Agile Project Failure: The Hidden Cultural Barrier Undermining Success

Agile vs. Waterfall: Comparing Success Rates in Project Management

As project management continues to evolve, teams need to stay flexible, learn from both successes and failures and continuously strive for improvement.

Article featured in Agile Genesis

In project management, methodologies matter. The ways teams approach, organize, and complete projects can spell the difference between success and failure. Two dominant paradigms in this field are the Traditional (Waterfall) and Agile methodologies. But which one boasts a better track record?

A Glimpse into the Numbers
According to a report from the Standish Group’s Chaos Report (2020), there is a striking difference in the success rates of projects executed under these methodologies from 2013-2020.

Traditional (Waterfall) Success Rate:

Successful: 13%
Challenged: 28%
Failed: 59%

Agile Projects Success Rate:

Successful: 42%
Challenged: 47%
Failed: 11%

The Waterfall Illusion: Why an Outdated Model Still Reigns in the Agile Era

Be open to evolving practices, and consider whether a shift in approach could bring better outcomes for your projects and organisation.

Article featured in Alexander Hilton

In the world of project management, the Waterfall Model stands like a stoic relic from a bygone era, steadfastly defying the sands of time and the tides of change. It’s a bit like that old, comfortable armchair in your living room — slightly out-of-date and not the best fit for every occasion, yet there’s something undeniably reassuring about its presence. This is the paradox we encounter with the Waterfall Model: its enduring popularity, despite being highlighted as fundamentally flawed right from its inception by Dr. Winston W. Royce in the 1970s.

Now, why does this matter? Well, in a world that’s rapidly embracing agile methodologies and iterative processes, the Waterfall Model’s persistence is a fascinating anomaly. It’s akin to still using a flip phone in the age of smartphones — sure, it can make calls and send texts, but you’re missing out on a whole universe of apps and features. So, let’s embark on a journey to understand this phenomenon.

We’ll delve into the historical narratives, sift through cultural contexts, and dissect practical realities. It’s time to unravel this paradox, not with a sense of disdain, but with a curious mind and perhaps a light-hearted chuckle at the quirks of human nature and organizational behavior.

The War Zone – The Place In Every Organization Where Agile Meets Waterfall

A six-step framework you can use to regain control over your War Zone.

Article featured in Superheroes Academy

You’re leading an agile software delivery team in some capacity – maybe as a ScrumMaster, product leader or manager. Your team has worked hard to align with the Agile Manifesto and you’re proud of their ability to build and ship software at regular intervals. You believe the business is better off as a result of your team’s ability to learn and adapt to changing market conditions faster than before.

Unfortunately, your work becomes more and more challenging as the differences between agile and the status quo become apparent. The more agile your team gets, the more you rub the rest of the organization the wrong way.

For example, you resist when the product team asks you to commit to the annual roadmap because you value responding to change over following a plan. The sales team is not happy with how quickly your team pivots because they use the annual roadmap to close deals. The architects feel excluded because you believe that the best architectures emerge from self-organizing teams.

Stakeholders are frustrated that milestones keep changing. Executives believe that your team is unable to meet commitments and demand more predictability.

It’s Time to End the Battle Between Waterfall and Agile

A review of the key components of Waterfall and Agile allows project leaders to select among them to build a hybrid approach based on the unique demands of each project.

Article featured in Harvard Business Review

When you are leading a high-stakes project, choosing between the rigor of Waterfall and the flexibility of Agile can make or break your initiative. For the last two decades, too many academics, leaders, project managers, and organizations have thought they have to choose one or the other. Worse, the emergence of Agile methods led to tribalism in the project community, stifling innovation and limiting the potential for truly effective solutions.

Bring a bunch of project managers together and inevitably they’ll share their thoughts about their least-preferred methodologies. I’ve heard it all: “Waterfall is a process designed for a world that no longer exists.” “Agile is a way of delivering failure faster.” “Waterfall is a dinosaur.” “Agile makes eagles team up with turkeys.” Entire organizations choose to “go agile,” setting aside the fundamentals of traditional methodologies that some projects need. This rigid and divisive thinking leads to real losses.

The key to navigating this landscape lies in hybrid project management methodologies that combine the planning rigor of Waterfall with the flexibility of Agile. Indeed, the Project Management Institute’s 2020 report indicated that 11.4% of investment is wasted due to poor project performance. The Standish Group’s CHAOS report showed only a 31% project success rate, with 19% of projects failing outright. This indicates an estimated annual global financial loss of an astounding $3 trillion, not to mention wasted resources, missed opportunities, and negative societal impacts.

The Four Guardrails That Enable Agility

Large organizations can move as fast as startups if leaders empower employees to act autonomously via well-defined constraints.

Article featured in MITSloan Management Review

What does it take for a large, established business to be as responsive to changing market conditions as the startups in its industry are? That question is a vital one for leaders seeking to move nimbly to address new customer demands and competitive shifts.

The answer often lies in a single word: empowerment. Startups typically empower their teams to make quick decisions, take risks, and explore novel ideas. These nimble teams operate with a level of autonomy that enables them to rapidly sense and seize opportunities that arise from changes in technologies, competition, and customer needs. In doing so, they iteratively move toward achieving their strategic objectives.

But for large organizations, adopting these practices isn’t quite as simple. With scale and complexity come layers of decision-making, risk aversion, and the need for operational efficiency and strategic alignment across diverse business units. So while greater empowerment is necessary to drive organizational agility, it also needs to be rooted in a level of coordination that keeps the organization moving cohesively toward its strategic objectives.