A key downside of using the traditional Waterfall approach is its lack of flexibility. Once a phase is completed, it is very difficult and costly to go back and make changes, even if requirements evolve or errors are discovered later in the project. This rigidity can lead to significant delays and increased costs when adjustments are needed
. Other notable disadvantages include:
- Dependent Phases: Each phase depends heavily on the previous one, so delays or problems in one phase cascade through the entire project, amplifying risks and causing schedule overruns
- Late Feedback and Testing: Testing and user feedback typically occur only after development is complete, making it expensive and time-consuming to fix issues or incorporate user input, which can result in a final product that does not meet user needs
- Limited End-User Involvement: The Waterfall model usually excludes end users or clients during development, leading to a risk that the product may not align with user expectations or market demands
- Not Suitable for Complex or Changing Projects: Waterfall works best for projects with well-defined, stable requirements. It struggles with projects where requirements are likely to change or are complex, making it inefficient for large-scale or dynamic projects
In summary, the Waterfall approach’s rigid, linear structure makes it ill- suited for projects requiring adaptability, ongoing feedback, and iterative development, which are common in modern software and product development
