Though I am an adept of Agile methodologies since 1999, I do recommend Waterfall, when it is better for your organization/project. It is a nice saying: "Choose the vehicle which fits your culture!"
But probably we should have a look over these 2 sets of methodologies, Waterfall vs. Agile, what they are, what are their advantages and disadvantages and when should we use one or the other.
Following this path of thinking, I believe that it may be a good idea to point you to a very clear article, with these topics. Please read here the full article.
17 Comments
Axel Vanhooren
1/15/2016 02:57:54 pm
Does the waterfall methodology exist? I never saw it.
Reply
Karthikesh
1/17/2016 08:34:15 am
I can't agree with you more Axel!
Reply
Alex, I am 100% in agreement with you. There is no contradiction between the two approaches - agile and waterfall. Nothing, if not the personalities involved and the project management, prevents project teams to be collaborative in a waterfall. There is no hard & fast rule as you stated that one phase cannot start before everything is finished in previous phase. In fact the opposite happens all the time. Big-bang vs drip implementation - that's not a new concept. I see very little novelty in agile practices - just new language - such as 'definition of done' instead of 'acceptance criteria' etc etc.
Reply
Ahmad
1/18/2016 11:27:14 pm
Thanks Axel, you have a point, but I didn't agree with you.
Reply
Fred
3/11/2016 02:14:51 pm
Hi axel
Reply
Fredrik
3/12/2016 03:47:36 am
Although not an expert on waterfall, I do agree with a lot in Axels's comments, so won't comment on that further. However, I strongly disagree with the claim that agile values speed before quality, where I also think you contradict yourself, as you correctly say that a great advantage with agile is testing early in the project.
Reply
Axel
10/18/2017 02:39:22 am
In waterfall-type projects, the analysts collaborate with the business stakeholders. However the tendency exists (spitefully) to collaborate only later with the developers.
Reply
Scott
4/8/2016 04:30:58 pm
Re: the statement:
Reply
4/8/2016 11:32:13 pm
I appreciate your points, Scott. Thank you for sharing them.
Reply
Prashad Lodhia
11/15/2016 03:34:48 am
I often use a hybrid approach where you do a number of mini-waterfalls where you still analyse, design, develop, test, but you repeat this a number of times so that changing business needs can be accepted. Also any flaws in the ways of working or technical approach are identified much earlier and can be resolved in the earlier cycles.
Reply
11/15/2016 08:51:17 am
PRASHAD LODHIA, I can understand this approach. It is better than traditional way (Waterfall), though Agile is much more than a set of mini-waterfalls.
Reply
Jeff Robinson
12/27/2017 04:52:46 pm
My Agile / Waterfall experience has been on software projects. Have you used Agile for non-software projects?. The ability to use Agile methodology has been governed most by the developers ability/comfort and if authoritative business representatives work with them regularly.
Reply
12/28/2017 07:47:03 am
Hi Jeff,
Reply
Pablo
4/19/2018 09:54:26 am
I still think that key differences between the two methodologies relies in the three key constraints: scope, cost (or budget) and time. In waterfall you plan and estimate according to the scope and define a baseline, and then derive the cost, but in agile (i.e. scrum) you will define your scope based on how much money you would have and the time you have until the end of the project, so you can move between those boundaries.
Reply
4/19/2018 10:23:16 am
Thank you for your comment, PABLO. Valuable opinion!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
ArticlesCategories
All
Archives
October 2016
SearchKeep up to date
|