Project Management Central

Please login or join to subscribe to this thread

Topics: Agile, Organizational Project Management, Scrum
Can we benchmark Agile against the planned approach? If you did it, please describe the metrics and the approach used.
Network:507



There is a almost general consensus in the Agile community that Agile is more effective than the planned approach. Is there any evidence based on metrics that an Agile project is more efficient than a so called "waterfall" project?
What metrics can be used to compare Agile with "waterfall"?
Sort By:
Network:13943



They are both fit for purpose and neither better nor worse than each other when applied appropriately. They can't really be compared, because the true comparison is whatever approach is used (ie. Agile, waterfall) against the successful outcome of the project.
Network:1654



Point is: Agile approach can be used with waterfall life cycle. Agile and waterfall are not matter of comparison, except for the last PMBOK where the Agile life cycle was introduced as a new type of life cycle which is iterative-incremental. In my actual work place we are using predictive and adaptive life cycles and the same person is assigned to lead them at the same time. Think on metrics related to effectiveness has no sense because to select one or another (or an hybrid) depends on two key things: 1-the solution characteristics. 2-mainly the environment (internal and external) which means take into account the actual enteprise architecture.
Network:1057



Stelian -

There have been some questions about their sampling methodology, but Standish's reports have contrasted the success rates of predictive vs adaptive lifecycles. The most recent one (you can find a free summary on vitalitychicago.com) indicated a difference of 16% in success rates...

Kiron
Network:507



Thank you Kiron.
Network:507



Thank you Sergio. We did a comparison in 2008 and the result was not so good for Agile. At that time Java teams using Scrum were 4-6 times less effective that the ones using "waterfall". I personally don't believe that Agile and "waterfall" can or should be compared but I'm in minority.
...
1 reply by Sergio Luis Conte
Oct 10, 2018 5:05 AM
Sergio Luis Conte
...
That is the problem. As far as I understood you are comparing a team using a framework (Scrum, which is worst due to Scrum must be filled with the tools and techniques to use) and a language (Java). Sorry, but the comparison will not work. On the other side, there are lot of people (including myself) that have used Agile practices with waterfall life cycle. You can find papers on the field where some people named those environments as "waterfall with modifiers". For example, by using prototypes mainly the technique named "paper prototype".
Network:507



Thank you Sante. We compared them in 2008. It's not that hard if you can find professional Function Points Counters.
It's true that we compared the output, not the outcome. As in the case of Benefits Realization that's a very sensitive topic.
Network:1654



Oct 09, 2018 10:55 PM
Replying to Stelian ROMAN
...
Thank you Sergio. We did a comparison in 2008 and the result was not so good for Agile. At that time Java teams using Scrum were 4-6 times less effective that the ones using "waterfall". I personally don't believe that Agile and "waterfall" can or should be compared but I'm in minority.
That is the problem. As far as I understood you are comparing a team using a framework (Scrum, which is worst due to Scrum must be filled with the tools and techniques to use) and a language (Java). Sorry, but the comparison will not work. On the other side, there are lot of people (including myself) that have used Agile practices with waterfall life cycle. You can find papers on the field where some people named those environments as "waterfall with modifiers". For example, by using prototypes mainly the technique named "paper prototype".
...
1 reply by Stelian ROMAN
Oct 10, 2018 6:42 AM
Stelian ROMAN
...
@sergio, my bad. What I wanted to say is that the Java teams used Scrum while other teams developing in a technology called COOL GEN used a very formal process. you can't compare a language with a framework but there is prejudice in using a certain framework depending on technology.
Of course that a team using Java can use 'waterfall' but naturally developers using recent development platforms will be attracted to Scrum, mainly because of the 'working software over comprehensive documentation' statement.
Network:507



Oct 10, 2018 5:05 AM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
That is the problem. As far as I understood you are comparing a team using a framework (Scrum, which is worst due to Scrum must be filled with the tools and techniques to use) and a language (Java). Sorry, but the comparison will not work. On the other side, there are lot of people (including myself) that have used Agile practices with waterfall life cycle. You can find papers on the field where some people named those environments as "waterfall with modifiers". For example, by using prototypes mainly the technique named "paper prototype".
@sergio, my bad. What I wanted to say is that the Java teams used Scrum while other teams developing in a technology called COOL GEN used a very formal process. you can't compare a language with a framework but there is prejudice in using a certain framework depending on technology.
Of course that a team using Java can use 'waterfall' but naturally developers using recent development platforms will be attracted to Scrum, mainly because of the 'working software over comprehensive documentation' statement.

Please login or join to reply

Content ID:
ADVERTISEMENTS

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."

- Mark Twain

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors