Why the waterfall model does not work
Again and again I have met managers and software engineers who tried to convince me that agile processes while being appropriate for somebody else's project were simply not applicable to their problem contexts for several reasons. They came up with rather lame reasons like being used to waterfall models or the claim that agile processes do only work for small teams. Especially I am enjoying people's reaction when I am talking about really huge projects I had been involved and which followed the Scrum method.
From my viewpoint the question shouldn't be whether to use agile development processes instead of a waterfall approach. I would rather suggest to let all those waterfall addicted prove why they consider waterfall approaches more suitable in terms of a concrete project.
It is true that an agile method is not superior in planning projects. Even in an agile context you will need to estimate resources, budgets, or time-frames in advance. But in contrast to a waterfall approach you get an early feedback if your initial planing proves to be plain wrong: If after the third iteration you got an substantial delay you are able to react with appropriate countermeasures. In a waterfall model the old saying is that while 80% of the project have been completed, you still need to address the remaining 80%. You may be doomed to fail at the beginning of the project but a waterfall model lets you live with this illusion till the sad end. An agile method on the other hand just provides a whole range of safety nets. You may fall but contact with ground usually is much smoother.
Let me take it the other way round. What are the preconditions to make a waterfall model succeed?
- All requirements are available at project start and will remain unchanged.
- All of the requirements are consistent and complete.
- No errors will be introduced in any phase of software development.
- Likewise, all tools, legacy components, infrastructure parts fully adhere to their specifications and, of course, are consistent and complete themselves.
- All stakeholders start with a full understanding of the problem domain. Developers, testers, architects also have a full understanding of the solution domain.
- There will be no misunderstandings in any communication between stakeholders.
Obviously, most of these preconditions never hold in any real-life project. We have to cope with error and failure. In agile approaches, the principle of piecemeal growth helps to master complexity. Safety nets such as test-driven development or reviews enable quick detection of potential problems. Means like refactoring support us in addressing the problems we detect and to embrace change. Agile communication and customer participation help in keeping all stakeholders synchronized.
Two of the main principles of agile engineering might be called "embrace change" and "learning from failure".
And if we look at nature, evolution basically also represents an agile approach. For all creationists: evolution does not necessarily rule out that there could be a master plan behind everything.
What's your take on the agile versus waterfall dispute?