The Art Of Blending Agile And WaterFall Methods

For improving business outcomes, organisations are following a myriad of methodologies. It may appear to be abnormal yet a feeling of competition between advocates of the waterfall and Agile is an ever ending discussion. Albeit AGILE is gaining prominence over in business today, yet one can’t help but adapt some of the qualities of waterfall.

Asa manager, you may end up in a position where you ask yourself ‘Which approach would it be a good idea for me to go for – waterfall or agile?’


If you are using waterfall methods and you want to adapt the speed of development by the universality of Agile, then you might want to remodel your waterfall organization into agile.
But what if we tell you that, you can make agile work in your organization without sacrificing your waterfall methods. The predictability of planning with the Agility of Speed.
If you would prefer not to totally change to one methodology and dispose of another, you are certainly settling on an astute decision by keeping the best of the two methodologies. There are a few alternatives to cause waterfall and agile to get along, in a manner of speaking.
These ‘crossbreed’ philosophies are structured by comparative standards – joining the qualities of both waterfall and agile into one methodology.
In this article, we will talk about the focal points and hindrances of agile and waterfall philosophies. At long last, we will investigate the crossover techniques accessible for programming improvement that empower the waterfall approach and agile to work inseparably.

Why do we need to blend Waterfall and Agile methodology?

Planning the project is the most demanding part of starting a new project for any an organisation.
Traditionally, experts consider the waterfall methodology as a well-established technique that depends on formal documentation and uncompromising control.

On the other hand, agile has become a good choice for modern teams because it is more adaptable to the changes which often make deliverables quite surprising with a speed to market and earning value early.

The blend of Agile and Waterfall is often considered a smart strategy for embracing both methodologies without compromising too much, essentially utilizing the best of both techniques.

The fundamental drive of the blending Agile and Waterfall is to empower groups to characterize requirements and adjust to changing necessities through persistent criticism and collaboration.

Before we get into how a combination of agile and waterfall models work, let’s get a brief of how each of them works individually.

Agile Methodology:

The Agile strategy utilizes an iterative strategy where the whole team collaborates and the customer gives criticism or feedback all through the entire process of building up a product.

In an Agile method, a lot of work is separated into smaller chunks called ‘sprints’. A sprint is created and tried in an equal manner. This implies testing is certifiably not a different stage yet a vital aspect of the development process itself. The primary point of the testing group is to guarantee the early finding of bugs, issues, and imperfections.

The principle advantage of the Agile system is that the item is handed to the customer in a shorter range of time.

Waterfall methodology:

The Waterfall is a customary methodology that underlines the consecutive development of a venture and comprises of limited stages, where the last stage must be evaluated and confirmed before proceeding onward to the following one.

A free quality affirmation group characterizes experiments to assess whether the product completely or somewhat fulfills the necessities exemplified. The test group should execute these experiments and approve the created item or program.

Considering the pros and cons of each methodology, we should find a key that combines the advantages of both according to the needs of the project.
Waterfall methodology could adopt the flexibility of agile methodology, while agile would certainly benefit from a systematic approach like in waterfall.
Here are two popular blended methodologies that are used in the industry.


One model that makes waterfall and agile get along is the Water-scrum-fall model.
Business analysis and release management teams follow the traditional waterfall methods, while the development and testing team scrum methods in a limited way.

For planning, requirements gathering, budgeting, and documenting the project’s progress the Water-scrum-fall method operates in the traditional waterfall approach. But as soon as, there are enough details to begin, the team switches to a timeboxed, iterative version of Scrum for product development.
This technique uses agile principles and scrum communication techniques in everyday activities related to product development.


Organisations utilize the water-scrum-fall model when they need subtleties in the planning stage so they can make precise assessments of the spending plan. If fortunately the venture is carried in a plan-driven way, it is bound to convince the executives about the thought and they will have a sense of safety when allotting funds.

Another cause behind acquiring the water-scrum-fall model is the tendency of designers and analyzers to intuitively go to dexterous works on during advancement. This happens on the grounds that light-footed practices engage them and give them chances to work together as required by the restrictions of the venture.


The Agifall approach was first presented at the Vancouver Digital Project Managers Meetup Group. It is the best bend of waterfall and agile. As it injects the agile into a loose waterfall process.
Increasing the speed, decreasing the cost, and improve quality is the main task of the Agifall technique.
Agifall approaches engineering in a client-driven way and uses fast model tools. It conveys the planning and conditions exercises of the waterfall in a light-footed way by breaking them into client stories and organizing them in the sprint.
In the Agifall technique, you don’t hang tight for one stage to finish before beginning the following stage; rather you start the following stage when you can. This implies you can start the autonomous advancement of certain modules or parts while the arranging stage is still in progress. The advancement stage follows the usual agile regulations.

Agifall model proposes realistic planning and testing in corresponding with the advancement stage.


By blending the best practices of both methodologies and incorporating the right hybrid techniques, organisations can see great value in the successful delivery of projects.
The success rate of this blend depends on executive drive, good communication, and effective cooperation between team members. If it all goes well, then adopting a hybrid approach can be an extremely powerful way to deal with executing complex undertakings with quickly evolving customer needs.

Leave Reply

Hey, so you decided to leave a comment! That’s great. Just fill in the required fields and hit submit. Note that your comment will need to be reviewed before it’s published Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>