An Agile Waterfall: Getting the Most Out of Your Method

Introduction

In most cases, at project inception, an organisation will choose between adopting a traditional waterfall methodology or adopting the latest agile thinking, often reverting to a dictated corporate standard.  Whilst waterfall methodologies have been used for many years, they have more recently fallen out of vogue, being replaced by the more fashionable agile approach. Agile unquestionably brings benefits in terms of increased flexibility, allowing the project team to think creatively and make any necessary changes throughout the project lifecycle, but a slavish worship of the new over the old risks losing the benefits that made the waterfall method so popular for so long.

Both approaches have drawbacks which can be minimised by drawing on elements of the other.  When considering which method to adopt, projects managers should consider combining elements from both, to create a hybrid methodology that best meets the needs of the project.

Agile Methodology

Agile is prevalent nowadays, especially in software development. Its primary benefit comes from constant collaboration and adaptability by breaking the work into smaller iterations and using early feedback from key stakeholders to check and adjust direction as the project moves forward.

The flexibility of agile is also its biggest drawback.  A well-run Agile project will still include a period of up-front deep dive and scoping, which should then be converted into user stories for subsequent development, test and iteration through the sprint process.  Oftentimes however, this scoping is superficial and leaves many requirements unstated and undocumented, with a common excuse provided that it’s an agile project so it can be course corrected or features added to scope during the subsequent sprints.

Whilst this can (and does) happen, problems arise with budgets and timelines as they are agreed based on the scoping outputs.  Expectations on what will be spent and when and what will be delivered are set with the senior stakeholders up front who need certainty for their wider corporate budgeting cycles.  Many of the senior staff also ‘grew up’ with the idea behind a waterfall methodology that phases of activity are stage-gated, for example build doesn’t commence until design is complete and therefore that the cost and timeline are agreed and contracted.

There is much to be said for putting control of the features into the hands of the practitioners who can ensure the final product is fit for purpose through the sprint feedback process, but how can everyone ensure that the minimum viable product (MVP) is exactly that, and not a bells and whistles festooned version.  Scoping can go out the window without proper controls and change management, leading to spiralling costs and extending timelines.

Just Add Water

Agile can be enhanced with the addition of a little waterfall.  By extending and expanding the initial scoping phase to include the major aspects of functional design, the entire project can be estimated with far more certainty.  Investing up front will payback enormously later on.  Numerous benefits follow:

• Greater clarity over the costs and timeline. By identifying, documenting and challenging all the key user stories up front, the project manager can be more certain that the scope is complete and the estimates accurate.  This doesn’t take away the ability to refine the stories within the agile sprint cycles, it provides the team and stakeholders the confidence that nothing major has been missed.
• Setting realistic expectations. By agreeing and documenting what the Minimum Viable Product will contain up front, both the senior stakeholders and project team / practitioners are entering the project with a common understanding.  Any subsequent refinements or scope additions can therefore be challenged and tested against this initial understanding.
• Reducing the risk of rework. Examples abound where features are built in an ‘agile’ order according to the work packages created for the developers.  The addition of a new feature at a later stage may drive the need to rework earlier features or even on occasion the entire architecture of the product to accommodate the additional requirements.  Specifying this up front allows the project manager to schedule the work packages in such a way that the product is built with main features at its core and refinements are genuinely that; refinements not rewrites.
• Improved communications. Using a hybrid approach creates an early shared understanding that can encourage collaboration between teams and improve communication between different stakeholders. For example, the waterfall approach can be used to develop a clear and concise project plan which can be shared with all stakeholders. The agile approach can then be used to keep stakeholders updated on progress and get their feedback.

What Next?

Agile provides speedy delivery, meets changing requirements and engages practitioners and customers to gather and take their feedback into consideration. Waterfall methods provide a greater structure for overall project delivery. Blending both allows a project manager to select the appropriate aspects from each methodology to shape a process that matches the needs of the project.

Whilst not a panacea for all project ills or areplacement for good common sense and project management, a hybrid method, well applied, can reap huge rewards and keep a project on track.

i2a have 20 years of experience in scoping and structuring projects to deliver what is required.  If you would like support to mobilise your project in the right way, please contact us at info@i2a.co.uk.