We are near the end of this blog series about “20 Controversial Topics of Debate in Agile“. The 19th topic of debate is whether a hybrid version of Waterfall and Agile can succeed. I could go either way on this one, but I’m curious to know what you think.
A hybrid approach can work because it…
Combines the best aspects of multiple approaches
Let’s just be honest: while we might not want it to be true, Waterfall isn’t going away. There will always be some projects that are better suited to be run in this fashion.
On top of that, organizational agility is still a long way off for many companies. You may be able to develop projects using Agile, but that doesn’t mean your leadership understands how you’re doing it.
By retaining some artifacts of traditional Project Management, you can serve all parts of your organization. This might mean that you use an Agile framework for delivery, but still do some of the following activities:
- Provide Status Reports
- Manage Risks
- Change Management
- Project and Release Planning
Adapts to changing requirements
A hybrid of Agile and Waterfall has one distinct advantage: it allows for change while also using concepts of traditional change management. This may mean that you begin with a defined scope, but if things change trade-offs need to be made. You will have to give something up to get something else instead. Or, you can add budget or resources.
Helps fill in gaps
Any methodology or framework is not perfect. Teams should have the flexibility to supplement their Agile framework with whatever practices work best to accomplish their goals.
Agile is simple in concept, but there are many things it does not specifically address. Some examples include:
- Vendor Selection
- Prioritization
- Timelines
- Budgets
- Product Vision
- Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement
- Non-functional Requirements
- Etc.
Works better for planning and budgeting
Most organizations have strategic and budget planning well in advance of new product development.
With Agile, this poses a problem. By combining aspects of traditional Project Management with Agile, high-level requirements can be defined upfront and the project planned. When the core features of a product are identified, an Agile team can be funded to develop the product.
When the budget and time expire, whatever has been developed is what the organization will accept, or it can choose to continue investing in the product.
A hybrid approach may not work because it…
Varies Widely
Hybrid approaches vary widely across industries and organizations. As such, there is no single construct that represents what hybrid means. It’s an amalgamation of parts and pieces from various approaches. Therefore, there’s not any good data to indicate what aspects of hybrid work somewhere compared to another place.
Requires extensive planning
If you decide to mix Waterfall and Agile, you’re going to need to do more planning than you realize. Agile bakes planning into every iteration, whereas traditional projects are typically planned far in advance. When doing both, you’re duplicating your planning efforts. It will also be difficult to maintain traditional project plans as change occurs and the team adapts to the change.
May yield results, but it won’t ever be as optimal
You might be able to have success with a hybrid approach, but it won’t be as optimal as if you were doing one or the other. There are some inherent redundancies that exist between Waterfall and Agile, and you’ll have more overhead costs, and therefore less efficiency.
Introduces confusion about roles
Are you a Project Manager? A Scrum Master? A Portfolio Manager? A Team Leader? When you mix and match Waterfall and Agile, it might not be obvious to you (or your team) exactly what your responsibilities are. If you run into this situation, I would advise running a “Roles & Responsibilities” activity to get everyone on the same page. A good old-fashioned RACI chart might also be a traditional technique that could be used to address this.
Often conflicts
Command-and-control versus responding to change – these are diametrically opposing ideas. Waterfall is about figuring things out ahead of time whereas Agile is about being comfortable with ambiguity and adapting quickly to change. It’s hard for me to reconcile using aspects of both approaches simultaneously. And when you do run into conflicts (and you will), which one wins?
So, can a hybrid of Agile and Waterfall succeed?
My answer is: MAYBE. I’ve seen case studies where it was successful. And most implementations end up being hybrid anyway, due to organizational constraints (such as a Project Management Organization), team comfort (experience using traditional methodologies), or planning purposes for budgeting and forecasting, etc.
Very few teams are rigidly applying an Agile process in the same way. The whole concept is that teams are supposed to be self-managing – so leave it to them and let them figure out what works best for their product and circumstances.
What do you think? Can a hybrid of Agile and Waterfall work? What is your experience with hybrid approaches? I would love to hear about your experiences, so drop me a comment below!
There’s only one blog left in this series!
- Can you use a Sprint 0 in Agile?
- Do you need Documentation in Agile?
- Is there a “right” way to write User Stories?
- What’s the best way to write Acceptance Criteria?
- How long should your Agile sprints be?
- Should all your Agile teams be run the “same” way?
- Which “flavor” of Agile is best?
- Can Agile co-exist with Waterfall?
- Story Size – What’s an Epic, Theme, Feature…?
- Can the Scrum Master be a team member, too?
- Can distributed Agile teams work?
- How should you estimate in Scrum & Agile?
- Is it OK to add items to the current Sprint?
- How should you manage your Agile backlog?
- Can an Agile team have more than one Product?
- What is the optimal size for Agile teams?
- Should Agile teams stay together?
- How should you handle defects in Agile?
- Can a hybrid of Waterfall and Agile succeed?
- What are the official roles on an Agile Team?