Is Waterfall the Best Approach for Your Project?

We know very well that Waterfall is often regarded as an outdated and unfashionable approach to software development—something best left in the 1990s. We also know that modern projects are so huge, complex, and flexible that we couldn't even dream of using Waterfall.

We are also big proponents of Agile methodology. We love its zen-like approach to software development. We've seen firsthand what a good Scrum Master can achieve. So we're not going to tell you that Agile is bad or compare the two approaches.

In many ways, Agile arose as a reaction to the Waterfall culture—not the methodology itself, but the stubborn notion that it was the be-all and end-all of software development. It was a response to project managers who took Waterfall principles as gospel when they were actually guidelines for solving a presumed problem.

Waterfall was a successful solution that brought structure to the chaotic process of large-scale software development at the time. But was it perfect? Nothing is perfect, but it was good enough to become the default approach for a long time. If anything, 'Waterfall' continues to evolve to this day.

Let's look at the facts. According to a 2022 study by the Project Management Institute, over 37% of completed projects used Waterfall as their method of choice, making it the most common project management methodology worldwide. Adding the 20% that reported using hybrid methods, more than half of surveyed projects use Waterfall in some form—hardly the numbers of a dying technology.

So should you follow the crowd and adopt Waterfall as your methodology? If the answer were a simple 'yes' or 'no', we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Defining the Waterfall Framework

In its most general form, Waterfall is a sequential and discrete approach to software development. Teams are expected to follow a strict set of phases that begin with requirements gathering and end with project delivery and maintenance.

We call it sequential because the phases form a sequence of steps that must be completed in a specific order, like water falling down a waterfall. There is no going back, no detours, and no quick exits.

Each phase is discrete because they are independent of each other (or as independent as possible), and a phase cannot start until the previous phases are completed. You cannot begin testing your work until system design and implementation are finished.

Despite some variations, most Waterfall systems share the same core phases:

1. Requirements Gathering: The team collects information about the project's nature, such as expected capabilities, the type of data the system will handle, the deployment environment, and so on.
2. System Design: The team formulates an action plan and makes strategic decisions, such as which technologies to use in the project.
3. Implementation: The team begins work on the project based on the chosen design.
4. Testing: The team runs a prototype of the project and checks it for bugs and errors.
5. Delivery/Deployment: The project is launched and handed over to the owner.
6. Maintenance: The team provides support and fixes bugs reported by users.

It's worth noting that despite this structure appearing quite rigid, there is some flexibility. For instance, the team might go back to system design to rethink their approach, or return to implementation based on the nature of bugs found during testing. Of course, the idea is to avoid such backtracking as much as possible.

Waterfall Frameworks and You

To understand if Waterfall methodology is right for you, you first need to understand its strengths and how it solves certain problems better than other methods.

Waterfall methodologies use a very clear structure that may drive developers crazy, but for clients or colleagues from other fields, it's much more understandable and easy to digest. For example, it's easier to justify a budget when you have a clear goal and timeline.

So if your project involves external investment, needs approval from other departments, or will have unexpected impact on other areas, Waterfall will be more attractive to non-project people. Tasks seem more organized and easier to explain.

Because requirements are defined early and remain unchanged throughout, Waterfall schemes set very clear goals from the start and prevent teams from deviating too much.

Small projects and small teams benefit from a focused approach. Projects finish faster, and developers aren't inclined to waste resources on secondary features that may not be essential for the product. If your team is small and projects are predictable, Waterfall could be the ideal framework.

Waterfall is highly methodical, so it's no surprise that within this system, communication procedures are clearly defined at each phase.

Because every process is thoroughly documented, it becomes easier to share information between different teams working at different development stages. Also, new team members can review the documentation and get up to speed faster.

If you think your team composition might change at some point or new members may join, Waterfall provides a good communication structure to keep everyone informed.

While group behavior is hard to predict, new teams often face challenges when getting to know each other and understanding the workflow. Rigid frameworks like Waterfall create a work routine that is easier to establish and agree upon, making teamwork smoother, at least in the early stages of a project.

Finally, Agile requires certain managerial burdens that not every project manager can handle. The concept of project management in Agile is significantly different from what we're used to.

So, for all its quirks, Waterfall may be a simpler methodology for beginners—unless you have a manager trained in Agile, or if your team has a project manager who is not a software developer.

Ultimately, no two projects are alike. So to think that any single methodology can solve every problem you encounter is, at best, hopeful, and at worst, naive.

A thoughtful approach to software development that diagnoses the nature of the problem is key to choosing the right methodology for the project. It's not about what's popular, but what works.