Navigating project management: Scrum, Waterfall, or a new hybrid?

by

In today’s dynamic world, project management methodologies often get boxed into categories: Scrum is the hero, Waterfall is the villain. But is the landscape truly that black and white? What if there’s a third option, a hybrid method, which combines the best of both worlds?

Consider this: Even tech giants like Google have integrated aspects of Waterfall into their 2020 development process. Sometimes, Scrum and Waterfall can even complement one another beautifully. Every project management methodology has its strengths and weaknesses. We’re here not just to compare the well-known methods, but also to introduce the idea that sometimes a blend might be the perfect answer.

And here’s what we find out, based on relevant criteria.

Approach

  • Waterfall: This methodology takes a sequential and linear path, ensuring each phase is completed before proceeding to the next.
  • Agile: Embracing an iterative approach, Agile promotes flexibility and allows for adaptability throughout the project’s lifecycle.
  • Havelock: A blend of Waterfall and Agile, it works with actionable items, striving to maintain a balance between predictability and adaptability.

Flexibility

  • Waterfall: Due to its step-by-step nature, it’s less adaptable to changes once the project kicks off.
  • Agile: Known for its adaptability, Agile encourages continuous feedback and change.
  • Havelock: Highly adaptable but always in sync with initial plans, ensuring the project stays on track and adapts as necessary.

Phases

  • Waterfall: Projects are segmented into clear phases (like design, development, and deployment) that occur in a fixed order.
  • Agile: Work is broken down into iterations or sprints, with each encompassing all project phases.
  • Havelock: This methodology allows for the usage and recycling of efficient practices at the project’s start, making traditional re-planning unnecessary.

Client Involvement

  • Waterfall: Clients mainly get involved at the beginning and the end, with limited interaction during the project’s core phases.
  • Agile: Clients are actively engaged throughout, offering feedback during each iteration.
  • Havelock: Clients participate throughout, focusing on the Dynamic reminders hub and addressing actionable items only.

Risk Management

  • Waterfall: Risks are pinpointed early on, but mid-project changes can be a hurdle.
  • Agile: It offers continuous risk assessment and management, permitting shifts based on new risks.
  • Havelock: Real-time planning replaces traditional re-planning, and continuous comparison to initial plans ensures enhanced risk predictability.

Documentation

  • Waterfall: Comprehensive documentation is prioritized, especially during the early stages.
  • Agile: The focus shifts towards working software over in-depth documentation.
  • Havelock: Advocates for sustainable know-how, ensuring the work process remains lean and efficient.

Project Progress

  • Waterfall: Progress is gauged by completed phases and set milestones.
  • Agile: It’s assessed via working deliverables produced in every sprint.
  • Havelock: Real-time evaluation ensures complete operational transparency.

Team Collaboration

  • Waterfall: Collaboration mainly occurs within individual phases, with specialized teams tackling their respective areas.
  • Agile: Promotes inter-disciplinary collaboration, urging teams to share knowledge and communicate more effectively.
  • Havelock: All teams operate in harmony, focusing on common goals. Stakeholders are promptly informed about all updates.

Project Scope

  • Waterfall: The scope is set at the project’s inception and is hard to alter midway.
  • Agile: It allows for a malleable scope, adapting to changing requirements and feedback.
  • Havelock: Merges an indicative scope (based on best practices) with real-time scope development.

Time-to-Market

  • Waterfall: The sequential nature might lead to a lengthier time-to-market.
  • Agile: The iterative structure facilitates a quicker release of functional components.
  • Havelock: By harnessing the strengths of both Agile and Waterfall, it ensures an even more rapid time-to-market.

Deeper dive into Havelock’s approach

Yet, it’s imperative to recognize that Dynamic Planning isn’t merely a fusion of Waterfall and Agile. It surpasses them by integrating the groundbreaking concept of “actionability.” At its core, this ensures that action items—be they milestones or tasks—are only set in motion when all hindrances are removed. In traditional systems, the coexistence of “blockers” and “blocked” tasks muddles the process, adding noise and complicating prioritization. DP’s approach eradicates these issues by only allowing actionable items into the system.

  1. Obsolete Replanning: With projects sculpted in real-time, the cumbersome task of replanning is phased out. A select set of dynamic reminders focusing solely on actionable items streamlines the entire process.
  2. Instant Health Check: An automated comparison with initial plans offers a clear insight into a project’s health and progression rate.
  3. Spotting Blockers: In the absence of “blocked” items, any obstructions are instantly highlighted, making the problem-solving process swift and transparent.
  4. Unified Vision: The crystal-clear system ensures all teams are in sync with shared priorities. This clarity eliminates blame games, eases communication, and significantly reduces stress levels.

Selecting the right methodology hinges on your project’s needs, client preferences, and the capabilities of your team. Whether you’re drawn to the structure of Waterfall, the flexibility of Agile, or the innovative blend in Havelock’s Dynamic Planning, understanding their differences will guide your projects to success

Previous Post
AI’s impact on modern project management
Next Post
Stop using email to track and manage tasks