Web Development: Agile or Waterfall?

Waterfall: Structure and Stability

The predecessor, the waterfall method, is a structured approach in which a complete
specification is developed with phases (conceptualization, initiation, analysis, design, implementation, testing and maintenance), which are carried out in the exact order in which they were planned. The waterfall method is more effective when elements of a project already exist; because it can be planned, you know exactly what you will get, from the size to the schedule to the cost forecasts.

This approach is particularly suitable for companies with conservative management and well-established internal business processes. If it is certain that the project scope will remain unchanged for the planned project duration for certain reasons, or even has to remain unchanged, then the waterfall method offers more security and clarity regarding KPIs such as time and budget. In practice, however, such conditions are becoming increasingly rare, as project requirements are becoming more and more complex and conditions are becoming more and more dynamic.

The advantage of waterfall is that you end up with a clean and clear project path that makes it very easy to predict the end product. However, once a step is completed, it cannot be changed without interrupting the process, which makes any form of change problematic. As a result, waterfall processes are only tested retrospectively, so if errors are found, it is “too late”.

Agile: Flexibility and Adaptability

When talking to potential clients about web development, we are often asked about agile web development methodologies. This approach is an incremental design process that was created in response to the lack of flexibility in the waterfall method. It is an adaptive process because the project scope is divided into different models that are operated over a certain period of time and then tested and evaluated.

This allows for an evolutionary development style where project teams and stakeholders/customers work together
over a period of time to achieve specific goals. The stakeholders
receive the deliverables of a cross-functional team that can vary in size depending on the project.

Instead of a master project plan, the team advances through micro-projects, called “sprints”.
As the project advances, there is constant interaction with the customer, which allows for a faster response to changes in direction and results in a faster delivery of a usable product. The Agile method shines best on a project that may require significant changes or revisions over time.

The Agile method allows for a lot of flexibility, but it is a fast-paced,
ever-changing approach that does not require precision in terms of goals or recording.

In some ways this is a blessing, but if the project lacks a clear direction for too long, it can quickly get off track and cause more heartache (or wallet ache) than it's worth. This method works best with an experienced project team and a client who invests the necessary time and resources.

Conclusion

This is much less about what works best; both work well and have a lot of success in the design world. The question is: which method works best for you and your project?

Do you have clearly defined goals and are you looking for something with a “definitive” course? Then you should opt for the waterfall method.

Or do you want something that evolves, with the potential to become more than you
hoped for at the beginning of the project? If so, then the Agile method is your way.