Debunking Misconceptions: Dispelling the Waterfall vs. Agile Comparison
In today’s fast-paced world of project management, the debate between waterfall and agile methodologies continues to be a topic of discussion. However, it is crucial to differentiate between these two approaches accurately and dispel common misconceptions that can hinder project success. This article aims to address a widely circulated sheet that inaccurately compares waterfall and agile, pointing out the flaws and highlighting the true essence of each methodology.
I saw this sheet reposted in LinkedIn at least 5 times per year.
I can say, 90% of this sheet is wrong and the remaining 10% is correct (which is the white area in this sheet).
Today, I will run through 1 by 1 why this sheet is incorrect and useless. Please remember the picture above or scroll up and down to compare with my topics.
1. Triangles:
In waterfall, if the scope is found to be invalid or requires modification, it can be addressed through a change control process. Similarly, in agile, the notion of fixing the scope is not accurate. In agile, instead of being confined by fixed timeframes, agile focuses on iterative cycles of development and adaptation, allowing for flexibility and continuous improvement. It is important not to confuse the concept of timeboxing. The emphasis in agile is on delivering value incrementally and iteratively, adapting the scope as necessary throughout the project lifecycle.
2. Focus:
While the waterfall approach emphasizes process groups defined in project management standards like the Project Management Professional (PMP), it does not mean that every process is mandatory. Similarly, agile methodologies, such as Scrum, require a framework alongside a focus on people. It is crucial to understand that both methodologies have their specific areas of emphasis.
3. Development:
Contrary to the sheet’s claim, the waterfall model can accommodate short iterations like rolling wave planning. In the sheet agile pare is make sense.
4. Requirement:
Even you plan from the beginning like №1 you can change it through change process and plan can update through project. The sheet incorrectly implies that agile allows updates to the plan before each iteration starts. In reality, agile methodologies follow a sprint-based approach where developers can update the sprint backlog during the sprint itself, as long as it does not harm the sprint goal. Requirements can be adjusted throughout the project, but proper prioritization and planning are essential.
5. Customer involved:
Both waterfall and agile methodologies offer avenues for engaging customers. However, it is important to note that the level and methods of customer involvement may vary based on the specific project and its requirements. The sheet’s oversimplified claim fails to acknowledge this crucial aspect.
6. Feedback:
Waterfall projects can also benefit from feedback if project managers establish effective communication channels. Similarly, agile methodologies require frequent stakeholder engagement to gather feedback. However, tif you engage stakeholders only during Sprint Planning and Sprint Review is not sufficient for obtaining feedback in an agile context.
7. Social aspect:
Both waterfall and agile methodologies recognize the significance of social skills in managing projects and teams. The sheet’s attempt to highlight a difference in this aspect is misleading. Agile methodologies, such as Scrum, also emphasize planning and control through regular inspection.
8. Team organized:
Self-managed teams are possible in both waterfall and agile methodologies. It is important to recognize that team organization is not restricted to a specific approach.
9. Leadership:
Within the Project Management Institute (PMI) framework, various leadership styles exist, and their application depends on the project’s context. Comparing and selecting a specific leadership style is unnecessary. However, in agile methodologies, particularly Scrum, the servant leader approach is commonly preferred for the role of Scrum Master.
10. Change management:
The sheet’s comparison between waterfall and agile regarding change management oversimplifies the reality. In waterfall, changes are compared against the initial scope and prevent scope creep, whereas in agile, changes are evaluated based on their alignment with the sprint goal. The product owner determines whether a new change should be accommodated within the current sprint or added to the backlog.
11. Documents:
The appropriate level of documentation depends on the specific project requirements and constraints, making it futile to compare the two methodologies in this regard. Both waterfall and agile approaches adapt documentation practices accordingly.
12. Communication:
The sheet’s assertion that only specific communication methods apply to each methodology is entirely incorrect. Project teams should employ a variety of communication methods based on the project’s needs and
13. Product delivery:
By using rolling wave planning, rolling wave planning enables frequent product delivery, eliminating the need to wait until the project’s end. In reality, agile methodologies promote delivering valuable increments frequently rather than delivering partial results. Agile recognizes the importance of creating and delivering increments that provide value to the customer throughout the project’s duration.
Conclusion
It is crucial to understand and appreciate the nuances of different project management methodologies such as waterfall and agile. Misconceptions and inaccurate comparisons can hinder effective project execution. By debunking the misconceptions presented in the circulated sheet, we can gain a clearer understanding of the strengths and characteristics of both waterfall and agile methodologies. Remember, choosing the right methodology depends on the project’s unique requirements, constraints, and objectives, and a thorough understanding of each methodology is essential for successful project management.
