Full Cycle Development and SDLC

Scrum provides high flexibility, making it easier to adapt to changes in requirements or priorities. The short feedback cycles allow teams to make quick adjustments, ensuring the product evolves based on real-time feedback. It fosters close collaboration and transparency, improving communication between the development team and stakeholders.

Scrum requires significant discipline and communication within the team. Without a dedicated and skilled Scrum Master, it can become difficult to keep the team aligned. In larger teams, coordination can be challenging, and without strong leadership, Scrum projects can experience “sprint fatigue” or loss of focus.

Kanban is flexible and simple to implement. It allows teams to continuously improve their processes by identifying bottlenecks and optimizing workflows. The visual nature of Kanban makes it easy to track progress and manage workloads, helping teams avoid overburdening themselves with too many tasks at once. It’s also a great fit for teams working on support or maintenance projects where tasks arrive unpredictably.

Since there are no defined timeframes or sprints, projects using Kanban may face delays in delivering larger, cohesive features. It can be less structured than Scrum, making it harder to predict timelines and set firm delivery dates. Teams new to Kanban may also struggle with managing WIP limits and keeping tasks flowing smoothly.

XP places a heavy focus on code quality, using practices such as code reviews, unit testing, and refactoring to keep the codebase clean and maintainable. Continuous customer feedback ensures that the product meets user needs. XP also reduces the risk of bugs and technical debt by encouraging the use of TDD and continuous integration. Pair programming improves code quality and facilitates knowledge sharing within the team.

XP demands a high level of discipline, and its practices (such as pair programming) may require a cultural shift within teams. It can also be more resource-intensive in the short term due to the time commitment required for practices like pair programming and continuous testing. XP’s reliance on frequent customer feedback may be difficult for clients who prefer less involvement during development.

DevOps enhances collaboration across teams, breaking down silos between developers, operations, and other departments. It allows for faster, more frequent releases, improving time-to-market for new features. Automation of tasks like deployment, testing, and monitoring reduces human error, enhances consistency, and increases system reliability. The real-time monitoring aspect ensures quick detection and resolution of issues in production environments.

Adopting DevOps requires significant changes in organizational culture and processes, which may be challenging for traditional teams. Setting up automated pipelines and monitoring systems involves upfront investment in time and resources. Teams without the necessary expertise may face a steep learning curve, especially with tools related to CI/CD, infrastructure as code, and cloud automation.

Lean focuses on eliminating inefficiencies, such as unnecessary features or documentation, resulting in faster delivery and lower costs. It emphasizes continuous learning, which helps teams improve over time and adapt to changing market conditions. By empowering teams to make decisions, Lean promotes autonomy and creativity, fostering innovation.

Lean requires a high level of discipline to identify and remove waste consistently. Without careful planning, focusing too much on speed may compromise the quality of the product. Lean’s emphasis on team empowerment can be challenging for organizations with rigid hierarchical structures, as it requires a shift toward more decentralized decision-making.

FDD provides a clear structure for developing and delivering features, allowing for regular progress tracking and accountability. It is especially suited for large-scale projects where breaking down the product into features makes it easier to manage. FDD also emphasizes design and planning, which helps reduce the risk of rework or delays later in the project.

FDD may not be as flexible as other Agile methodologies like Scrum. It requires careful upfront planning to define features, which can be time-consuming. Additionally, FDD’s focus on individual features may lead to a lack of focus on the overall product, requiring additional coordination to ensure consistency.

RAD allows for quick delivery of functional software, enabling businesses to test concepts and gather user feedback early. The iterative approach makes it easy to adapt to changes, reducing the risk of building features that don’t align with customer needs. RAD is especially suited for projects with well-defined objectives but evolving requirements.

RAD’s focus on speed can sometimes compromise the quality or stability of the final product, especially in large-scale projects. It requires close collaboration and involvement from users, which may be difficult to maintain over time. Additionally, without careful planning, RAD projects may struggle with scalability and long-term maintenance.