The misunderstanding of Waterfall vs. Agile?
By: Helge Tennø
Tags: Agile, Design Thinking, Customer Experience

I often hear the argument that waterfall is about sequence (e.g. strictly following steps: a-b-c-d). And Agile is about flexibility and -no- sequence. I would like to discuss if this is a misunderstanding?

ps. I know Agile is much bigger than this, but for the sake of this comment I just want to tackle the waterfall vs. agile concept / comparison.

e.g. let’s say I’m an author. - In a waterfall process I’m writing a novel. I spend 12 months writing it before I hit ‘publish’ and then I collect the rewards. It’s already finished when I publish and there is no room for improvement. Classic waterfall! - If I write an article it’s shorter, it takes maybe a week, and it gives me feedback if I’m on the right track / have something valuable to offer or not. I can capture learnings to increase my progress towards the bigger book. - If I write a paragraph, it takes me maybe an hour and it gives me even faster feedback. It’s a fragment of the feedback, but I continue to quickly output paragraphs to create a map of feedback that I can summon to a whole. - Now, If I write a sentence, I’m spending maybe five minutes so even faster feedback, more fragmented but makes me move even faster and responsive.

The challenge is that without context, all these are waterfall processes, because thinking and writing and sentence building all follow and all belong to systems of process and/or sequence

(e.g. the process of critical thinking: 1. knowledge, 2. comprehension, 3. application, 4. analysis, 5. synthesis, 6. evaluation).

Even if I just write an algorithm that is basically a sequence with a set of rules.

My argument is that process / sequence is unavoidable if you want to produce meaning. Which is essential if you want valuable / relevant / any feedback.

Now, since I can argue that at one point everything is waterfall, because everything at one point follows a sequence. My first question is: Is there any Agile without context? e.g. If I’m an author writing a book, then writing sentences surely is Agile? But if I’m a soundbite — writing master mind, then surely a sentence is my whole output, so I’m waterfall? Right?

But maybe more importantly:

From this perspective I would argue that Agile can not be about sequence or process. Agile is about A. response and B. progress.

Response means that you are basing your work on a continuous flow of new learning. About not knowing what the next response is going to be (because if you know the outcome of a test, why run it right?) Response generates surprise which generates new frameworks, concepts and ideas. And response demands that the team is willing to accept the outcome of the test. If not, it’s not responding, or? Progress means that you don’t have a a fixed target, but measure improvements and are able to adapt your trajectory based on what you learn and identify better ways of delivering value. The purpose is not to get somewhere fixed (destination) but to be on a journey towards increased valuable outcomes.

Agile ways of working improves on the old ‘waterfall’ way of working by identifying smaller units of meaning that generate response and progress. But it’s not about sequences, it’s about truly being responsive to what you learn and understanding the difference between goals (destination) and progress (journey :)