Compare And Contrast Waterfall And Agile

When comparing and contrasting waterfall and agile, they both use the same type of building blocks for the project: scope, cost, schedule and performance. They both also analyze, design, build, test, and deploy the requirement needed for the end result. The difference in these terms for each method is that when using waterfall for scope, cost, schedule, and performance, it sets the scope up front and then allows the cost, schedule, and performance to change depending on what is needed. An agile method will set the cost, schedule, and performance upfront and then have the scope vary, depending on what the company’s requests are after a working prototype. The waterfall is an iterative method meaning the next step cannot begin until the current one is completed. Once the current step is completed, it cannot be revised in anyway unless the project is scrapped and begin again. If the waterfall method is chosen, then the project team

In the waterfall method, the steps have to be finished iterative, meaning the next step cannot be started until the previous step is completed. Once the current step is completed, then the next step can be started and so on. The customer does not get a working build during any of the steps and cannot make any changes in the scope at all. Once all steps are completed, the end result is given to the customer and then they can deploy and hope it does what they are needing it to do. If any of the steps need to be changed, then the whole process will need to be restarted from the beginning and the process began again. In agile methods, the process is more flexible. This method is flexible and can allow changes after each iteration. The goal of each iteration is to provide a working build so that the customer can give feedback on it and changes can be made, if needed, so that all requirements are met, or if requirements have changed since the initial build of the