Agile Vs Waterfall Case Study

Agile versus Waterfall: A Software Development Comparison and Contrast

Waterfall development and agile software development approaches have been the conversation at watercoolers in Information Technology (IT) departments. Which software development approach is most effective? Should the decision be made by industry or by project? Is the company considered archaic if they don’t embrace the more newly agile software development method? Each development method has much to offer. Both will be compared and contrasted and will conclude with the approach I believe is most valuable in a software development setting. Waterfall is known by its sequential process: feasibility study, analysis, design, implementation, test, and maintenance. Each

Waterfall teams are permanently structured teams that don’t disband at the end of a project. They are typically larger teams depending upon the size of the development project and tend to support many lines of business at once. Waterfall team members can anticipate the timing of their project involvement since all stakeholders are not involved in the entire waterfall process. For example, developers are not typically involved in the feasibility study or the analysis phase. These areas are typically categorized by business analysts working with the senior business and mid-level manager team members. On the contrast, agile development teams are smaller in nature. They typically consist of 5-8 developers that disband when the project is over. While consulting for a software development company, I lead an agile development project that consisted of three teams with five developers working in a phased approach. The first two-week sprint began with the first set of developers, followed by the second team, then the third about a month later. The third team was added as the business discovered that reporting functionality was needed sooner than later. Both waterfall and agile allow the flexibility to add developers to a project as long as appropriate approvals are completed. The ability to expand and contract teams allows for cross-training and is beneficial to building competency in the team. This allows for younger and inexperienced developers to join in and be mentored by more tenured