Waterfall vs. Agile: Comparing Methodologies

Waterfall Vs. AGILE

What does it mean in practice?

Those in the PM-verse have probably heard about Agile and Waterfall methodologies. Both are popular approaches to project management, but what do they mean in practice?

Think of the Waterfall approach like an elaborate lasagna recipe. You advance through the process in a linear fashion, completing each distinct phase before moving to the next one. Sequential order is critical: if you first bake the lasagna and then add the pasta layers, no one's coming back for seconds. For projects with clear, fixed requirements, Waterfall is a viable methodology, but it’s tricky to make changes once you’ve locked yourself in. In particular, if you find a problem later (e.g. you inadvertently baked the lasagna with rotten spinach) it can be costly to go back and fix it.

The Agile methodology, by contrast, is like those 1000-piece jigsaw puzzles my grandmother excels at. The goal is clear, but the process is dynamic and adaptable. You work on small pieces at a time, adjusting as you go. The process is divided into smaller increments called “sprints”. After each sprint, you review your work, get feedback, and make whatever changes and improvements rise to the fore. Best of all, if the project requirements change, or you encounter new information, you can adapt the project without starting over.

So which approach is better? Neither, and both! It all depends on the nature of the project and the dynamic of the team. The key is to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each methodology before diving in.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, the lasagna’s calling.