Cmgt410 Sweek 5 Final

Consider the following scenario:

Your company has been using Traditional Project Management (TPM) methods for years, but is now looking into the possibility of adopting agile practices. Your boss has asked you to prepare a paper comparing TPM to agile practices and summarizing the benefits and limitations of each.

Write a 5- to 7-page paper including, at a minimum, the following information:

  • Briefly describe the TPM waterfall method.
  • Briefly describe one or more Agile project management approaches.
  • Compare and contrast TPM and Agile methods, emphasizing the strengths and weaknesses of each.
  • Discuss what kind of projects would be more appropriate for TPM approaches and what types would be more appropriate for Agile approaches.
  • Discuss how a project approach is selected for different types of project. Provide an example by selecting an approach for one of the following projects, and explaining your rationale for the selection. Remember to focus on the project approach and not get involved in the technical details of the project.
  • Converting a large enterprise from using IPv4 to IPv6
  • Managing a Business Process Reengineering (BPR) project to modernize and integrate a major company’s business systems (accounting, sales, logistics, manufacturing, etc.) into an enterprise-wide unified architecture
  • Building a new data center for an international business






Success of any application development boils down to its planning and execution phases alike. To cement this sentiments, throughout history, software stories that managed to move in to the mainstream, for instance Microsoft windows that runs on 90% of PCs today or Facebook which has caught the mind of almost –if not – everyone, each boasts of a pre-defined development model (Ambler, 2003). At the core of development models sit two major paradigms: traditional waterfall, and agile models. As the name suggests, the traditional waterfall model came into the limelight first. It is rigid and follows a finish to start activity techniques (Fairley, 2009). On the flip hand, agile model moved in to address the quick, ever changing software environment. It delivers the end application in bits- prototypes. Gets feedback from the user and incorporate them (Fairley, 2009). This paper, accompanied by real practical scenarios in Ms Project files details how this two models differ and further explain how agile approach eases the whole planning process.

Project planner’s major nightmare is over and or under estimating both tasks and resources (Langer, 2012). Inevitably, the waterfall approach serves all this risks. Planning and allocating resources over a period of two months – as in the case- is very cumbersome. Tasks can run out of hand, the wrong product could be delivered at the end requiring rework, and worse of all the end product could be poorly received at the end (Ambler, 2003). In his 2003 publication, Ambler affirms, agile approach solves all this issues. In part, the project is broken down into sprints which ultimately deliver prototypes. In details, sprints take shorter, realistic periods to be completed making it easier for the project manager to set realistic goals, manage tasks and resources effectively and at the end deliver a prototype. Notably, this sprints are not an end in themselves, but rather a means towards conquering a large problem all together (Fairley, 2009). During this short intervals the project team is able to rethink the whole software- with feedback from the end users.

Coupled with modular capabilities, agile development models is flexible to accommodate huge and small application projects alike with the former pocketing enormous benefits (Langer, 2012). By simply breaking down the huge volumes of activities in to manageable chunks, agile approach proves the smarter choice.


Ambler, S. (2003). Agile model driven development is good enough. IEEE Softw.20(5), 71-73.

Fairley, R. (2009). Managing and leading software projects. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.

Langer, A. (2012). Guide to software development. London: Springer.