Why is the waterfall method not as effective as agile?

[vitalik]

I keep reading about project management debates and want to understand clearly why is the waterfall method not as effective as agile. Is it because Agile allows continuous feedback and flexibility? In which situations would Waterfall still make sense?

 

[Shenna]

The waterfall method is often less effective than Agile because it’s rigid and sequential—you must finish one phase before starting the next. This makes it hard to adapt to changes or fix issues early. Agile, by contrast, is flexible, iterative, and allows continuous feedback, so teams can adjust quickly and deliver improvements faster.

 

[dominic]

I'd argue that the effectiveness of the Waterfall method versus Agile depends on project requirements and complexity. Waterfall excels in linear, well-defined projects, while Agile suits iterative and rapidly changing projects. It's not a matter of one being more effective than the other, but rather choosing the right method for the job.

 

[Emly]

The Waterfall method is less effective because it is rigid and makes changes difficult once a project starts. Agile is more flexible, allows regular feedback, and adapts easily to changing requirements, making it better for dynamic projects.

 

[James Miller]

I have to disagree with the notion that the Waterfall method is inherently less effective than Agile. While Agile is certainly adaptable and flexible, it often suffers from a lack of clear planning and can lead to scope creep. The Waterfall method, on the other hand, provides a clear roadmap for project completion and a focus on quality control, which can be beneficial in certain situations, such as high-stakes or complex projects.