There are several ways to answer the query “is agile inexpensive than waterfall?” right here are two of my favorites:
“It depends. Agile achieved well is inexpensive, as long as you measure efficaciously.”
“You’re asking the incorrect question. The right query is: is agile higher?”
How Agile is not inexpensive
The a laugh factor approximately relative terms is that you need to do a comparison. there was a comic story that actually resonated with me as a touch kid (synapses and memory are humorous things).
Which weighs extra, a ton of feathers, or a ton of bricks?
Kenneth furnish explores this question as a manner comparison, and identifies it as a poorly shaped question due to the fact comparing agile and waterfall is evaluating apples and oranges. Agile delivers to-be-determined stuff incrementally and waterfall offers predetermined stuff . The query is poorly formed at a better stage too.
“Is agile inexpensive than waterfall?” is a grown-up model of the equal question. If i have 7 builders and someone organizing their efforts, it costs a fixed amount according to 12 months, $X. If i have them developing with waterfall, i can spend $X for the year. If i have them growing with agile, i can spend $X in keeping with year. If i've them watching Bob Ross motion pictures and painting landscapes, i can spend $X per 12 months. irrespective of what that team does, i'm able to spend the same amount to rent them.
but agile lets you construct extra efficiently, therefore you construct greater within the equal amount of time – therefore it fees less in keeping with unit of added software. ok, that’s real – but agile, as applied to a procedure (and yes, I understand – agile is a philosophy, not a process; application of agile philosophy results in modifications to procedure), does no longer suggest you construct the right product. evaluating fee in phrases of output is just as incorrect as evaluating it consistent with unit time. If an agile group builds me a higher cloth wardrobe faster than a waterfall crew builds me a now not-as-exceptional wardrobe, I’m now not higher off if what I sincerely wanted changed into a espresso desk.
In terms of espresso-tables-delivered, that's what I clearly care about*, each agile and waterfall price the same. I wager you could argue that i have wasted less cash correctly building the dresser with the agile group, therefore it is “less expensive.” but if I don’t have my espresso desk, I don’t care about fee, mostly. I care that my faraway manipulate was sitting at the ground and the dog chewed it up. [*Note: I actually care about the remote control, and about having a place to put my popcorn when watching a movie, for my sharp-eyed long term readers. The lack-of-coffee table is just a problem manifestation, not the actual problem.]
whether agile is less expensive or no longer have to be measured in phrases of the fee of solving the problem, not the price in keeping with unit time spent, nor the fee of output generated.
Agile achieved nicely IS inexpensive
whilst we verify that agile is being performed well, we are not handiest measuring that the group creating the product (design, improvement and testing, to simplify) is being green. we are measuring the performance of the larger team (the business enterprise) at fixing the bigger hassle (success inside the market). This definition of scope encompasses each development agility and enterprise agility. It calls for that the product crew (product manager, product proprietor, commercial enterprise analyst, and so forth) also be agile. That they efficaciously identify the crucial issues, for the right customers, within the proper markets. This requires both up-the front deterministic insights (to get the team began in the proper path) and emergent insights (to path-accurate as the team gets smarter approximately market wishes).