This article isn’t particularly structured, but I felt compelled to write it down—evidence that I’ve somehow survived a relentless schedule. Consider it an unrefined medley of thoughts.
In many discussions, a recurring question pops up: How can an agile development team deal with a waterfall-style client, particularly institutions like schools or government agencies subject to countless regulations? (It seems that, regardless of nationality, developers everywhere dread encountering such clients.)
This question arises frequently in our coaching sessions, which means it’s not an isolated issue in Taiwan. Generally, government and educational organizations opt for stable, mature waterfall management.ㄇ
Waterfall management, with its stringent processes, phased deliverables, and well-defined verification tools, is naturally appealing to entities whose priority is minimizing errors and ensuring certainty. After all, it’s a classic approach.
However, due to its rigidity, the waterfall model struggles to adapt swiftly to changing needs. The “rolling adjustments” so common in agile frameworks, when introduced without adequate conceptual groundwork, robust collaboration support systems, or psychological safety that empowers accountability, can trigger nightmarish scenarios. Poor experiences only reinforce negative impressions, making it even harder to reopen these doors of experimentation later on.
Does that mean waterfall or flexibility itself is wrong? Certainly not.
As an advocate and practitioner of agile management, I encourage the use of agile methods. As a Product Owner, I must remain open to continual learning and the art of blending various tools. No single tool is one-size-fits-all; each needs tailoring to its specific context. While scaled agile frameworks exist—SAFe, LeSS, Scrum@Scale—they all highlight the importance of sustaining cross-functional communication and momentum after scaling up. Meanwhile, if a traditional waterfall framework can integrate agility, who’s to say it can’t “move” forward as well? In fact, many such organizational rethinking and disentangling efforts are now emerging in legitimate domains within government sectors.
Again, the crux lies in whether we are willing to allow these shifts and, if so, when we must decide to stop experimenting.
I was recently invited to join a discussion about a multibillion overseas “dream fund.” Unfortunately, all those sessions clashed with my previously scheduled commitments, so I missed the chance to brainstorm and hear others’ ideas. In recent years, the public sector has indeed been making attempts—small and large—to break new ground. But behind intriguing ideas and bold experiments looms the question: can citizens provide the psychological safety needed for these agencies to assume accountability? How can we balance that with oversight mechanisms? Without addressing such challenges, more adventurous civil servants might risk misinterpretation, eventually turning cautious and conservative. Over time, this not only risks stagnating public institutions into stagnant pools, it also erodes talented individuals’ space for growth and innovation.
In my view, political appointees and external advisors resemble “forward-deployed” engineers. When introducing frameworks or products that have proven their worth elsewhere, their role is to help government agencies integrate these systems smoothly, ensuring new frameworks become sustainable over time. The outcome hinges on the synergy between the two sides, as well as whether frontline civil servants are empowered to change.
When facing waterfall-minded clients, I tend to introduce VUCA and VUCA 2.0 to both teams and their counterparts:
- The reality is VUCA: Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity
- The response is VUCA 2.0: Vision, Understanding, Courage, Adaptability
Though these concepts may sound abstract, they serve as a reminder that, for any challenging endeavor—whether exciting or disheartening—we need a destination and an anchor. The path may shift, but overall direction is essential if we are to remain steady amid change. How patient are people, truly, when it comes to starting from robust dialogue, alignment, and goal-setting?
In coaching, the greatest hurdle to agile adoption often stems from the misconception that agile = ultra-fast. People assume that two months or a single quarter should yield outcomes. They imagine that change happens overnight, requiring no true understanding, learning, or adaptation. The result is a superficial replication: MVPs become hollow products with no real utility; daily stand-ups and retrospectives turn into time-wasters rather than opportunities for continuous refinement.
Coming back to the intriguing policies we see unfolding in reality, beyond the “how” of implementation, our society needs a broader vision and more meaningful debate about the mindset and responses both government and the private sector should adopt in this VUCA era. Such conversation is vital as we imagine and navigate our shared future.