Why Agile Methodology Is Hard to Apply in IT Projects (And How to Do It Better)
Luc Bories
- 6 minutes read - 1081 wordsWork Methodologies in IT – From Waterfall to Agile
For decades, IT project management relied on structured, sequential methodologies, with the waterfall model being the most iconic. This model follows a linear progression of project phases: starting with a detailed requirements analysis, followed by design, development, testing, and finally deployment and maintenance. Each phase must be completed before moving to the next, offering a certain level of rigor and visibility over timelines and costs.
However, this approach has significant limitations, especially in terms of flexibility. In a constantly evolving technological environment, user needs change rapidly, and the waterfall model struggles to adapt. Errors or misunderstandings are often only discovered at the end of the cycle, leading to costly delays and client dissatisfaction.
To address these constraints, agile methodology emerged as a more flexible and responsive alternative. Popularized in the early 2000s with the publication of the Agile Manifesto, this approach emphasizes collaboration, adaptability to change, and frequent delivery of functional features. Unlike waterfall, agility relies on short, iterative cycles called sprints, during which teams develop, test, and deliver product increments.
Among the most widely used agile methods are Scrum, which structures work around clearly defined roles (Product Owner, Scrum Master, development team) and regular rituals (daily stand-ups, sprint reviews, retrospectives). Kanban focuses on visualizing workflow and limiting work in progress, while Extreme Programming (XP) emphasizes development best practices such as automated testing and continuous integration.
While agility is appealing for its ability to respond quickly to changing needs, it is not without challenges. It requires strong stakeholder involvement, a culture of transparency, and the ability to work autonomously as a team. In certain contexts, especially complex or regulated projects, a hybrid approach may be more appropriate. Frameworks like SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework) or Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) aim to adapt agile principles to the realities of large organizations, combining flexibility with structure.
Thus, the landscape of IT work methodologies has greatly expanded, offering companies a range of approaches they can tailor to their needs, culture, and constraints.
The Rise of Agile – Between Promise and Idealization
The arrival of agility in the IT world was seen as a true revolution. It promised to resolve frustrations associated with traditional methods by focusing on customer satisfaction, rapid delivery, and product quality. In a context of accelerated digital transformation, this promise resonated strongly with companies eager to remain competitive and innovative.
Agility quickly became a buzzword in managerial discourse. Organizations undertook deep transformations to embrace this new philosophy: restructuring teams into “squads,” creating specific roles like Scrum Master and Product Owner, and adopting agile rituals meant to foster collaboration and continuous improvement. Workspaces were redesigned to encourage informal exchanges, and digital tools were deployed to facilitate task management and project tracking.
This enthusiasm gave rise to a booming market for agile training and consulting. Certifications multiplied, specialized consultants emerged, and companies invested heavily in change management. Agility became a symbol of modernity — sometimes even a marketing argument.
But behind this momentum lies a more complex reality. Agility is based on demanding principles that can only be effectively applied if the organization is willing to question its habits, hierarchies, and operating modes. It requires a culture of trust, transparency, and autonomy — which doesn’t happen overnight. It also demands strong client involvement, with regular feedback and active participation in product definition.
In short, agility is not just a set of practices or roles: it’s a deep cultural transformation that requires time, commitment, and a genuine willingness to change.
Misuses of Agility and Common Challenges
Unfortunately, in many organizations, agility has been adopted superficially — even caricatured. This is referred to as “fake agility” or “Agile Washing,” describing companies that replicate agile rituals without understanding their foundations. Daily stand-ups become timed obligations with little value, sprints are launched without clear objectives, and roles like Product Owner are assigned to people without decision-making authority.
Such misapplication often leads to disillusionment. Teams feel overwhelmed, deliveries are rushed, and clients don’t see the expected benefits. Agility, meant to bring fluidity and coherence, becomes a source of confusion and frustration.
The obstacles to successful agile implementation are numerous. Cultural barriers are significant: in highly hierarchical organizations, delegating responsibility and making collective decisions can be poorly received. Fear of change, lack of trust among stakeholders, and difficulty moving away from centralized control models hinder agile momentum.
Practical challenges also arise. Estimating workloads, for example, becomes problematic when teams shift from a man-day logic to complexity points. Managing dependencies between teams or technical components can slow down sprints and compromise continuous delivery. Reducing documentation, often advocated by agile methods, can create issues in maintenance or regulatory compliance. Finally, some clients are not ready to engage regularly or accept incremental deliveries, limiting the process’s effectiveness.
Agile projects can even fail despite rigorous practice implementation. These failures often stem from a poor understanding of the stakes, overly dogmatic application of methods, or excessive pressure on teams. Agility, far from being a miracle solution, is a working framework that must be adapted, understood, and supported across the organization.
The Future of Project Management – Toward Thoughtful Agility
After more than twenty years of experimentation, companies are beginning to learn from their agile experiences. They understand that agility cannot be imposed uniformly but must be adapted to context, project nature, and organizational maturity. Feedback shows that agility works particularly well in stable, collaborative environments open to experimentation.
The future of project management seems to be heading toward a more nuanced, contextualized approach. Rather than choosing between waterfall and agile, organizations combine both as needed. They adopt hybrid models that allow for rigorous planning in some phases while maintaining the flexibility needed for innovation. They value collective intelligence, co-creation, and continuous learning.
New technologies also play a key role in this evolution. Artificial intelligence, automation, and collaborative tools are transforming how projects are managed. Teams now have integrated platforms that facilitate planning, tracking, communication, and decision-making. These tools enhance agile capabilities while requiring skill development and practice adaptation.
Finally, tomorrow’s agility must be sustainable and human-centered. It cannot be reduced to a race for delivery or constant pressure on teams. It must incorporate concerns for well-being, inclusion, and social and environmental responsibility. It should allow individuals to thrive, collaborate, and find meaning in their work.
In conclusion, agility has profoundly transformed IT project management, but its application remains complex and demanding. To fully benefit from it, organizations must embrace it thoughtfully, with clarity, commitment, and adaptability.