What is the Downside of Using the Traditional Waterfall Approach?

The traditional Waterfall methodology has been in use for many decades now and has come a long way to be the most common project management methodology. So much so that it often sneaks back into agile workflows.

However, traditional does not always mean better. Despite its popularity, the traditional Waterfall process has some inherent issues that can be problematic for teams and projects. So what are some downsides of using Waterfall?

In Waterfall projects, cost and schedule overruns are common. Waterfall is a sequential process where each phase must be completed before the next one can begin. This lack of flexibility means that delays in one phase can cause delays throughout the rest of the project.

Because of the linear nature of the process, the team first builds a base product and then moves on to higher-level features. When requirements change or new features are demanded, the entire project must be re-baselined, which creates schedule delays and increased costs.

Because the customer is not involved until late in the project, they may not like what they see and change their mind about requirements. When this happens, the project will go over time and budget as developers scramble to fix it.

On the grounds of its rigid format, Waterfall is unable to accommodate changing requirements or address problems that have cropped up during development. This results in a product that does not meet client needs (or market demands) since it was developed based on an outdated set of specifications.

Considering the above, there are some more lessons that surface.

1. Waterfall is not suitable for projects where requirements are at a moderate to high risk of changing.

Waterfall does not easily accommodate changes in requirements like new features or a change in the target market. Changes require rework and may impact the entire project plan.

You can’t iterate and get feedback. One of the best ways to make sure you’re building what your client wants is to have the client review your work at the end of each sprint (or iteration). The waterfall approach assumes that you can nail down all requirements upfront, which is often unrealistic. The last thing you want is to run over budget and miss deadlines because you have to throw away a lot of what you’ve done due to changing requirements.

You can’t change course once you commit. Once you get into the implementation stage of a waterfall project, it’s far too late to shift gears based on business needs or market changes. Your one chance to make critical design decisions has come and gone, so be sure that everything was correct in the analysis phase before moving forward!

2. The Waterfall approach does not allow for much reflection or revision.

Because the client is unable to see progress until a phase is completed, it does not allow for much reflection or revision. If you’re looking for something specific and there’s no room for adjustments, this may be an issue. Some clients require a lot of feedback and would benefit more from an agile approach. Agile also allows teams to be flexible in their schedule and lets them adapt to any changes that need to be made along the way.

The waterfall method is more rigid than agile, so if you have someone who likes control over their product, they’ll probably enjoy this method best. However, if your client wants a more hands-on approach during the process of creating the product, they might prefer agile over waterfall because of its ability to change as needed throughout the project.

3. The client tends to end up with a product that doesn’t meet their needs.

While there’s nothing wrong with being decisive and knowing what you want, that can be a problem for the programmer that has to create something for you. Requirements change all the time, even on small projects. This is just a fact of life in software development. It’s impossible to know everything about a project at the beginning. New information is uncovered when work begins and as a result, requirements must shift over time to reflect this new knowledge.

Because of this, the client tends to end up with a product that doesn’t meet their needs if they have been unwilling to change their mind or they were unrealistic in expecting things not to change during the course of a project.

4. It can be a waste of resources if the product is useless to the client, who then needs to start over from scratch with a different vendor.

Because the client cannot assess the product until it is presented to them during the final stage, there is a risk of building something that may not be what they wanted or needed. This can be a waste of resources if the client rejects the finished product, as it means starting over from scratch with a different vendor.

5. It’s expensive and slow because you need to get sign-off from the client after each phase of the project, which often leads to rework and wasted money and time.

One of the biggest disadvantages of using a Waterfall approach is that it’s expensive and slow. How? If you’re using this method, you need to get sign-off from your client after each phase of the project. But what happens if there are problems with the product? Then you have to go back and fix them!

This often leads to rework and wasted time/money.

In addition, when it comes to software development, Waterfall relies on extensive documentation and rigid plans that can be difficult to maintain in an agile environment.

These problems associated with Waterfall led to its replacement by agile methodologies which offer greater flexibility and faster results.

Have you considered Agile instead?

Agile is actually an umbrella term for a few different methods. These include Scrum, XP (extreme programming), Kanban, and Lean. It’s important to note that these are not new software development methodologies—they’ve been around for years. Agile simply provides a framework for thinking about software development as a whole in a more holistic way than Waterfall does.

Compared to Waterfall, Agile is much faster and less expensive because the team has the opportunity to learn from their mistakes as they work through a project instead of at the end of it all when it’s too late to do anything about them. Plus, Agile allows client input early on in the process so there are fewer surprises as you go along. The result is that teams can adapt quickly if things go wrong or change along the way—and they will change!

New to Agile? Check out these articles:

• Agile vs Waterfall: A Side-by-Side Comparison
• Project Managers Explain Agile to Kids
• Agile Transformation: Lessons Learned
• Is Agile Good For Personal Development?