Agile or Waterfall? A Practical Perspective on Business Analysis Methodologies

In many organizations today, Business Analysts work in either Agile or Waterfall projects, and sometimes in both. From my understanding and experience, deciding which methodology is better is not about choosing a winner. It depends largely on the project type, stakeholder expectations, and how stable the requirements are. Both Agile and Waterfall have their own strengths and challenges, especially from a Business Analysis perspective. Waterfall follows a structured and sequential approach where each phase of the project is completed before moving to the next one. In this model, the Business Analyst plays a key role at the beginning of the project. Most of the requirement gathering, analysis, documentation, and approvals happen before development starts. The focus is on preparing detailed requirement documents, use cases, process flows, and ensuring proper sign-offs from stakeholders. Since changes later in the project can be expensive and time-consuming, clarity at the initial stage becomes extremely important. Waterfall works well when requirements are clearly defined and unlikely to change frequently. It is especially useful in projects where documentation and compliance are critical. However, one limitation of Waterfall is that stakeholders may not always be completely sure of their requirements at the start. Sometimes, what seems clear during documentation may need adjustments once development begins. In such cases, change management becomes complex. From a Business Analyst’s point of view, this model requires strong analytical skills, detailed documentation abilities, and the capability to identify potential gaps early. Agile, on the other hand, follows an iterative and incremental approach. Instead of completing all requirements upfront, work is divided into smaller cycles called sprints. In Agile projects, the Business Analyst collaborates closely with the Product Owner, Scrum Master, and development team. Requirements are typically written as user stories and are refined continuously. Rather than focusing heavily on large documents, Agile emphasizes communication and adaptability. One major advantage of Agile is flexibility. Requirements can evolve based on feedback received during sprint reviews. If stakeholders change their expectations, adjustments can be incorporated in the next sprint without significantly impacting the entire project. This makes Agile suitable for dynamic environments where business needs frequently change. Continuous stakeholder involvement also improves transparency and reduces misunderstandings. At the same time, Agile requires constant coordination and clarity. Since documentation is lighter compared to Waterfall, clear communication becomes essential. The Business Analyst must ensure that user stories include well-defined acceptance criteria and that the development team understands the business objective behind each feature. When comparing Agile and Waterfall for Business Analysis, it is difficult to declare one as universally better. Waterfall offers structure, detailed documentation, and clear phase-based control. Agile offers flexibility, faster feedback, and continuous improvement. The role of the Business Analyst adapts according to the methodology. In Waterfall, the focus is on detailed requirement definition at the beginning. In Agile, the focus shifts toward collaboration, backlog refinement, and ongoing stakeholder interaction. In my view, the best methodology depends on the nature of the project. If requirements are stable and well-defined, Waterfall can be effective. If requirements are evolving and innovation is involved, Agile may be more suitable. Ultimately, the success of Business Analysis depends not on the methodology alone, but on how effectively requirements are understood, communicated, and delivered to meet business objectives.