Previously...
A valuable discussion about value
A chance encounter with risk
Today....
A shocking display of shameless bias
And stick around to the end to grab your free Waterfall vs Agile Cheat Sheet!
Welcome to Development That Pays
My name is Gary Straughan
And this episode, I have to tell you, has been a nightmare to put together.
The number, quality and breadth of the comments on the last two episodes has been amazing.
You given me far more than I can do justice to in a single episode.
Mr Sammotube and Mike Jones: you two in particular have... challenged me.
Mike put forward a compelling argument about the VersionOne "gang of four" graphs.
He says they're not intended to be "accurate" or "technically correct".
Their strength is their simplicity, and - more importantly - their reasonableness.
A reasonableness calculated to "draw in" the old school.
I'll put a link to the previous episode in the description so that you can find Mike's
comments.
Well worth a read.
We can't know for sure if there's intentional "bias" in VersonOne's graphs.
But it did make me wonder how much "bias" I'd built into my version of the graphs.
Mr Sammotube tested my unconscious biases further.
Referring to the Customer Value graph,
he argued that the value gap
Could be reversed.
Really?
This is Henrik Kniberg's work we're talking about, you know!
Of course it is possible.
Given the right project.
The right KIND of project.
For a complex project... this version stands.
But for a more straightforward project
- what I tend to refer to as a "Well-understood project" -
The waterfall project may well deliver more value at the "big bang launch".
What about Risk?
Here's my "Risk of Failure" curve from last time.
The Agile curve wasn't too controversial.
As for the Waterfall graph, I expected push-back...
And I got it.
For this part of the line.
There are competing forces at work here.
Market changes force the risk up.
Any kind of "knowledge gain" forces it down.
Mr Sammotube pointed out that real-world waterfall project teams aren't cut off from the world.
There's some level of input, some learning.
So I'm prepared to revise my line down
... but not too far.
I'd miss the shock value of the upward slope.
This is, of course, the complex project view.
For a well-understood project.
The initial risk is lower.
Here's the Agile risk profile.
Could it be that the Waterfall risk profile
looks like this?
Hmmm.
By the way, there was general agreement than the VersionOne risk graph refers to a different
kind of risk:
The "Risk of Not Delivering"
That being the case, I'm okay with the Waterfall curve
But would prefer an "S" for the Agile curve.
Again, this is the complex project view.
I'll leave the well-understood project version as an exercise for the reader :)
I'm also going to side-step a THIRD kind of risk
- - the risk of missing a launch deadline.
Chiefly because I've yet to figure that one out.
(Seems I'm also having trouble with split infinitives :)
What started as an upgrade to some graphs on a Cheat Sheet has blossomed into a very
interesting discussion .
Case closed?
No.
But I do have three graphs that I'm happy with.
For now.
Let's roll them in:
Risk of Not Delivering
Risk of Failure
And last but my no means least
Customer Value.
with it's all-important "value gap".
That's the complex project view.
What about the well-understood project view?
What well-understood project view?
Did I say I wasn't biased?
Two quick things before we finish today.
If you'd like a copy of the "Waterfall vs Agile Cheat Sheet"
you'll find a link in the description below.
Click the link, follow the instructions and it's all yours.
The Cheat Sheet get updated from time to time
to add a graph for example
When it does, I'll be sure to send a copy to you by email.
Thank you very much for watching.
If you enjoyed this episode please click to like
Share it with your network.
And hit the logo to subscribe for a new episode every Wednesday.
I look forward to seeing you next time.
Cheers for now.