Waterfall vs Agile

Waterfall vs Agile: A Comparison of Methods

• The webinar is hosted by Mark Griffin and features Earl Beatty as the speaker.

• Earl has over 25 years of experience in software development and is a CSPP and Senior Fellow at Constructs.

• The webinar aims to provide insights into the true differences between Waterfall and Agile methodologies.

• The common perception of Waterfall and Agile is often not accurate, and the webinar aims to clarify this.

• Waterfall involves clear phases that cascade down, but in practice, there are different variations of Waterfall, including stage delivery, priority order, and evolutionary prototyping.

• Agile involves a backlog of work that is executed in increments or sprints over a fixed time period.

• Kanban is sometimes used as an Agile methodology, but it is often a Waterfall process with a veneer of Agile.

• The key difference between Waterfall and Agile is where the iteration and learning takes place.

• Both developers and stakeholders need to iterate and learn in both methodologies, but the focus is different.

• Waterfall puts more emphasis on iterating and learning upfront, while Agile allows for more iteration and learning throughout the development process.

• The success of both methodologies depends on the culture and organization of the team using them.

• The webinar will provide a new way of looking at both methodologies and help improve software development practices.Iterating and Learning in Waterfall vs Agile: Which is Better?

• Waterfall and Agile both have places where iteration and learning occur, but in different stages of the development process.

• Waterfall focuses on iterating and learning in the requirements and design stage, whereas Agile does it in working software.

• Well-run Waterfall projects spend around 60% of their development time iterating and learning in requirements and design.

• Waterfall iteration and learning involves four players: analysts, developers, testers, and stakeholders, who interact in small batches and surface rules and business rules.

• Agile iteration and learning happens in working software, where developers create code, release it, and get feedback from users.

• The perceived skill distribution of people working in software development is that most people think they are okay, some are scary, and a few are awesome.

• However, the actual distribution of skills is that most people are scary, some are okay, and a few are awesome.

• If a project has awesome people executing the skills, both Waterfall and Agile can be successful.

• When it comes to scary people executing the skills, Waterfall is more efficient, effective, and innovative because it focuses on understanding the problem in the requirements and design stage.

• Waterfall iteration and learning in requirements and design is cheaper, more efficient, and effective than Agile's iteration and learning in working software, especially if the team is full of scary people.

• Innovation happens when the problem is well-understood, and Waterfall's focus on understanding the problem in the requirements and design stage can lead to more innovation than Agile.

• Overall, the choice between Waterfall and Agile depends on the skill distribution of the team executing the skills, with Waterfall being the better choice for teams with a lot of scary people.Choosing between Waterfall and Agile for Software Development

• The traditional approach to software development is Waterfall, while Agile is a newer approach.

• Waterfall projects rely on creating deliverables and going through a stage-gate process, with little iteration and learning.

• Agile projects focus on enablers and building infrastructure, but can also lack iteration and learning, leading to long projects with no value delivered.

• Both Waterfall and Agile can be functionally equivalent in terms of development practices, with sketchy requirements and a design process that relies on learning as you go.

• The difference between the two approaches lies in where you iterate and learn - in requirements and design for Waterfall, and in working software for Agile.

• When working with a team of scary people who don't understand why they're doing things, neither approach is likely to be effective for iteration and learning.

• When working with a team of okay people who are willing to learn, Agile is a better fit due to its shorter cycles and easier teaching process.

• When working with a mixed bag of awesome, okay, and scary people, play to your strengths - use Waterfall for awesome modelers and Agile for awesome developers.

• The number of developers who are also good modelers is relatively small, making Agile a better option for most teams.

• To improve skills and performance, create a professional development ladder with stages that outline the experience and knowledge needed to progress.

• Better Agile is a method that focuses on having the product owner iterate and learn in requirements, while the development team iterates and learns in working software.

• Value increments, rather than features, should be used to feed the development team to ensure value is delivered incrementally.Agile vs. Waterfall: The Importance of Skill Distribution

• The speaker argues that the success of a project depends on the skill distribution of the development team.

• He claims that 75% of developers fall into the "scary" category, meaning they lack the necessary skills to effectively execute a project.

• The speaker suggests that Agile is better suited for teams with a higher percentage of "awesome" developers, while Waterfall may work better for teams with a higher percentage of "scary" developers.

• The success of Agile also depends on the ability of the team to iterate and learn from mistakes.

• The speaker recommends a hybrid approach that involves a relatively detailed requirements and design phase followed by Agile development cycles.

• The use of CI/CD pipelines and code analysis tools is helpful in speeding up development, but it doesn't solve the problem of building the wrong product.

• The speaker suggests that organizations should test their teams to understand their strengths and weaknesses.

• Safe (Scaled Agile Framework) is more sequential and waterfall-like than Agile, but it can be helpful in managing projects with a large number of people.

• In non-co-located virtual teams, Agile may work better than Waterfall because the modeling process requires face-to-face interaction.

• The size of the organization is less important than the size of the team working together and the skill distribution within that team.

• The organization has a greater impact on the culture of the team than on their skill distribution.

• The speaker recommends ongoing estimation as an information-gathering tool rather than a magical futuring device.

Waterfall vs Agile: A Comparison of Methods

• The webinar is hosted by Mark Griffin and features Earl Beatty as the speaker.

• Earl has over 25 years of experience in software development and is a CSPP and Senior Fellow at Constructs.

• The webinar aims to provide insights into the true differences between Waterfall and Agile methodologies.

• The common perception of Waterfall and Agile is often not accurate, and the webinar aims to clarify this.

• Waterfall involves clear phases that cascade down, but in practice, there are different variations of Waterfall, including stage delivery, priority order, and evolutionary prototyping.

• Agile involves a backlog of work that is executed in increments or sprints over a fixed time period.

• Kanban is sometimes used as an Agile methodology, but it is often a Waterfall process with a veneer of Agile.

• The key difference between Waterfall and Agile is where the iteration and learning takes place.

• Both developers and stakeholders need to iterate and learn in both methodologies, but the focus is different.

• Waterfall puts more emphasis on iterating and learning upfront, while Agile allows for more iteration and learning throughout the development process.

• The success of both methodologies depends on the culture and organization of the team using them.

• The webinar will provide a new way of looking at both methodologies and help improve software development practices.Iterating and Learning in Waterfall vs Agile: Which is Better?

• Waterfall and Agile both have places where iteration and learning occur, but in different stages of the development process.

• Waterfall focuses on iterating and learning in the requirements and design stage, whereas Agile does it in working software.

• Well-run Waterfall projects spend around 60% of their development time iterating and learning in requirements and design.

• Waterfall iteration and learning involves four players: analysts, developers, testers, and stakeholders, who interact in small batches and surface rules and business rules.

• Agile iteration and learning happens in working software, where developers create code, release it, and get feedback from users.

• The perceived skill distribution of people working in software development is that most people think they are okay, some are scary, and a few are awesome.

• However, the actual distribution of skills is that most people are scary, some are okay, and a few are awesome.

• If a project has awesome people executing the skills, both Waterfall and Agile can be successful.

• When it comes to scary people executing the skills, Waterfall is more efficient, effective, and innovative because it focuses on understanding the problem in the requirements and design stage.

• Waterfall iteration and learning in requirements and design is cheaper, more efficient, and effective than Agile's iteration and learning in working software, especially if the team is full of scary people.

• Innovation happens when the problem is well-understood, and Waterfall's focus on understanding the problem in the requirements and design stage can lead to more innovation than Agile.

• Overall, the choice between Waterfall and Agile depends on the skill distribution of the team executing the skills, with Waterfall being the better choice for teams with a lot of scary people.Choosing between Waterfall and Agile for Software Development

• The traditional approach to software development is Waterfall, while Agile is a newer approach.

• Waterfall projects rely on creating deliverables and going through a stage-gate process, with little iteration and learning.

• Agile projects focus on enablers and building infrastructure, but can also lack iteration and learning, leading to long projects with no value delivered.

• Both Waterfall and Agile can be functionally equivalent in terms of development practices, with sketchy requirements and a design process that relies on learning as you go.

• The difference between the two approaches lies in where you iterate and learn - in requirements and design for Waterfall, and in working software for Agile.

• When working with a team of scary people who don't understand why they're doing things, neither approach is likely to be effective for iteration and learning.

• When working with a team of okay people who are willing to learn, Agile is a better fit due to its shorter cycles and easier teaching process.

• When working with a mixed bag of awesome, okay, and scary people, play to your strengths - use Waterfall for awesome modelers and Agile for awesome developers.

• The number of developers who are also good modelers is relatively small, making Agile a better option for most teams.

• To improve skills and performance, create a professional development ladder with stages that outline the experience and knowledge needed to progress.

• Better Agile is a method that focuses on having the product owner iterate and learn in requirements, while the development team iterates and learns in working software.

• Value increments, rather than features, should be used to feed the development team to ensure value is delivered incrementally.Agile vs. Waterfall: The Importance of Skill Distribution

• The speaker argues that the success of a project depends on the skill distribution of the development team.

• He claims that 75% of developers fall into the "scary" category, meaning they lack the necessary skills to effectively execute a project.

• The speaker suggests that Agile is better suited for teams with a higher percentage of "awesome" developers, while Waterfall may work better for teams with a higher percentage of "scary" developers.

• The success of Agile also depends on the ability of the team to iterate and learn from mistakes.

• The speaker recommends a hybrid approach that involves a relatively detailed requirements and design phase followed by Agile development cycles.

• The use of CI/CD pipelines and code analysis tools is helpful in speeding up development, but it doesn't solve the problem of building the wrong product.

• The speaker suggests that organizations should test their teams to understand their strengths and weaknesses.

• Safe (Scaled Agile Framework) is more sequential and waterfall-like than Agile, but it can be helpful in managing projects with a large number of people.

• In non-co-located virtual teams, Agile may work better than Waterfall because the modeling process requires face-to-face interaction.

• The size of the organization is less important than the size of the team working together and the skill distribution within that team.

• The organization has a greater impact on the culture of the team than on their skill distribution.

• The speaker recommends ongoing estimation as an information-gathering tool rather than a magical futuring device.

Waterfall vs Agile: A Comparison of Methods

• The webinar is hosted by Mark Griffin and features Earl Beatty as the speaker.

• Earl has over 25 years of experience in software development and is a CSPP and Senior Fellow at Constructs.

• The webinar aims to provide insights into the true differences between Waterfall and Agile methodologies.

• The common perception of Waterfall and Agile is often not accurate, and the webinar aims to clarify this.

• Waterfall involves clear phases that cascade down, but in practice, there are different variations of Waterfall, including stage delivery, priority order, and evolutionary prototyping.

• Agile involves a backlog of work that is executed in increments or sprints over a fixed time period.

• Kanban is sometimes used as an Agile methodology, but it is often a Waterfall process with a veneer of Agile.

• The key difference between Waterfall and Agile is where the iteration and learning takes place.

• Both developers and stakeholders need to iterate and learn in both methodologies, but the focus is different.

• Waterfall puts more emphasis on iterating and learning upfront, while Agile allows for more iteration and learning throughout the development process.

• The success of both methodologies depends on the culture and organization of the team using them.

• The webinar will provide a new way of looking at both methodologies and help improve software development practices.Iterating and Learning in Waterfall vs Agile: Which is Better?

• Waterfall and Agile both have places where iteration and learning occur, but in different stages of the development process.

• Waterfall focuses on iterating and learning in the requirements and design stage, whereas Agile does it in working software.

• Well-run Waterfall projects spend around 60% of their development time iterating and learning in requirements and design.

• Waterfall iteration and learning involves four players: analysts, developers, testers, and stakeholders, who interact in small batches and surface rules and business rules.

• Agile iteration and learning happens in working software, where developers create code, release it, and get feedback from users.

• The perceived skill distribution of people working in software development is that most people think they are okay, some are scary, and a few are awesome.

• However, the actual distribution of skills is that most people are scary, some are okay, and a few are awesome.

• If a project has awesome people executing the skills, both Waterfall and Agile can be successful.

• When it comes to scary people executing the skills, Waterfall is more efficient, effective, and innovative because it focuses on understanding the problem in the requirements and design stage.

• Waterfall iteration and learning in requirements and design is cheaper, more efficient, and effective than Agile's iteration and learning in working software, especially if the team is full of scary people.

• Innovation happens when the problem is well-understood, and Waterfall's focus on understanding the problem in the requirements and design stage can lead to more innovation than Agile.

• Overall, the choice between Waterfall and Agile depends on the skill distribution of the team executing the skills, with Waterfall being the better choice for teams with a lot of scary people.Choosing between Waterfall and Agile for Software Development

• The traditional approach to software development is Waterfall, while Agile is a newer approach.

• Waterfall projects rely on creating deliverables and going through a stage-gate process, with little iteration and learning.

• Agile projects focus on enablers and building infrastructure, but can also lack iteration and learning, leading to long projects with no value delivered.

• Both Waterfall and Agile can be functionally equivalent in terms of development practices, with sketchy requirements and a design process that relies on learning as you go.

• The difference between the two approaches lies in where you iterate and learn - in requirements and design for Waterfall, and in working software for Agile.

• When working with a team of scary people who don't understand why they're doing things, neither approach is likely to be effective for iteration and learning.

• When working with a team of okay people who are willing to learn, Agile is a better fit due to its shorter cycles and easier teaching process.

• When working with a mixed bag of awesome, okay, and scary people, play to your strengths - use Waterfall for awesome modelers and Agile for awesome developers.

• The number of developers who are also good modelers is relatively small, making Agile a better option for most teams.

• To improve skills and performance, create a professional development ladder with stages that outline the experience and knowledge needed to progress.

• Better Agile is a method that focuses on having the product owner iterate and learn in requirements, while the development team iterates and learns in working software.

• Value increments, rather than features, should be used to feed the development team to ensure value is delivered incrementally.Agile vs. Waterfall: The Importance of Skill Distribution

• The speaker argues that the success of a project depends on the skill distribution of the development team.

• He claims that 75% of developers fall into the "scary" category, meaning they lack the necessary skills to effectively execute a project.

• The speaker suggests that Agile is better suited for teams with a higher percentage of "awesome" developers, while Waterfall may work better for teams with a higher percentage of "scary" developers.

• The success of Agile also depends on the ability of the team to iterate and learn from mistakes.

• The speaker recommends a hybrid approach that involves a relatively detailed requirements and design phase followed by Agile development cycles.

• The use of CI/CD pipelines and code analysis tools is helpful in speeding up development, but it doesn't solve the problem of building the wrong product.

• The speaker suggests that organizations should test their teams to understand their strengths and weaknesses.

• Safe (Scaled Agile Framework) is more sequential and waterfall-like than Agile, but it can be helpful in managing projects with a large number of people.

• In non-co-located virtual teams, Agile may work better than Waterfall because the modeling process requires face-to-face interaction.

• The size of the organization is less important than the size of the team working together and the skill distribution within that team.

• The organization has a greater impact on the culture of the team than on their skill distribution.

• The speaker recommends ongoing estimation as an information-gathering tool rather than a magical futuring device.