Common Problems: Mini-Cascades within Agile

A dysfunctional pattern that often sabotages the benefits of agile is the appearance of "mini-crashes" within an ostensibly agile framework (such as Scrum or Kanban).

This occurs when, instead of delivering functional value incrementally and vertically (across all technical layers), the work for a single feature is divided horizontally by technical phases (design, API, backend, frontend, test), with each phase completed sequentially, often spanning multiple iterations or sprints.

Although the team may be performing Agile ceremonies, this sequential approach reintroduces the rigidity, feedback delays and risks inherent in the Waterfall model, only on a smaller, repetitive scale.

Identifying and correcting this pattern is crucial to achieving true agility.

Identify the Pattern (Slow Deliveries by Sequential Phases)

The mini-waterfall pattern manifests itself when a feature, instead of being broken down into smaller functional user stories, is broken down by technical layers or phases that are executed one after the other.

For example, to add a simple widget:

• Iteration 1: The UX designer creates the design.
• Iteration 2: The backend team develops the necessary API.
• Iteration 3: The frontend team builds the user interface.
• Iteration 4: The QA team performs the testing.
• Iteration 5: Finally, the feature is released to the customer.

Although Sprints are used, the real value to the user is not delivered until the end of the entire process, which can take many weeks.

It is characterized by handovers between specialists and late delivery of the full functionality.

Consequences (Delays, Waste, Lack of Early Feedback)

Mini-crashes have significant negative consequences, negating many benefits of agility:

Delayed Value Delivery: Actual value to the customer is delayed until all sequential phases are completed (e.g., 5 weeks in the example above).

Lack of Early Feedback: Feedback on complete functionality is not obtained until very late in the process.

If the initial assumptions were incorrect or the customer does not like the feature, all the effort invested in the earlier phases may be wasted.

Increased Risk: Integration problems or misunderstandings between phases are not discovered until the end, making them more costly and complex to correct.

Inefficiency: Generates bottlenecks and waiting times between different phases or specialists.

Work-in-Progress (WIP) Buildup: Multiple features can be simultaneously in different phases of the mini-waterfall, increasing overall WIP and further slowing down the delivery of any value.

Solutions (Limit WIP, Cross-functional teams, Vertical Split, Prototyping/MVP)

To break the pattern of mini-cascades, several fundamental agile strategies can be applied:

Cross-functional Teams: Foster teams where members possess diverse skills (or are willing to learn them) in order to address all layers of a user story collaboratively, reducing handoffs.

Divide Work Vertically: Instead of dividing by technical layers (horizontal), decompose features into small, functional user stories that cut across all necessary layers (vertical). Each story delivers incremental usable value.

Limit Work in Progres