savaged.info

2010-01-23

mix agile development with waterfall project management and get fragile

Filed under: Agile,workfriendly — savaged @ 23:11
Tags: , , ,

Waterfall Project Management is perfect…

…for the right sort of project.

When it’s not the right project, the search for an alternative can* take two directions:
* (of course there are other directions, like RUP, but the point being made is about what happens between the two listed)

  1. Choose another breed of methodology
  2. Allow a hybrid mix of Waterfall and “Agile”

I would like to name the latter “Fragile”. The following lists some of the reasons why I think the name is a good fit.

  • Misalignment of plan and reporting with activities
    • Inevitable set of missed milestones / failed gates
      • Leads to blame culture and low morale
      • High degree of effort in re-planning (chasing a moving target)
      • Rolling activity with little or no agreed prioritisation and change control
        • Little or no predictability

Here’s my view of the life-cycle for the perfect Waterfall, the perfect Agile…

…and what evolves between the two if not thought through – Fragile.



Carefully thinking through using Agile throughout the whole vertical Project Management stack, must include everyone. That’s developers, business & systems analysts, testers, customer managers, IT and business, all the way to the board.

It’s a significant culture change for everyone, but it’s much better than the Fragile process and therefore worth the effort. There are of course, many experts in Fragile and only a few experts in Agile. Here are a couple of the latter and their work:

Ken Schwaber – The Enterprise and Scrum

Jochen Krebs - Agile Portfolio Management

Mike Cohn – Agile Estimating & Planning

Agile Project Management is perfect, for the right sort of project….

…Fragile Project Management is good for nothing.

Let’s stop giving Agile a bad name.

Advertisement

6 Comments

  1. I like the idea / labelling of ‘Fragile’, and agree with your points about what could be ideal for ‘the right sort of project’.

    Is the point you’re making then about flexibility in approach as well as full-spectrum involvement? Being overly doctrinaire about any management process can just as easily lead a project into the ‘fragile’ dead zone you describe…

    Comment by Tom Austin — 2010-01-28 @ 8:46

  2. Tom,

    I hint at “flexibility in approach” where I touched on Agile. I did have a point to make too about “full-spectrum” involvement, assuming you mean getting every stakeholder and contributor in the team from the beginning, rather than something to do with Sir Clive ;)

    However, the main point I was driving at is the danger of “Agile beginners” damaging the brand. I agree that one should not be “overly doctrinaire”, there’s a balance, having a structure and benefitting from it. The primary benefit being predictability and a close second visibility, IMHO.

    Comment by savaged — 2010-01-28 @ 20:32

  3. agile development is not bad name.

    Comment by Agile development — 2010-01-30 @ 9:01

  4. Absolutely! As I said Agile is perfect, as is Waterfall. They are two different tools for different types of work. They’re not competing tools, in the same way a screwdriver does not compete with a hammer. One wouldn’t compare the statistics for number of bent nails to threaded screws; that would be pointless. Neither should one compare Waterfall with Agile, at that level. The important point I make is that there should be no hybrid. There should be no attempt to map Waterfall into Agile. There’s no such thing as a hammdriver or even a scrammer.

    Comment by savaged — 2010-01-30 @ 9:31

  5. Addition to the recommended reading for Agile – a crucial one:
    Ken Schwaber – Agile Project Management with Scrum

    Comment by savaged — 2010-02-10 @ 17:59


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers