Drawback on waterfall model
The disadvantages of Waterfall model.
Waterfall is a respected methodology, but lately it’s faced criticism for being an outdated model. The methodology’s limitations become more apparent depending on the size, type, and goals of the project it’s guiding. Rather than adapting your organization to Waterfall’s guidelines later, consider these limitations to assess whether Waterfall is truly a fit for your team.
. 1. Makes changes difficult
Waterfall is based entirely on following a set of steps that keep teams always moving forward. The methodology, in its traditional form, leaves almost no room for unexpected changes or revisions. If your team has loyally followed the steps of Waterfall nearly to the end of the project but then faces an unplanned roadblock that necessitates a change in scope or goals, pivoting won’t be easy. You’ll have put a considerable amount of work into a project under very specific, rigid assumptions. A sudden change to the parameters of the project could render much of the work you’ve carried out up to that point useless, which can throw off the entire timeline.
If your team’s projects are unpredictable or involve frequent change, consider adapting Waterfall to allow more room for reflection and revision as you go, rather than just at the end, to prevent wasted time and energy.
2. Excludes the client and/or end user
As an internal process, the Waterfall methodology focuses very little on the end user or client involved with a project. Its main purpose has always been to help internal teams move more efficiently through the phases of a project, which can work well for the software world. However, if you work in an industry other than software, clients often want to be involved during a project, adding opinions and clarifying what they want as the project moves forward.
If your projects have clear, unchanging goals from the beginning and you aren’t responsible for updating end users or clients through the development process, then Waterfall will probably work well for your team. In other cases, consider an agile methodology to better anticipate change and keep stakeholders informed through the life of the project. By involving stakeholders, you lower the risk of late requests for change throwing off your project deadlines.
3. Delays testing until after completion
Saving the testing phase until the last half of a project is risky, but Waterfall insists that teams wait until step four out of six to test their products. Outside of the software industry, the testing phase could mean showing a new website design to a client, A/B testing content, or taking any number of steps to gain empirical data on the viability of the project. At this point, the project has likely taken considerable time to complete, so large revisions could cause significant delays.
The agile methodology was created in direct response to this principle of Waterfall. Critics of Waterfall felt that there was too much room for problems to remain unnoticed until the project neared completion, which left large, costly changes as the only solution. If you feel that frequent testing would serve your team better, implement testing at the end of every project stage so that you don’t move forward until you know things are working. Or consider a different project management methodology that encourages reflection and revision throughout the process.
The Waterfall methodology has had critics and supporters since its inception, but it remains relevant today even as other methodologies have evolved to account for many of its flaws. If your team is small and your projects are consistent and predictable, then Waterfall could provide the ideal framework for keeping your team organized and on track.
If not, don’t be afraid to customize a project management methodology to make it right for you.
3. Delays testing until after completion
Saving the testing phase until the last half of a project is risky, but Waterfall insists that teams wait until step four out of six to test their products. Outside of the software industry, the testing phase could mean showing a new website design to a client, A/B testing content, or taking any number of steps to gain empirical data on the viability of the project. At this point, the project has likely taken considerable time to complete, so large revisions could cause significant delays.
The agile methodology was created in direct response to this principle of Waterfall. Critics of Waterfall felt that there was too much room for problems to remain unnoticed until the project neared completion, which left large, costly changes as the only solution. If you feel that frequent testing would serve your team better, implement testing at the end of every project stage so that you don’t move forward until you know things are working. Or consider a different project management methodology that encourages reflection and revision throughout the process.
The Waterfall methodology has had critics and supporters since its inception, but it remains relevant today even as other methodologies have evolved to account for many of its flaws. If your team is small and your projects are consistent and predictable, then Waterfall could provide the ideal framework for keeping your team organized and on track.
If not, don’t be afraid to customize a project management methodology to make it right for you.
Comments
Post a Comment