One of the most common anti-patterns I've seen in waterfall projects is the "90% done syndrome". It goes like this: the project will get quite quickly to 90% readiness and will look to be on time until that point. However, after the 90% readiness point is achieved we start to see more and more delays and blast through deadlines like there was no tomorrow.
Why is that? I've spent some time thinking about this question. With Agile projects we avoid this syndrome quite effectively by managing the scope. In practice we avoid the "90% syndrome" by declining to work on the content that would delay the project but not add enough value to justify that delay. But, then some time ago the question came back to me. Why is it that in waterfall projects we have the "90% syndrome"?
The answer to that question just hit me today (a real "d'oh" moment): the reason is that we don't really know about all of the requirements until we are well into the implementation (say 70-90% into it). Therefore we will only really understand the full content of the project when we are close to the end. This, coupled with the fact that waterfall projects tend to be organized architecturally/horizontally (instead of feature/vertical sliced) leads to knowing about critical requirements too late(90% ready for a long time) and not being able to remove content (because we release the lower layers before the upper layers) to meet the schedule.
This anti-pattern is quite simple, but apparently it takes time to understand the forces at play, and most managers (including project managers) constantly miss this point...
Photo credit: striatic @ flickr
Labels: agile, features, project management, syndrome, waterfall