Waterfall Project Management Is Not Going Away, Nor Should it

Waterfall Project Management Is Not Going Away, Nor Should it

Over the past couple of decades, the prevailing narrative in product development has been clear: Agile is celebrated, and Waterfall is condemned. The Agile community often vehemently opposes traditional project management (Waterfall) in favor of championing product management (Agile). However, let's pause for a moment and consider the often-overlooked merits of Waterfall project management in the evolving landscape of IT programs.

Challenging the Dichotomy

While acknowledging the undeniable advantages of Agile, it is crucial to recognize that dismissing Waterfall with an oversimplified "Waterfall is bad, Agile is good" mindset is imprudent. Having personally navigated both methodologies as a project manager and Scrum Master over the past ten years, I've come to appreciate the nuanced realities that often get overshadowed in the Agile fervor.

The Driving Force of Waterfall

In the world of project management, companies continue to fund projects, a trend likely to persist. Projects inherently involve elements of scope, cost, and timeline. Success in managing projects hinges on two critical aspects:

  1. The Project Manager as a Driver: Effective project delivery demands an engaged and proactive project manager. A hands-off approach rarely yields success in large projects. To some extent, a degree of command and control is indispensable. Every client emphasizes the need for a project manager who takes the driver's seat.
  2. Scope Management: While Agile's emphasis on "Customer collaboration over contract negotiation" is laudable, poor scope management under the guise of being Agile can lead to project failures. In projects, documenting and gaining agreement on scope, coupled with a thoughtful consideration of project schedule and cost implications, remains paramount.

These are just two critical aspects among several. The fundamental reality is that there are tangible benefits to Waterfall project management that, as Agile enthusiasts, we sometimes lose sight of.

Striking a Balance

This post is not intended as an indictment of Agile; rather, it aims to shed light on the enduring benefits of Waterfall project management. Supporting Agile principles doesn't negate the existence of scenarios where Waterfall remains a viable and effective choice. Striking a balance between methodologies ensures a pragmatic approach to project management that aligns with the unique requirements of each project.

In conclusion, let's move beyond the polarizing debate and recognize that the richness of project management lies in understanding and leveraging the strengths of both Waterfall and Agile methodologies.


David Lew

Successful delivery of greenfields, transformations and other high value projects. I achieve this by building high performance teams, aligned to business objectives and hungry for continuous improvement.

11 个月

I agree in part. For example, where there is an environment with no way of breaking down to smaller, valuable increments, then a project manager would probably be needed as coordination is required across (presumably) multiple teams and multiple stakeholders as opposed to a single PO. I also agree with the conclusion. However, as far as "poor scope management" is concerned, I'd say this: Poor scope management is one of the reasons Agile became prominent - there's never a good way to determine all the scope at the beginning, and in Waterfall, every change tends to be a political hurdle. I'd say that Agile focuses more on delivering value and pivoting as needed, and is less about scope. The final outcome can be far improved for the customer. The challenge of course tends to be about whether the customer is willing to go down the path of exploration for a better outcome. If they are hard-nosed bean counters looking for delivery of a specific scope with a specific timeline, then it's not time and materials contract, and you are pushing the proverbial uphill anyway. And then yes, managing politics over delivery of valuable product outcomes becomes priority for all, so Waterfall is better.

Firdaus Jahan

Consultant | Resiliency Coach | Writer | Lean | FMVA? | BIDA?

11 个月

PMI predicts hybrid is the way forward.

Petula Guimaraes

Team and Leadership Coach | Executive Coach | I partner with leaders and teams who want to grow their performance, leadership and agility. ?? Founder of All Things Agile | PCC | EMC SP

11 个月

O wrote a bit about it too, I share the sentiment. Achieving agility remains and ability to adapt and there's an element of speed. When a process is predictable, waterfall is in fact very effective. Maybe the nomenclature needs to change? I have found though waterfall simply doesn't lend itself well to most software development initiatives. That's not to say tools and controls from that space can't be used, like the poor, apparently hated Gantt!!

Alouis Van Dongen

Program & Project Manager | Driving Business Transformation | Expert in ERP, CRM, WMS | E-commerce, Supply Chain, Logistics | Agile & Holacracy Specialist

11 个月

That resonates with me. There is no right or wrong. Consider it as a continuum with waterfall on one side and agile on the other side. I have experienced projects on either side as well as hybrid. The project characteristics determine what type of project it needs to be on this continuum.

Marlan Roth

Senior Oracle CC&B C2M CCS Test Lead | Oracle Certified Implementation Specialist

12 个月

I second your sentiments here!

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Mike MacIsaac的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了