2.

4 Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional and

agile methodologies and feasibility study?

Traditional methods, such as the Waterfall methodology, are recognised for their ability in
offering an organised, dependable project framework, with clearly defined phases and
extensive documentation. These qualities, which provide strong risk management and
verification, are particularly helpful in sectors with strict compliance requirements. In
today's rapid-fire, dynamic corporate the environment, the same qualities, however, might
be disadvantageous because they tend to hinder adaptability and response to changing
market needs. Due to this control, efforts may become outdated or fail to meet customer
demands.
Traditional methodologies, instanced by the Waterfall model, offer several strengths,
including their well- defined phases and complete confirmation. Systems in heavily
regulated care, where careful preparation and traceability are essential, benefit most from
them. Still, these methodologies can when dealing with changing conditions or request
dynamics, as they warrant inflexibility. Feasibility studies in traditional approaches
frequently involve significant original investment in planning and analysis, potentially
causing detainments before design confirmation. Traditional approaches, such the waterfall
methodology, provide advantages in terms of predictability, detailed documentation, and
risk management. They ensure a disciplined and planned approach and are ideal for projects
with well-defined requirements and little uncertainty. However, the rigidity of these
approaches makes it challenging to adapt to changes and take into account client input. The
focus they place on upfront planning and logical stages may also result in extended project
timeframes. According to the Chapman & Ward (2015) , feasibility studies are crucial for
objectively assessing the viability of projects by analysing factors such as costs, benefits,
and potential risks.
Agile approaches, such as Scrum and Kanban, stand out in contrast because of their
flexibility and customer involvement. Agile emphasis on flexibility and limited formal
documentation can pose challenges in highly regulated sectors, where comprehensive
documentation is a regulatory requirement. (PMI, 2017)
They thrive at promptly delivering workable increments, encouraging responsiveness to
criticism, and adjusting to changing project needs. Agile iterative methodology makes sure
that the final result closely complies with user needs. However, projects requiring precise
execution of schedules or regulatory compliance may find it difficult to use Agile due to its
inherent volatility. The planning and decision-making process for projects heavily relies on
feasibility evaluations. Their strength is in using technical, operational, financial, and
scheduling analysis to assist stakeholders in determining a project's sustainability. To help
people make well-informed decisions, feasibility studies offer a formal framework for
weighing risks and advantages. They do, however, have a few drawbacks. They may result
in delays in project beginning because they can be time- and resource-intensive. In addition,
because unforeseen variables or changes in the project's conditions can alter the feasibility
assessment over time, feasibility studies may not always precisely forecast the project's
outcomes. Therefore, effective project management requires striking a balance between in-
depth feasibility study and flexibility in response to developments.