Agile and Waterfall are often presented as competing project management approaches. The more useful distinction is the assumption each approach makes about how accurately future scope and execution can be defined before work begins.
Waterfall-style planning is predictive. Agile planning is adaptive. Complex programs frequently contain elements of both.
How Waterfall planning works
A predictive approach attempts to define requirements, scope, sequence and major deliverables before significant execution begins. Work proceeds through planned phases and changes are evaluated against the approved plan.
This approach works well when requirements are relatively stable, physical dependencies are strong, certification sequences are known or contractual commitments require significant upfront definition.
How Agile planning differs
Agile assumes that some requirements and implementation decisions will become clearer through delivery and feedback. Rather than fully detailing the entire project at the beginning, teams progressively refine future work while planning near-term execution in greater detail.
The Agile Manifesto values responding to change over following a plan. That does not mean planning has no value. It means plans are expected to evolve when evidence supports a different course.
Agile vs Waterfall planning differences
- Requirements: predictive approaches seek greater early definition while Agile expects continued refinement.
- Delivery: predictive programs may organize delivery around major phases while Agile favors smaller increments.
- Change: predictive plans evaluate change against defined baselines while Agile expects controlled reprioritization.
- Feedback: Agile intentionally creates frequent feedback loops.
- Schedule detail: Agile generally increases detail as work approaches execution.
Hybrid planning on DoD programs
A defense program may contain fixed contractual milestones while its software organization executes in short iterations. Hardware deliveries, test facilities, customer reviews and qualification events may require predictive planning even when software content remains adaptive.
The program-level schedule can therefore identify external dependencies and committed outcomes while the Agile delivery system manages lower-level iteration content.
Which approach is better?
Neither approach is universally superior. Predictive planning is useful when sequence and commitments can be defined with reasonable confidence. Agile is valuable when learning and changing requirements make excessive early detail unreliable.
For large programs, the better question is which planning method belongs at each level of the system.
Continue with What Is Scrum?.