Recently I learnt about a new methodology based on waterfall and scrum: Water-Scrum-Fall.
Some say that is the new "reality" and is what scrum pragmatist use nowadays....

But, from the definition of "Avalanche":

The Avalanche model is a Software Engineering project management anti-pattern, it is a combination of a sequential process such as the Waterfall model and Agile software development methodologies [...]

What do you think about these two models? Aren't those the same?

More info:
http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/12/water-scrum-fall-is-the-norm http://www.slideshare.net/harsoft/water-scrumfall-isrealityofagileformost

closed as unclear what you're asking by Robert Harvey, user40980, gnat, user53019, World Engineer Jan 23 '14 at 14:15

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    They sound the same to me. Is that your only question? I don't think you read those articles carefully; the "water-scrum-fall" guy also seems to think it is an antipattern. – Robert Harvey Jan 21 '14 at 19:09
  • In a first instance, I noticed the tone of some articles like "OMG waterscrumfall is the best thing" and "you should adopt it right now". I was afraid there was something I was not understanding right, and maybe water-scrum-fall was really something to take seriously. – Tomas Prado Jan 21 '14 at 19:18

Water-Scrum-Fall is essentially when agile/scrum development processes are only applied to the development team's work(usually the implementation step in waterfall), and most of the previous project management 'waterfall' system remains in place. Those articles are primarily listing it as the reality for most shops where the development team does not have full control of the process, so agile cannot be used across the entire project. I don't believe either one is really trying to say it should be adopted, but it is somewhat common. The second article is more focused on the benefits/drawbacks so companies that find themselves in this model can improve what they have without massive process redesign.

Avalanche is best described as a faulty implementation of scrum where each 'sprint' is most of a waterfall. Each stage/department iterates rapidly on its own subset of work and has to communicate the results of those steps to the other departments. The result is often that each phase of the 'waterfall' is happening at the same time for the entire product. It is also characterized by extreme breakdowns in communication. Features are often being redesigned while being implemented or tested by departments that can't keep track of what stage each feature is at. The result is mass chaos and confusion, extremely difficult to manage projects, and poor morale as work is regularly(read: very frequently) invalidated by changing requirements/design.

The key difference between the two is that Water-Scrum-Fall is scrum in waterfall, which doesn't fundamentally break either model. Avalanche is waterfall in scrum, which is a slow motion catastrophe.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.