Comments on: Waterfall isn’t dead, but it’s the wrong viewpoint

By: Arto Jarvinen

Arto Jarvinen — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:02:27 +0000

What often happens in my experience is that when people see the typical stage-gate project model with project phases and distinct decision points (gates) they map the “phases” of the (technical) development process on this model. So “pre-study” becomes “requirements phase” etc. A more reasonable relationship between the project phases and the (technical) development process was of course already described in e.g. RUP but it’s easy to fall into this linear trap. -Arto

By: rockstar

rockstar — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:02:50 +0000

Thomas, this was very well put:
“Because complete, true, Waterfall can never exist since development is exploration of possibilities and the world around a project is never static. But the time elapsing before you get this feedback is driving your development costs up and the first point of return on your investment into the future.”
That’s just one of the things that make agile better. ”

I’m not so sure waterfall will ever go away, but I do agree that companies which adopt agile will have more efficient IT departments. It all comes down to communication amongst stakeholders. Good post Thomas.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:43:57 +0000

Well, I didn’t say that Waterfall (whatever that might be) doesn’t work. I’ve also done “both”. I said that taking the viewpoint that figuring everything out before starting (the viewpoint of Waterfall), is not the best view point. You will get better development, products, ROI if you take a completely adaptive viewpoint from the on-set. If there are things that you really need to figure out first, adjust your approach to do that. And most project will have some of those things. But don’t start out by thinking that you can avoid the cost of adjustment by thinking long and hard from the beginning.

Of course most Waterfall have a period of feedback and adjustment at the end. They have to. Because complete, true, Waterfall can never exist since development is exploration of possibilities and the world around a project is never static. But the time elapsing before you get this feedback is driving your development costs up and the first point of return on your investment into the future.

I truly believe that there are so much business value benefit in taking the “Agile” viewpoint that companies adopting it will outlive companies that doesn’t. Agile isn’t a single thing and definitely not a silver bullet. So I’m not really talking about the Waterfall/Agile religious war.

It will be the viewpoint that ensuring early, continuos and concrete feedback, and continuously adjusting to it with the lowest possible cost, that will be the competitive advantage.

By: rockstar

rockstar — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:08:49 +0000

Wow. This statement “I strongly believe that the viewpoint that Agile have is going to be, will have to be, the way all developing organisations will have to take in the future.” is waaaaayyyyy over the top. I’ve done both methodologies. Agile is better. But Waterfall also works. To say it doesn’t work is either naive or misleading. The truth of the matter is that when doing Waterfall, there was still a period of feedback and adjustment involved. Unfortunately it was at the end instead of being embraced up front. But to say Waterfall is wrong, doesn’t work, or will be a thing of the past is ridiculous.

By: Joakim

Joakim — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:25:01 +0000

Thanks for a good post, Thomas! This sentence was simply awesome: “It is the avoidance of this cost by reducing it that is Agile, and by avoiding it by avoiding the adjustment that is Waterfall.”