change priorities during a sprint.
Complex organization: To achieve agility it is essential that members coordinate well within their groups to avoid confusion between different tasks or actions taken along the way as this may confuse operations that may in turn lead to increased training expenses due to numerous consultations involved in a general initiation.
Higher overhead: Agile involves daily meetings and frequent planning sessions, making it harder to set clear timelines and budgets upfront.
Transition problems: Teams transitioning from Waterfall to Agile often fall into their previous norms, generating a disorganized partnership called “Wagile,” which can become an excess headache.
Agility scores over Waterfall due to its flexibility. In comparison to Waterfall’s inflexibility, Agility shows a dynamic side towards development.
This enables teams to change requirements on the go, work on separate parts simultaneously, and have close collaborations with stakeholders. Therefore, it can be said that Agility suits this purpose best:
Projects needing flexible scope that could involve several people. Projects that need innovation with no clarity about final products. Digital projects that change their structure during their formation.
Agile is your best bet if you require flexibility and constant growth in your project. It is characterized by dynamic requirements that are always in flux as well as engaged stakeholders of any kind; in such scenarios, this approach works perfectly fine.
Choose the method that aligns with your project’s unique needs and watch your team thrive! On the other hand, Waterfall will be appropriate for you, if your project does well in a stable form.
