Why is the Waterfall Methodology Dead for Software Development?
Waterfall is a traditional system development methodology. It functions as a step-by-step linear approach to projects. The output of a phase is used as an input to the one that proceeds it, forcing the development to be sequential.
When it comes to hardware, Waterfall is very effective. In fact, it has been, at times, described as “the first technological revolution”. However, as technology evolved, this methodology became inadequate to modern forms of development, which, in the case of software, means it didn’t allow efficiency to be explored at its best.
Waterfall has been used for three centuries in traditional industries such as automotive, manufacture and construction. Because those fields are based on physical structures, there is little room for changes during their development. Issues overlooked on a phase could lead to high costs at later stages, so the methodology prevents that by ensuring that all phases are detailedly completed. Given its effectiveness and popularity at its time, the model got adapted to business consulting, followed by its integration in software development.
The term “Waterfall” was not officially coined until 1970, when Winston W. Royce, an American computer scientist, outlined its phases. Until then, the methodology was more a way of doing things rather than a set of prescribed instructions. Royce’s intention was to facilitate software development management by summarizing it into five, ordered steps, with a big emphasis on testing and documenting the process, which could help prevent and more efficiently fix any mistakes.
However, the method’s rigid process was not adequate to meet the later demand that came with the advance of software. Like any other framework, it was designed not only based on the business vision, but also on the social, economic and political context around it. In an internet world where news spreads by the second and people’s expectations are constantly changing, technology needs to adapt to users in order to survive.
Although the software process can look similar to hardware ones, it has a rather different structure to it. Unlike a building, which has to look exactly like it was designed to be fully functional, the results of software development aren’t predictable because you can never know for sure how users will respond to solutions once they are out in the market. Each user is unique to their issues, and new solutions are released every day. Therefore, software development nowadays needs to be efficient and malleable, something that Waterfall’s rigid structure doesn’t allow.
Critics of the model say that too much time is spent documenting rather than working on a project. As communication with clients was facilitated by computers, it became more crucial for companies to deliver at a faster pace.
Because of its sequential flow, the methodology also requires companies to have a fixed hierarchical structure, passing an already planned process down from top officials to the development team. Nowadays, organizations work much more with feedback among coders and tend to adjust the process as they find more appropriate, allowing the work to be more specialized and creative.
As the historical context changes, methodologies should adapt to fit the new expectations and needs of a society. Waterfall “died” because it could not properly attend to the necessities users that came after its time. For technological or client-based types of development, other, recent models in the industry allow companies to deliver more efficiently and effectively. If you are looking to step up your game, transitioning to those models might be an interesting solution to your company.
