Implementation Methodologies
Each approach has its strengths. Understanding them helps you make the right choice.
Waterfall
Traditional sequential approach with distinct phases
Pros
- • Clear project milestones and deliverables
- • Comprehensive documentation
- • Well-defined scope and budget
- • Easier to manage for large teams
- • Predictable timeline
Cons
- • Limited flexibility for changes
- • Late delivery of working features
- • Higher risk of project failure
- • Difficult to adapt to new requirements
- • Long time to value
Agile
Iterative approach with continuous delivery
Pros
- • Quick delivery of working features
- • High flexibility and adaptability
- • Continuous user feedback
- • Lower project risk
- • Better stakeholder engagement
Cons
- • Requires dedicated resources
- • Less predictable timeline
- • Can lack comprehensive documentation
- • Needs experienced Agile team
- • Potential scope creep
Hybrid
Combines structure of Waterfall with Agile flexibility
Pros
- • Balanced approach to planning
- • Phased delivery with flexibility
- • Risk mitigation through phases
- • Adaptable to organization culture
- • Better resource management
Cons
- • Can be complex to manage
- • Requires clear phase definitions
- • May inherit weaknesses of both
- • Needs experienced project management
- • Potential for confusion
Decision Criteria Comparison
Compare key factors across all three approaches to make an informed decision.
| Factor | Waterfall | Agile | Hybrid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project Complexity | Best for well-understood, complex systems | Ideal for evolving, moderate complexity | Excellent for complex with unknowns |
| Timeline Flexibility | Fixed timeline, limited flexibility | Highly flexible, continuous delivery | Structured flexibility within phases |
| Budget Control | Fixed budget, easier to control | Variable, based on iterations | Phased budget with flexibility |
| Change Management | Difficult and costly to change | Embraces change throughout | Controlled change within phases |
| Risk Management | Higher risk, late discovery | Lower risk, early detection | Balanced risk mitigation |
| Team Requirements | Traditional PM skills sufficient | Requires Agile-trained team | Needs versatile team |
Typical Implementation Phases
Understanding the phases of each approach helps set proper expectations.
waterfall Phases
Requirements
4-6 weeks
Design
4-6 weeks
Development
12-16 weeks
Testing
4-6 weeks
Deployment
2-4 weeks
agile Phases
Sprint Planning
1 day
Daily Standups
Ongoing
Sprint Development
2-4 weeks
Sprint Review
1 day
Sprint Retrospective
1 day
hybrid Phases
Discovery Phase
2-4 weeks
Design Sprints
4-6 weeks
Development Phases
8-12 weeks
UAT Iterations
4-6 weeks
Phased Rollout
2-4 weeks
Our Recommendation: Hybrid Approach
Based on our extensive experience, we recommend a Hybrid approach for most Salesforce implementations. It provides the structure needed for enterprise projects while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to changing requirements.
Reduced Risk
Phased approach minimizes project risk
Faster Value
Deliver working features early and often
Better Adoption
Continuous feedback ensures user buy-in