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.


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?


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…

Explaining Story Points to Management

During the February Scrum Breakfast in Zurich, the question arised, "How do I explain Story Points to Management?" A good question, and in all honesty, developers can be an even more critical audience than managers.

Traditional estimates attempt to answer the question, "how long will it take to develop X?" I could ask you a similar question, "How long does it take to get the nearest train station?

The answer, measured in time, depends on two things, the distance and the speed. Depending on whether I plan to go by car, by foot, by bicycle or (my personal favorite for short distances) trottinette, the answer can vary dramatically. So it is with software development. The productivity of a developer can vary dramatically, both as a function of innate ability and whether the task at hand plays to his strong points, so the time to produce a piece of software can vary dramatically. But the complexity of the problem doesn't depend on the person solving it, just …

Money for Nothing, Changes for Free

“Money for Nothing, Changes for Free” encourages both customers and suppliers to focus on value.

A key advantage of Scrum projects is that at least once per sprint you have something that could be shipped and no work in progress. You can change direction every sprint, and you can reevaluate whether the project is a good investment or if your money could be better spent elsewhere. Abrupt cancellation is risky for the supplier.

While the concept of an early-exit penalty is not new, Jeff Sutherland gave it a unique allure with his allusion to the Dire Straits hit.
Desired Benefit Incentivize both customers and suppliers to focus on functionality that provides genuine value.
Structure This works with Agile software projects because there is little or no work in progress. After each Sprint, functionality is either complete or not started. Work is basically on a Time and Materials basis with a cost target, often with the intention that the project should not use up the entire project budge…