What Is the Waterfall Methodology? A Step-by-Step Guide with Time Tracking Tips
Waterfall is one of the oldest project management methodologies, dating back to the 1970s. It follows a strict linear approach where a project flows sequentially through defined phases, much like water cascading down steps. In any project management approach – Waterfall included – time tracking plays a crucial role. Monitoring how long tasks and phases take makes the intangible aspects of project progress tangible, helping managers ensure that the project stays on schedule and within budget. In this article, we’ll explore the Waterfall methodology, its stages, benefits and limitations, compare it to Agile, and highlight which time metrics to track for successful Waterfall projects. We will use Time Metrics Reports as an example.
Overview of the Waterfall Methodology as a Traditional Project Management Approach
Waterfall methodology is a traditional, linear project management approach. In Waterfall, all project requirements are gathered and planned upfront, and the work is carried out in a sequence of phases without overlap. Each phase must be completed entirely before the next phase begins. This rigid structure made Waterfall popular in industries like construction, manufacturing, and early software development, where a clear plan and predictable process were valued. Because changes are hard to accommodate once the project is underway, Waterfall projects emphasize thorough planning, fixed budgets, and set timelines from the very start.
What is the Waterfall Methodology?
The Waterfall methodology – sometimes called the Waterfall model – is defined by its sequential, step-by-step process. Like water flowing steadily down a waterfall, each phase’s output feeds into the next phase. The model originated from a 1970 paper by computer scientist Winston W. Royce, who described a rigorous software development process. Royce didn’t explicitly name it “Waterfall,” but he is credited with introducing this linear approach . The core principle of Waterfall is that all requirements are defined upfront and each phase is completed fully before moving forward. Progress flows in one direction: once a phase (say, Design) is finished, the team moves to the next (Implementation) and does not return backward without significant reason. This “measure twice, cut once” philosophy means there is little flexibility for scope changes mid-project – any new requirement late in the process could require revisiting and redoing earlier work. Despite this rigidity, Waterfall’s thorough upfront planning offers predictability. Teams and stakeholders know exactly what will be delivered, when, and at what cost, as long as everything goes according to the initial plan.
Stages of the Waterfall Methodology
The Waterfall model is traditionally broken down into five key stages:
1. Requirements
In this phase, all project requirements are gathered, documented, and analyzed. The success of a Waterfall project heavily depends on this stage being thorough and accurate.
2. Design
Based on the requirements, a comprehensive design blueprint is created. This includes system architecture, interface layouts, data models, and more.
3. Implementation
During implementation, the actual development or construction takes place. Each component is built according to the design plan.
4. Verification
Also known as testing, this stage ensures the product meets the initial requirements. Any bugs or issues are identified and resolved.
5. Maintenance
After delivery, the product enters the maintenance phase. Here, updates, optimizations, and bug fixes are applied based on user feedback or system changes.
Benefits of the Waterfall Methodology
Waterfall is praised for its clarity and predictability. Key benefits include:
- Clear structure: Each phase has specific deliverables and review processes.
- Easy to manage: Defined scope and schedule make project planning straightforward.
- Well-documented: Ideal for regulatory or compliance-driven industries.
- Cost predictability: Budgets are easier to estimate and control upfront.
Limitations of the Waterfall Methodology
However, Waterfall also comes with challenges, particularly in today’s fast-moving environments:
- Lack of flexibility: Once a phase is complete, revisiting it is difficult and costly.
- Late testing: Errors may go undetected until late in the process.
- Longer time to market: You don’t see a working product until near the end.
- Risk of misalignment: If initial requirements are misunderstood, major issues may arise later.
How is the Waterfall Method Different from Agile Project Management?
Waterfall and Agile are often seen as polar opposites in project management. Waterfall is plan-driven and sequential, whereas Agile is adaptive and iterative. Both aim to deliver successful projects, but they do so with very different philosophies.
To illustrate the differences, here’s a side-by-side comparison of Waterfall vs. Agile on key aspects:
|
Aspect |
Waterfall |
Agile |
|
Process |
Linear and sequential – the project is broken into distinct phases that are completed one after another. Planning is done upfront for the entire project. |
Iterative and incremental – the project is broken into small cycles (sprints) that include planning, execution, and evaluation. The process repeats, refining the product with each iteration. |
|
Flexibility |
Low flexibility – scope changes are difficult to accommodate once the project is in motion. The plan is locked in early, and deviations are discouraged. |
High flexibility – welcomes change even late in development. Teams can reprioritize and adjust scope at the start of each iteration based on feedback or new insights. |
|
Delivery Style |
Single delivery – the final product is delivered only after all phases are completed. Little to no functional output is seen until the end. |
Continuous delivery – produces usable increments of the product at the end of each iteration (e.g., every 2-4 weeks). Value is delivered to stakeholders throughout the project. |
|
Customer Involvement |
Limited customer involvement – after initial requirements gathering, the customer (or end-user) typically isn’t involved until review at the end. Feedback mainly comes once the product is finished. |
High customer involvement – customers/stakeholders are engaged frequently (often every iteration) to review progress, provide feedback, and guide the next steps. This ensures the product evolves per their needs. |
|
Change Management |
Rigid change control – changes require formal approval and often mean revisiting earlier phases, which can be costly. The mentality is to avoid changes by getting requirements right initially. |
Embraces change – change is expected as part of the process. The methodology is designed to adapt. Requirements can be refined continuously, and the project backlog is reprioritized regularly without derailing the overall workflow. |
As shown above, Waterfall isolates work into predefined phases and values upfront certainty, whereas Agile promotes iterative progress and adaptability. Waterfall teams aim to predict and plan the entire project from start to finish, delivering exactly what was agreed upon (even if the market or needs have shifted in the meantime). Agile teams aim to evolve the product through continuous learning, delivering what is needed at the time of each release, even if that wasn’t imagined at the project start.
It’s worth noting that neither approach is “better” in absolute terms – each has its ideal use cases. Waterfall may be preferable for projects where requirements are well-understood and unlikely to change (e.g., building a bridge or implementing a well-defined software module for compliance), and where a predictable process is valued. Agile shines in projects that benefit from experimentation, frequent feedback, and evolving requirements (e.g., innovative software products, startups, or any project where the solution isn’t clear from the outset).
What Time Metrics Should You Track in Waterfall?
Regardless of methodology, tracking time is an essential part of project management. In Waterfall projects, where schedules are laid out in advance, keeping an eye on various time metrics helps ensure that each phase is on track and can highlight bottlenecks if delays occur. Here are some key time metrics to consider tracking in a Waterfall project:
Time in Stage
Time in Stage metric measures how long work items or tasks spend in each phase of the process. For example, you might track the time an average requirement spends in the Design phase, or how long a feature spends from development start to the end of testing.
Time in stage or Time in Status essentially calculates the average duration to complete each phase of the project. Tracking time in stage helps project managers identify which phase might be a bottleneck. If the Design stage consistently overruns its allotted time, that’s a signal to investigate why (perhaps requirements were not clear enough, or there are resource constraints). In Waterfall, where phases are not supposed to overlap, knowing the time in each stage versus what was planned is crucial for schedule control.
Cycle Time
In general terms, cycle time is the time it takes to complete a task from start to finish once actual work begins. In a Waterfall context, you might apply cycle time to specific processes or deliverables within the project.
For instance, cycle time could be how long it takes to implement and verify a single change request, or how long a developer takes to code and unit test a module after design is handed off. Formally, in software development, cycle time often refers to the time from when an item enters an “in progress” state to when it’s completed. It measures the execution speed of your process – how fast you can go from “work started” to “work done”. A shorter cycle time means higher throughput. In Waterfall, you might use cycle time metrics for internal tracking (e.g., average coding time per feature) to see if the team is meeting expected productivity rates, even though the methodology doesn’t explicitly call for such tracking.
Lead Time
Lead time represents the total time from a request being made until its completion. In other words, it starts the clock at the moment an item is identified (for example, when a requirement is first documented or when a change request is submitted) and stops when that item is delivered (when the feature is live or the deliverable is handed over). It encompasses the entire process duration, including any waiting time.
For Waterfall projects, lead time could be very long (since it may include the entire project duration for a requirement from concept to release). You might measure lead time on a per-requirement or per-change basis to get insight into how responsive the project is to stakeholder requests. Lead time is a particularly useful metric for client satisfaction – it answers “how long does it take from ideation to realization?” In Waterfall, improving lead time might involve optimizing approvals and handoffs so that a change doesn’t sit idle between phases.
Time to Approval
Many Waterfall projects have formal approval gates at the end of each stage (for example, sign-off on the requirements document, design approval, user acceptance sign-off before go-live). Time to Approval measures how long it takes to get a deliverable or phase output approved by the necessary stakeholders. For instance, after the team finishes the Design document, how long does it sit waiting for stakeholders or clients to review and approve it? Tracking this metric can highlight delays caused by stakeholder availability or indecision. In corporate or government projects, approval cycles can introduce significant wait times.
Knowing the average time to approval helps in managing stakeholder expectations and perhaps in finding ways to streamline the approval process (maybe by involving approvers earlier or clarifying criteria). Essentially, this metric shines a light on any idle time between phases due to awaiting approvals. If “time to approval” for the Requirements document was two weeks longer than expected, the project manager can communicate this delay or take action (such as escalating or sending reminders) in future phases.
Blocked Time
Blocked time tracks how long work items spend in a “blocked” or impeded state – in other words, time during which a task cannot proceed due to some external dependency or issue. Even though Waterfall is sequential, within a phase you might encounter blockers (e.g., waiting for an external vendor to deliver a component during Implementation, or a question that needs stakeholder input during Design). Blocked time is essentially the amount of time a task was stuck and not actively being worked on. This metric is valuable because it highlights inefficiencies outside the team’s direct control.
For example, if a development task was blocked waiting on hardware for 5 days, that’s 5 days lost in the schedule. “Blocked time counts the time a work item can’t move forward, usually caused by a dependency or other issue outside the team’s control.”. By measuring blocked time (and perhaps categorizing the reasons for blockage), a project manager can identify frequent causes of delays and address them. In our example, if vendor delays are a common cause, the manager might arrange for critical components to be ordered earlier or have a backup supplier. Reducing blocked time directly contributes to keeping the Waterfall schedule intact, as it reduces those silent waiting periods that can eat into buffers.
Using Agile Methodology for Project Management
While Agile is often preferred in modern projects due to its adaptability and customer-focused nature, Waterfall still excels in scenarios where requirements are fixed and outcomes are clearly defined. However, some hybrid models (like “Water-scrum-fall”) attempt to combine the best of both worlds, using Agile in development but maintaining Waterfall-like structures for planning and deployment.
Waterfall Methodology: Frequently Asked Questions
Is Waterfall still relevant?
Yes, the Waterfall methodology is still relevant and used today, though often in specific types of projects. While Agile has become dominant in software, Waterfall remains prevalent in industries and projects where change is less likely or careful upfront planning is paramount. In fact, a 2020 survey found that 56% of project professionals had used traditional (Waterfall) models in the previous year.
Can Waterfall be used with Agile?
Yes, Waterfall and Agile can be combined in a hybrid approach to leverage the strengths of both. Many organizations run hybrid methodologies often called “Water-Agile-Fall” or simply hybrid project management. In such a model, Waterfall might provide the overall structure and high-level plan, while Agile techniques are used within certain phases for execution. For example, a project could start with a Waterfall style requirements and design phase to establish a roadmap and major deliverables. Then, during the implementation phase, the development team could work in Agile sprints to build the product incrementally. After that, the project might switch back to a Waterfall mode for system integration and final verification. This way, you “plan with Waterfall, execute with Agile.” Hybrid approaches are useful when certain aspects of a project are well-known (and can be planned linearly) but other parts are uncertain or likely to change (benefiting from iteration).Strong project governance and clarity on roles is essential so that Waterfall and Agile elements don’t conflict.
What industries use Waterfall?
Waterfall is used across various industries, particularly those where requirements are fixed, and changes are costly. Construction and engineering are classic examples – when building a bridge or a building, you follow a plan (design blueprints, then construct, then inspect); making changes mid-project (like altering the foundation) can be prohibitively expensive or impossible. Thus, a Waterfall-like approach fits. Manufacturing and hardware development also often use Waterfall; for instance, designing a new automobile might involve strict sequential stages (concept → design → prototype → testing → production) with extensive documentation and sign-offs at each stage. In software development, Waterfall was the standard for decades and is still used for certain projects. For example, government or defense contracts often mandate Waterfall processes or similar stage-gated approaches (like the U.S. DoD’s MIL-STD-2167A in the past) because of the need for documentation, predictability, and compliance. IT infrastructure projects (like deploying a new ERP system in a company) might use Waterfall, since they involve coordinating many dependent steps and want to avoid mid-course changes. Essentially, industries that value predictability, documentation, and a lower tolerance for risk tend to favor Waterfall. As one source notes, common sectors using Waterfall regularly include construction, IT, and software development (particularly for well-understood systems). Also, regulated industries (banking, healthcare, pharma) sometimes lean on Waterfall for compliance reasons – having the trail of documentation and fixed scope can make regulatory approval smoother. However, even these industries are exploring Agile methodologies in parts of their work, sometimes leading to a mix of approaches within the same organization.
Why is time metrics tracking useful in Waterfall?
Time tracking is valuable in any project, but in Waterfall it’s particularly crucial because the entire project schedule is decided in advance. Monitoring time closely helps ensure that each phase sticks to its planned duration – if one phase goes over time without anyone noticing, it could jeopardize the deadlines for everything that follows. By tracking time spent on tasks and phases, project managers can compare actuals versus estimates and detect variances early. This allows for proactive adjustments (like reallocating resources, compressing tasks, or negotiating scope) before a small delay turns into a big problem. Additionally, detailed time data aids in budget management: Waterfall projects often have fixed budgets tied to the timeline, and since time is directly linked to cost (especially if resources are billed per hour or per week), tracking time helps control costs.
Finally, time tracking data is extremely useful for communicating with stakeholders. It provides evidence of the work completed and the effort involved. For example, if a client questions why a particular feature isn’t ready yet, the manager can point to the time spent on prerequisite tasks or show that the team has been fully utilized on other critical activities. This transparency builds trust, because stakeholders can see the team isn’t just “losing time” – the time is accounted for and aligns with the project plan. If scope changes are requested, having detailed time records helps in negotiating new timelines or additional budget (since you can say, “Based on our tracked time, adding this feature will roughly take X more person-hours, pushing the timeline by Y weeks”).
Final Thoughts
By understanding the Waterfall methodology’s structure, advantages, and limitations, and by keeping a close watch on critical time metrics, project managers can successfully deliver Waterfall projects in appropriate contexts. Waterfall may not be the right fit for every project in the modern era, but when it is used, disciplined execution and careful tracking are the keys to turning that upfront plan into a reality on time and within scope.
I hope this article was helpful. See you next time, Jira enthusiasts!
Was this helpful?
Thanks!
Iryna Menzheha_SaaSJet
3 comments