Typical mistakes when working with Waterfall Automatic translate

Waterfall is a classic approach to project management. All stages are strictly in order: first we collect requirements, then we design, then we develop, test and only at the end we show the result to the customer.

This method is still used in the public sector, construction, industry and even in IT. But in modern projects it often fails. Below we will analyze the main mistakes that teams make working with Waterfall, and what this leads to.

Insufficient attention to requirements at the beginning of the project

Waterfall assumes that all project requirements are known in advance. In practice, this is almost never the case.

The team collects information at the start, but the customer does not always understand what he needs. Often, important details emerge later - when they can no longer be easily taken into account.

For example, a business wants to make an internal portal. At the start, they discuss the main functions, but forget about the mobile version. As a result, it is remembered after development, and the project is disrupted in terms of deadlines and budget.

Mistake: Thinking that you can discuss everything once and then just implement it. In reality, requirements are always clarified as the project progresses.

Lack of flexibility

Waterfall is a rigid plan. Each phase begins only after the previous one is completed. But reality is unpredictable.

The market changes, new inputs appear, and the project is already firmly "sewn" into the plan. It is difficult to change something, and sometimes it is impossible without redoing everything.

For example, you are making a product for a specific client. A month later, their priorities change, but you have already gone far ahead. To take into account the new requirements, you will have to go back to the design stage and rewrite everything you have done.

Mistake: Hoping that everything will go according to plan. Flexibility is a must, even if you use Waterfall.

Long feedback

In the Waterfall model, the customer usually sees the result only at the very end. The team first designs, then writes the code, tests - and only then shows the product.

If something is done wrong, it is discovered too late. Rework is expensive, deadlines are delayed, and motivation drops.

Example: a designer has drawn the entire interface, handed it over to development, and at the final demonstration the customer says, “This isn’t it.”

Error: lack of intermediate feedback. The sooner an error is noticed, the cheaper it is to fix.

Ignoring changes in the process

Everything changes in life: the market, the goals, the team. But Waterfall does not like change. Any change means going back one or more stages. This is costly and demotivating.

For example, a project started in the spring, and in the fall a law was passed that affects the business model. Changes need to be made. But the product is already at the testing stage, and each change requires a revision of the architecture.

Mistake: Building a process as if it were happening in a vacuum. A good team can adapt, even when working to a rigid plan.

Why it is important to work transparently

To prevent Waterfall from turning into chaos, it is important to maintain transparency: to see who is responsible for what, how tasks are going, where the bottlenecks are. Without this, any changes become pain.

The Kaiten service helps to bring order to projects: visualize processes, monitor the status of tasks, and not lose control. Even if you work with Waterfall, with Kaiten it is easier to identify problems at an early stage and make adjustments without panic.

Lack of transparency and control

In Waterfall, the project is carried out in stages, but often without a clear understanding of what is happening here and now. The team can work in silence for weeks, and the customer does not see the real picture.

This leads to a loss of trust. There are unnecessary approvals, tensions increase, and mistakes are noticed too late.

Example: testers start complaining that there is not enough documentation. Managers are surprised: “Why didn’t you tell me earlier?” — because no one saw the big picture, and signals were lost along the way.

Mistake: working “blindly”, without a transparent process and a single picture of what is happening.

Waterfall is not a bad approach in itself. It is useful where the requirements are clear and the environment is stable: for example, in construction or serial production. But even in such projects, teams often make the same mistakes:

• poorly develop requirements at the start;
• leave no room for change;
• receive feedback late;
• ignore new inputs;
• lose control over the process.

To avoid failures, it’s important not just to follow the plan, but to build a process that takes into account real risks. Add flexibility, collect regular feedback, and monitor transparency — even within the Waterfall.