What are the advantages and disadvantages of Waterfall projects compared to other methodologies?

Waterfall, as the name suggests, describes the flow of an idea into existence. This methodology is excellent when building something that needs to progress sequentially, where the result of the last activity is required for the next activity. A building can’t be built without a firm foundation and walls painted without it existing. People often wait to select or order the paint until the walls are built, as that’s the sequence in a waterfall project plan. These situations highlight a lack of understanding of activities and tasks, and the blame is transferred to the methodology vs those managing the project. Managing a project with common sense makes a methodology work; the lack of it causes it to break.

However, this strategy makes adjustments difficult because each phase must be completed exhaustively before moving on. Project timeframes may need to be adjusted, and unanticipated errors may not be found until implementation, verification, and validation.

Waterfall projects offer clear project scope and requirements upfront, ensuring a structured approach. However, they lack flexibility for changes mid-project and may lead to lengthy development cycles. Agile methodologies, on the other hand, promote adaptability and customer collaboration but may require more frequent communication and skilled team members. Choosing the right approach depends on project complexity and stakeholder needs.

I would disagree with the term inflexible, a waterfall project can still have an efficient and effective change management model to support it.

As a waterfall project may take so long to deliver. The industry, technology and team members may change. Which may mean the whole project is out of date and you get tech debt.

The biggest disadvantage of Waterfall compared to other approaches (e.g. of software delivery) is delayed TIME-to-VALUE. By definition, waterfall follows a one-way process of first designing, then planning, then building and finally delivering /deploying. The end user/consumer receives value (feature, product etc.) only at the end of the project and usually only once, and it often means months or years since inception. Another related major disadvantage is that in Waterfall the real end value is often substantially lower than what was assumed, and there is no more time or budget/resources to incorporate user feedback or iterate over time.

I feel that this perspective has overlooked the human element. Most project team members have other work responsibilities outside of the project. Unless the resources are provided dedicated time to work on the project I often find an Agile approach leads to stress and burnout as people try to balance the uncertainty of the project with there regular work.

Waterfall is neither good nor bad in itself. Whether it makes sense depends on the use case. Example: in the context of migrations (software, CRM, infrastructure, etc.) it makes a lot of sense, as the outcome should not be a moving target. Nobody wants migrations to last forever, it is expected to be oneoff, with a defined start & end, and clear definition of done. Agile/Scrum would not be suitable alternatives for this type of work. Example: high-complexity setups where requirements, as well as upstream/downstream usage stable over time, with low uncertainty of the value and usage, Waterfall also has few alternatives. For software development, prototyping, discovery or experimentation, I suggest using Scrum/SAFe instead.

Methods and tools are many - the more experienced and mature environments will take what they need from each. Dogma, or thinking one way is the only way, has no place in real world delivery.

One of the adaptive methods would be hybrid agile model. For example: combination of Scrum(focus on Governance) and XP(specially designed for technical projects) has been proven advantageous in complex project implementation and successful delivery.

PMs rarely have choice to choose a methodology. It is usually assigned by the org or PMO because outcomes of one methods can be compared to each other. Imagine how hard would be to create, staff, KPIs, and compare outcomes of similar waterfall and Agile projects in software delivery. I disagree that we should not marry to a methodology as it is hard to manage or control. However, we should not stick to only one as it creates huge inefficiencies (just like having no method at all). PMs should influence chosen methodology based on the outcomes of the project. See my presentation at https://www.projectmanagement.com/videos/722540/your-methodology-fails-your-project-objectives

Based on experience here are some action i take to understand the best approach to take to manage projects * Understanding the project requirements and objectives. Clearly define the goals, constraints, and expectations of the project. Consider factors such as project size, complexity, budget, and timeline. * Consider the level of experience my team have with various project management methodologies. If the are well-versed in agile practices, adopting an agile approach may lead to more efficient and effective project execution. * Assess the level of uncertainty and risk associated with the project. Projects with high levels of uncertainty, rapidly changing requirements, or evolving technology may benefit from an approach such as agile.

When you know the goal but don’t know how to get there, following a process provides a result. Project and Program managers need to evaluate and educate executive management on the reason for this methodology vs others, as the desire to build something and see something can create unnecessary pressure and rework.

Waterfall's advantages include clear structure and detailed planning, suitable for predictable projects like power grid expansions. Yet, it lacks adaptability, causing challenges in dynamic energy projects. Agile, seen in renewable energy software development, offers flexibility but may require more client involvement. Hybrid models, exemplified in a solar farm construction, blend strengths but demand effective coordination. Tailor methodologies to project needs, acknowledging their respective advantages and limitations in the diverse energy sector.