How does Waterfall development affect product management?

One of the key advantages of the waterfall development model is its structured approach, which allows for clear planning and communication of scope, budget, and timeline, leading to predictable outcomes and minimized scope creep, particularly beneficial for projects with stable requirements.

Ideal for products with stable and well-understood requirements like legacy systems or compliance projects - Not for startups ??

A mi me ha resultado útil para tener visibilidad de las actividades dependientes entre sí para asegurar que se concluyen en secuencia. Además coincido que es aplicable cuando el alcance es claro y por lo tanto, el entregable.

Advantages of waterfall development-If any business requirement of any product is clear and understandable ,stakeholders are clear about the scope about what will be delivered and cost and timing then it is good approach to go with. This model is simple and easy to understand and use. It is easy to manage due to the rigidity of the model – each phase has specific deliverables and a review process to follow. In this model phases are processed and completed one at a time. Phases do not overlap. Waterfall model works well for smaller projects where requirements are clearly defined and very well understood and clarified in all aspect.

As technologies advance and the desire to reach commercial status faster increases, there is a move to more agile systems. Risks are increased but can be measured or expected. The key to waterfall or agile systems is the need to have the PM drive the process. With waterfall the clear stages of development make it easier to follow, manage and implement. Agile systems will require closer communication and following to ensure success.

An inevitable challenge of waterfall is the linear / sequential nature of the process. If too much time is consumed on the front-end scoping and business plan, you become vulnerable to market shifts and competitor activity. As a result, the product development team can be hyper focused on executing exactly as defined, while in the marketplace, the target may have shifted.

Waterfall development, while structured, has several disadvantages. It's inflexible, as once a stage is completed, revisiting or modifying it is difficult. This can be problematic if requirements change or are initially unclear. The sequential nature delays testing until after completion, potentially leading to the late discovery of defects or unmet requirements. This model also assumes that all requirements can be identified upfront, which is often unrealistic and can lead to issues or the need for significant adjustments later. Additionally, it may not be suitable for projects requiring frequent changes or those with uncertain or evolving requirements.

Waterfall development can at times be at odds with continuous discovery and tighter feedback cycles between releases and how those impact the outcomes for customers.

The Waterfall model, with its sequential approach, faces limitations. Like a one-way street, it lacks flexibility to return and revise previous phases, making it challenging to adapt to changes or correct errors. If requirements evolve or are misunderstood, it's like reaching a dead end. Delayed testing until the final stages can lead to significant issues surfacing late in the process, akin to finding faults in a building only after construction is complete. This rigidity can result in increased costs and time delays, making Waterfall less suitable for projects where requirements are uncertain or likely to change.

Waterfall development for digital products results in a far longer value stream cycle that will leave you falling behind consumer expectations, and lose you favour in the market. Consumer expectations with technology change rapidly, you need to build a value stream cycle that matches that demand and expectation to have a chance at success.

Alternatives to Waterfall include Agile, Scrum, and Kanban. Agile is like agile navigation, adapting quickly to changes. Scrum, part of Agile, functions like a sprint, focusing on fast, iterative progress. Kanban uses visual task boards for efficiency, akin to a clear roadmap. Lean development, emphasizing value and waste reduction, is like packing light for efficiency. DevOps combines development and operations, speeding up the journey from creation to deployment. Each method offers unique benefits, from adaptability to streamlined processes, suitable for different project requirements and environments.

We apply an iterative approach especially in the earlier stages of development and innovation. I am not too hung up on all the specific methodologies. You can borrow from all these different development philosophies and take what works best for your organization. In general, common sense is a good starting point. In our case, we combine aspects from waterfall (clear staging and milestones), with an iterative cyclic approach that is aimed at learning fast about the key product requirements.

I’d offer that the alternatives like agile are great for software development, but not so much with hardware, where fabrication and tooling lead times and costs demand that many design parameters must be finalized before deciding to move forward at various points in the development process..

Unser Unternehmen wurde auf ?Scrumban“ umgestellt. Dies ist ein hybrides Vorgehensmodell zur agilen Softwareentwicklung. Elemente aus Scrum und Kanban werden kombiniert eingesetzt. Mit den Rollen von Scrum und der Prozessoptimierung von Kanban kann das Team effizient Ergebnisse liefern. Unterschiedliche Tools helfen bei der t?glichen Arbeit.

Alternatives to waterfall development include Agile, Scrum, Kanban, Extreme Programming (XP), DevOps, Incremental Model, Spiral Model, Feature-Driven Development (FDD), Rapid Application Development (RAD), and Lean Development. These methods prioritize adaptability, collaboration, and iterative progress, catering to diverse project needs.

Clear objectives provide a framework to engage with development services. They help outline your product’s goals, requirements, and features, allowing you to communicate your needs with potential service providers. Analyze the Product Complexity, Business Need, Customer Feedback and most importantly stakeholders expectation is important. Analysis of skillset availability, time ,cost by keeping all these matters we need to choose the best method. A good development service will use Agile methodologies, such as Scrum or Kanban, as they help build outstanding solutions within the estimated time. Effective communication is a leading factor in ensuring a fruitful partnership with the tech vendor.

A product by nature follows waterfall model. The product is launched only once MVP is ready. The next version is launch only when market feedback in incorporated and new version is ready. The consumer feedback is most relevant when they see the product in totality and not just one screen or feature of the product. It is a misconception that waterfall is expensive, since it allows testing and validation of complete prototype of a logical product even before coding starts so in many ways waterfall it is a better approach. Knowing complete requirements also leads to better design and architecture. Most importantly there is always scope to change things with next version.

Selecting a PD method requires PMs to weigh various factors. The complexity and uncertainty of the product and market dictate the need for flexibility or structure in the approach. Reliable CF and data are crucial for methods that rely on iterative testing and adaptation. The team's size, composition, and skill set influence the choice; different methodologies suit different team dynamics and expertise. Stakeholder and customer expectations, along with constraints, also play a role, affecting how the product evolves. Balancing speed, quality, and cost is essential; some methods favor rapid dev, while others prioritize thoroughness. This consideration ensures the chosen approach aligns with the specific needs and context of the product.

As Saurabh mentioned, an MVP by default is developed using waterfall methodology. Also, it’s important to understand how the product requirements connect back to funding: in other words, what are you being funded to create? If you start with the end in mind, you will have better clarity on an iterative (agile) approach over waterfall moving forward.

If you are making subtle changes to a proven product, the waterfall approach can be a strong development framework. Alternatively, if you are in true R&D, then the agile product development framework is the most aligned framework. There is a large space between incremental improvements and full R&D within product development and this is where a hybrid approach is proven to be the most successful.

I always combine these two models. Waterfall for keeping an overall budget and timeline in perspective and agile for being agile within the waterfall!

A hybrid Agile-Waterfall approach combines aspects of both Agile and Waterfall methodologies. It provides the flexibility of Agile by adapting to changing requirements, timing, stakeholders decision while maintaining the defined phases and documentation of Waterfall for better project control.

Defining a full set of requirements, as though you are embarking on a waterfall project, should always be done. Then create a design and architecture that can fulfill those requirements, but know that they will change and evolve throughout the life of the product - uderstand the limitations of your design up front. Next choose a subset of the requirements to implement first and start development using an agile method, but keep in mind the full set of requirements initially defined. At each check point (demonstration point or release point) review the full set of requirements and make any changes based on real-world feedback. If the design/architecture starts to get strained then make the hard decisions to chagne the design or requirements.

In cases where neither waterfall nor agile fully meets a product's needs, product managers may blend both methods. This hybrid approach can involve using waterfall for initial planning, providing structured groundwork, and agile for executing and delivering the product, allowing adaptability. Alternatively, agile might be used for developing core features, with waterfall handling peripheral aspects. Crucial to this strategy is ensuring team and stakeholder alignment and communication, balancing the strengths and limitations of both methodologies. This combination offers a tailored approach, optimizing the product development process.

Due to the iterative approach the agile framework has reduced the risks of developing a product without matching the customer’s requirements after completing a final development and launch the product (how it’s usually done in a waterfall approach), nevertheless there are products in which the scope must be clear and almost fully fixed since the beginning and iterative approach does not helps too much (specially because manufacturing complexity and associated costs involved in manufacturing processes changes, example: aerospace and automotive industries). The way of combining both it’s through a proper identification about their components manufacturing complexity and also about how radical it’s the innovation of each product’ component.

Innovation is not a linear process; iterations help to arrive at an optimal solution - best to embrace that. Some (regulated) industries, e.g. MedTech, do benefit from some of the rigor of waterfall (stage-gating). Best of both worlds can be combined and formed to meet the needs of a particular project.

While you can throw technology at any particular problem, inevitably when you are solving systemic, statutory, or compliance projects or problems, how technology fits in is just part of the overall solution. Sometimes the best solution doesn’t involve technology and may require human processes re-engineering.

The fundamentals of product management, as outlined in PMTK, are universal. According to PMTK, product management remains in the problems space and thus is unrelated and unaffected by trends and methods in the solution space. Heavyweight (waterfall) or lightweight (Scrum) software development methods do not affect or alter product management principles or practices.

Agile without client engagement is just glorified waterfall. If your client is not engaged or willing to be engaged then Agile will not give you the best results.

What interests me about these two approaches is how they map people’s natural thinking and doing styles. Some people are more waterfall in their style E.g., they like to get all their ducks in a row, they know exactly what the plan is and want it set one way before they execute on it. Others can be more agile in their approach delivering more of a spontaneous focus with an end goal but making it up as they progress. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses and what successful people tend to do is play to their strengths and manage their gaps. That is why for me a hybrid approach makes so much sense so long as the end goal is clear. It is also more likely to support more diverse teams with different thinking and doing styles. A win, win!