Agile vs. Waterfall—if you’re at least a little familiar with the world of software development, then you’re probably already well acquainted with the heated discussions this topic can generate.
In one corner, you have the traditional approach of the Waterfall method—where development is handled as a linear series of events from conception to production. In the other corner, you have Agile—a flexible, team-centric, iterative approach to lean development. Both strive to streamline the way we get software development projects done, just in different ways. So what makes these two workflow management approaches different? And what are the pros and cons of each?
In this article, we’ll try to give a fair and balanced representation of each process so that you can decide whether Agile or Waterfall is best for your project.
THE WATERFALL METHOD
The Waterfall method is the traditional approach to software development where a project is broken up into distinct stages that must be completed in sequence.
Its name implies its workflow: each stage represents a discrete phase of software development, and you must complete one phase before you can proceed to the next. In a pure Waterfall implementation, returning to a previous phase is prohibited—you can only travel downstream and must complete a full development cycle before returning to the top. Also, there’s typically a review of requirements at the end of each stage.
The number of stages in Waterfall vary across organizations, but the general approach might look something like this:
Conception: The first phase of the systems development life cycle (SDLC) starts with an idea, evolves into a cost/benefit analysis, and ends with a rough estimate of the scope of the project.
Initiation: The second phase involves hiring the project team and expanding upon the project scope with objectives, purpose, and deliverables.
Analysis: A feasibility analysis is conducted by looking at the scope of the project and gathering all the requirements into a requirement specification document.
Design: Mockups, wireframes, and storyboards—in this phase, the designers put a face to the project. Requirements are reviewed and evaluated, team goals are set, and a plan of action is developed.
Coding: The developers start building the actual app based on flowcharts, mockups, and designs created in the previous phase.
Testing: The completed product undergoes testing to work out all the kinks. This stage may involve extra coding to resolve any issues within the source code, as well as user acceptance testing (UAT) where users vet the software prior to launch.
Production/Implementation: The product is launched into the market.
Maintenance: Users will inevitably run into bugs, and the development team will need to stand ready to resolve any issues with a patch. Patches can also be used to add new features to remain competitive.
You’ll notice that this is basically the standard SDLC broken out as separate phases of development. Now let’s look at some advantages and disadvantages of this approach.
Pros of Waterfall
Clear deadlines: Waterfall’s static nature and predictable workflow make it easy to estimate costs, create timelines, and stick to deadlines.
Disciplined by design: Since each phase has a clear start point and a requirement review gate at the end of it, the team is forced to complete all tasks before the project as a whole can proceed.
Well-documented: Waterfall requires documentation and a clear paper trail for each phase of development. This makes it easier to follow the logic of past projects and lay the groundwork for future projects.
Clear communication: Predictable timelines and well-documented projects make it easy to give status updates to upper management, stakeholders, or clients with strict requirements.
Easy learning curve: As the traditional approach to project management across industries, teams usually don’t require any prior knowledge or training in order to start working on a project with the Waterfall method.
Cons of Waterfall
Change can be costly: The major downside to Waterfall’s rigidity is the hampered ability to handle change. Testing occurs late in the project life cycle, and if you find out that your end users don’t like the product you’re building, it can be too late to pivot.
Slow delivery times: As many as four phases of development need to be completed before any coding begins—which means stakeholders and customers won’t see a working product until late in the life cycle.
Gathering requirements too early is risky: Customers and stakeholders often don’t know what they really want until they’ve had a chance to play with a working prototype. Since Waterfall handles all the requirement gathering upfront, there’s a real risk of missing the mark and causing further headaches down the project line.
Tendency to neglect testing:Saving all the testing for the end of a project can be risky, because of the temptation to rush through it when there’s a looming deadline. A poorly tested product can lead to a disastrous launch. You also lose out on valuable data you could have gained earlier in the project.
THE AGILE WAY
Agile takes an iterative approach to software development. Instead of handling all the planning upfront, Agile focuses on being lean, and producing minimum viable products (MVPs) over set periods of time while improving with each iteration.
No comments:
Post a Comment