The Difference between the Iron Triangle of Waterfall and Agile The iron triangle of waterfall is a chronological design practice, mostly utilized in software and web development. Connection between time, cost and output are demonstrated using the triangle. The Agile model of software development is founded on systematic and cumulative development. Progress in the iron triangle of waterfall flows gradually and moves (similar to a waterfall) through well-defined steps such as strategizing, designing, building, testing, deployment, and maintenance. In the Agile model, specifications and solutions develop through teamwork between independent, cross-functional teams. Agile development stimulates robust and receptive planning, progressive development and delivery (Kruchten 352).
Although the connection of cost, scope, and schedule still exists in the iron triangle model, the concept is turning out to be complicated and ineffective. Quality in the iron triangle is delivered through scope, scheduling and cost. In agile development teams are required to adjust and rework schedules without exceeding the project’s budget to provide the product. In the agile development methodology, value is incorporated in the project scope while, in the iron triangle of waterfall methodology, value is the result. With the realization that projects have strict timelines, and changes are inevitable, the agile development model utilizes constraints to reevaluate scheduling (Kruchten 354). Scheduling flexibility is limited in the iron triangle methodology. In the iron triangle, the scope of the project, schedule, and cost elements are used to evaluate the quality of the project. Cost structures in agile development are flexible to attain the required effect and quality. Agile development is the best method to use for this project, it flexible, cost effective and allow for rapid improvements. There are numerous problems associated with the iron triangle model when developing real-life applications.
Kruchten, Philippe. “Contextualizing Agile Software Development.” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 25.4 (2011): 351-361. Online.