When I first learned about project management, Agile sounded like the perfect solution. Flexible planning, fast delivery, constant feedback everything modern IT projects supposedly need. Waterfall, on the other hand, felt old-school. Too rigid. Too slow.
But after managing real IT projects in Nepal websites, software systems, and client-driven applications my thinking changed. The truth is, Agile doesn’t always work the way it’s written in books, especially in the Nepali IT environment. And surprisingly, Waterfall still survives for a reason.
Let’s talk about why.
Understanding the Nepali IT Project Reality
Before comparing Agile and Waterfall, we need to understand how most IT projects actually run in Nepal. In many projects, clients start with: “Just build something first. We’ll change it later.” Requirements are often unclear at the beginning. Decisions are delayed. Stakeholders change their minds frequently. Sometimes, the person approving the project is not the one giving daily feedback. This cultural and business reality affects which project management approach works best.
Agile in Theory vs Agile in Practice (Nepal Context)
Agile works best when:
- The client is available regularly
- Requirements can be prioritized clearly
- The client understands iteration and MVP concepts
- Feedback is timely and structured
In Nepal, this is rare.
Many clients expect:
- Full features in the first delivery
- Last-minute changes without impact on time or cost
- No involvement during development, but full control at the end
As a result, “Agile” often turns into:
- Endless scope changes
- No proper sprint reviews
- Constant pressure on the team
- Burnout instead of flexibility
So while teams say they are using Agile, in reality, it becomes “chaotic development”, not true Agile.
Why Waterfall Still Works in Many Nepali Projects
Waterfall gets criticized a lot, but in Nepal, it has some strong advantages.
When we clearly document:
- Scope
- Timeline
- Deliverables
- Approval stages
Clients feel more confident. They know what they are paying for. Developers know what to build. Project managers can control expectations better.
In projects like:
- Government systems
- Educational platforms
- Fixed-budget websites
- Clients new to IT
Waterfall often reduces conflict.
It forces early discussions, written approvals, and controlled changes things that are extremely important in the Nepali business environment.
The Real Problem Is Not Agile or Waterfall
From my experience, projects don’t fail because of methodology.
They fail because of:
- Poor communication
- Unrealistic expectations
- Weak requirement gathering
- No change control
- Lack of client accountability
Even the best Agile framework will fail if the client disappears for weeks. And even Waterfall will fail if requirements are rushed.
What Actually Works Better: A Hybrid Approach
In most Nepali IT projects, the best solution is a mix of both.
For example:
- Use Waterfall for requirement gathering, scope definition, and approvals
- Use Agile internally for development and task management
- Fix milestones, but allow small iterations within them
- Clearly define what is change and what is included
This hybrid approach respects both:
- Client behavior in Nepal
- Practical realities of software development
Final Thoughts
Agile is not bad. Waterfall is not outdated. The mistake we often make in Nepal is copying international project management models without adapting them to our culture and clients. Good project management is not about following a framework blindly. It’s about understanding people, expectations, and limitations and then choosing what works best for that situation. In Nepali IT projects, flexibility with structure works better than flexibility without control. And that’s something no textbook will tell you but real projects will.
