Skip to main content

In Praise of the Waterfall

I have been following an interesting discussion on scrumdevelopment looking for case studies on Productivity improvements and ROI from Scrum. Roy Morien wrote:
"What I am always puzzled about is that in the history of software development, during which the Waterfall type approaches have been taken as THE way to develop systems, I have seen little, if any, real evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of using them. I have also seen little demand for such evidence. The industry has adopted these approaches, and that's that! What I have seen is a vast amount of evidence that these approaches do NOT ensure successful outcomes."
Why was the waterfall adopted without appropriate rigor? Very simple, you don't need a statistic or a study to understand something that you already know!

This may be a surprise to some people, but waterfall was a substantial improvement compared to its predecessor - which I'll call 'unstructured chaos' for lack of a better term. Waterfall imposes constraints on the development process, so it can proceed effectively. Waterfall says:
  1. Figure out the business requirements first
  2. Don't change your requirements while you are implementing
  3. Test your code to ensure that it works
I have met a number of large companies for whom imposing this basic discipline was a tremendous improvement over unstructured chaos. So when a CTO is hesitant to give up his waterfall, it's because s/he remembers (and probably paid for) the bad old days.

Waterfall fails because these constraints are impossible to uphold over the length of an entire project. 

Scrum and XP impose these constraints at the sprint level, and introduce an additional constraint: the time-box. Seen from this perspective, Agile is surprisingly similar to waterfall!

By processing small batches and producing "finished" functionality, the performance, reliability and predictability of the system improves dramatically (the Poppendiecks taught us that).

Iteration also introduces the opportunity for frequent reflection, which turbo-charges the improvement process. Agile groups can get much better very quickly and fruits of their labor are more closely aligned with customer needs. Regular reflection also has the side effect of making work much more fun.

So let us not condemn the waterfall. It has served us well. It was developed by real people in response to real problems, who did the best they could with the knowledge that was available to them at the time. We can do better now. So a moment of silence, and let's get started with the next sprint.

Comments

the scrum mistress said…
Indeed waterfall has served us well on any number of projects. There are some situations where it is just more appropriate and efficient. Equally Scrum and Agile have worked in certain cases and there have been instances where we have started with one and switched because it did not meet the demands of the project.
Peter said…
Hi Scrum Mistress,

When have you changed from Scrum to Waterfall, and why?

Cheers,
Peter

Popular posts from this blog

Sample Definition of Done

Why does Scrum have a Definition of Done? Simple, everyone involved in the project needs to know and understand what Done means. Furthermore, Done should be really done, as in, 'there is nothing stopping us from earning value with this function, except maybe the go-ahead from the Product Owner. Consider the alternative:
Project Manager: Is this function done?
Developer: Yes
Project Manager: So we can ship it?
Developer: Well, No. It needs to be tested, and I need to write some documentation, but the code works, really. I tested it... (pause) ...on my machine. What's wrong with this exchange? To the developer and to the project manager, "done" means something rather different. To the developer in this case, done means: "I don't have to work on this piece of code any more (unless the tester tells me something is wrong)." The project leader is looking for a statement that the code is ready to ship.

At its most basic level, a definition of Done creates a sh…

Scaling Scrum: SAFe, DAD, or LeSS?

Participants in last week's Scrum MasterClass wanted to evaluate approaches to scaling Scrum and Agile for their large enterprise. So I set out to review the available frameworks. Which one is best for your situation?

Recently a number of approaches have started gaining attention, including the Scaled Agile Framework ("SAFe") by Dean Leffingwell, Disciplined Agile Development (DAD), by Scott Ambler, and Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), by Craig Larman and Bas Vodde. (Follow the links for white papers or overviews of each approach).

How to compare these approaches? My starting point is Scrum in the team. Scrum has proven very effective at helping teams perform, even though it does not directly address the issues surrounding larger organizations and teams. An approach to scaling Scrum should not be inconsistent with Scrum itself.

Scrum implements a small number of principles and constraints: Inspect and Adapt. An interdisciplinary Team solves the problem. Deliver something of va…

Five Simple Questions To Determine If You Have the Agile Mindset

My company has started a top-down transition to Scrum and Kanban. Will that make us an Agile company? About 2 years ago, I attended a conference hosted by the Swiss Association for Quality on the topic of Agility. As a warm-up exercise, the participants were given the 4 values of the Agile Manifesto, then asked to arrange themselves in space. How Agile is your company? How Agile do you think it should be? Very Agile on left, very traditional on the right. There was a cluster of people standing well to the right of center. “Why are you standing on the right?” It turns out that they were all from the railway. “Our job is to run the trains on time.” They were uncertain whether this agility thing was really aligned with their purpose.
Is Agility limited to software? Steve Denning has collected the evidence and laid out the case that Agile is not limited to software, nor is it merely a process, nor is it something you can do with part of your time, nor is it something you can have your …