In the ongoing debate within project management circles about the most effective methodology for enhancing communication in process improvement projects, Olalekan Victor Ajayi-Kaffi, (PMP, PSM1) a Project Manager with six years of experience in IT project management, technical team supervision, and a recent Master’s graduate in Project Management from Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA, has added valuable insights through his recent research.
With expertise in both Agile and Waterfall methodologies, Ajayi-Kaffi explores how these two frameworks perform when applied to improving communication in process improvement projects, particularly using healthcare sector as case study, a field known for its complex stakeholder environments and high stakes.
Ajayi-Kaffi emphasizes that communication is not merely a secondary factor but a pivotal component that can make or break a project’s success, especially during the implementation of process improvements in healthcare. He argues that Agile’s iterative, adaptive nature aligns more closely with the fluid demands of healthcare, where constant updates and feedback are necessary.
According to Ajayi-Kaffi, “Agile offers a flexible and iterative approach, crucial in a dynamic environment like healthcare. Unlike other fields, healthcare projects require constant adaptation to feedback. Agile enables continuous feedback, adaptability, and stakeholder engagement throughout the project lifecycle, fostering a responsive environment conducive to iterative development.”
He contrasts this with Waterfall methodology, which he describes as more linear and inflexible. “Waterfall’s sequential structure mandates completing each phase before advancing, which can delay feedback and limit communication of issues until late in the process,” Ajayi-Kaffi notes. This sequential structure can create bottlenecks, particularly in complex, multi-stakeholder environments where real-time responses are essential.
Ajayi-Kaffi explains that the healthcare industry’s unique requirements intensify this challenge. Process improvement projects in healthcare typically involve multiple stakeholders from clinicians, administrative staff, IT professionals, and patients. Necessitating a project management approach that supports constant feedback and iterative changes. “In healthcare, miscommunication or delayed responses can directly impact patient outcomes and overall service delivery,” he states. “Agile, with its focus on iterative communication and frequent collaboration, minimizes these risks.”
He elaborates on how Agile promotes a collaborative culture, emphasizing principles of transparency, accountability, and regular feedback loops through frameworks like Scrum. “Agile encourages regular sprints, sprint reviews, and retrospective meetings to ensure all stakeholders’ voices are heard. This proactive communication fosters trust and improves engagement, especially critical in long-term healthcare projects where real-time feedback from end-users, such as clinicians, can lead to continuous refinement of deliverables,” he notes.
Ajayi-Kaffi acknowledges that while Waterfall may suit projects with fixed objectives and minimal anticipated changes, its rigidity can be a drawback in environments that require flexibility.
“Waterfall’s structured path is beneficial in regulated environments where compliance and risk mitigation are paramount. However, its lack of iterative feedback mechanisms can be a barrier in high-change environments like healthcare,” he explains.
With credentials as a Project Management Professional (PMP) and Professional Scrum Master (PSM I), Ajayi-Kaffi brings a well-rounded perspective on methodology choice.
His research contrasts two case studies: one where Agile’s iterative communication enhanced a hospital management software deployment, and another where Waterfall was used for a procurement system implementation in a healthcare setting. The Agile approach, with real-time feedback from end-users such as doctors and nurses, allowed for timely adjustments, ensuring the software was both functional, user-friendly and financially rewarding.
In contrast, the Waterfall methodology in the procurement project, though methodical in planning and compliance alignment, faced communication challenges that delayed necessary adjustments. “This highlights Waterfall’s limitations in dynamic projects where flexibility in feedback and communication is crucial,” he remarks.
Ajayi-Kaffi’s analysis also delves into how Agile and Waterfall handle uncertainty, a constant in healthcare projects given evolving regulations, technology, and patient needs. He notes, “Healthcare projects are inherently dynamic, requiring methodologies that can pivot quickly.
Agile’s iterative sprints and real-time feedback allow teams to adjust efficiently. In contrast, Waterfall’s linear process can delay responses, which in healthcare, can have serious implications.”
Implementing Agile in healthcare requires a cultural shift from traditional, hierarchical structures toward decentralized decision-making and open communication, Ajayi-Kaffi suggests. “Many healthcare organizations operate in a top-down structure, which can be a barrier to Agile’s collaborative nature. Transitioning to Agile necessitates a shift in mindset toward inclusivity and proactive feedback loops,” he says. Though challenging, he argues that this shift fosters a more transparent and resilient working environment in the long run.
In terms of process improvement, Agile’s adaptability contributes to higher stakeholder satisfaction. “Healthcare stakeholders, including patients and clinicians, often have evolving needs throughout a project’s lifecycle. Agile allows these needs to be incorporated as they arise, ensuring outcomes meet or even exceed stakeholder expectations,” he explains. Waterfall’s rigidity, by contrast, often leaves little room for mid-project adjustments, which can lead to dissatisfaction if initial requirements no longer match stakeholders’ current needs.
Reflecting on his project management experience, Ajayi-Kaffi advises that the choice between Agile and Waterfall should be based on the project’s unique requirements and the communication dynamics within the organization. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Agile is preferable for complex projects with ongoing feedback and evolving needs, while Waterfall is suitable for projects with defined scopes and compliance-focused deliverables.”
He also advocates for hybrid approaches that incorporate elements of both methodologies. “In some projects, blending Waterfall’s rigorous planning with Agile’s adaptability provides the best results. For example, in large-scale healthcare or technical projects, certain phases may benefit from Waterfall’s structured approach, while Agile’s iterative communication can be applied to phases requiring flexibility,” he suggests.
Ajayi-Kaffi’s research and field experience underscore the importance of methodology selection based on project scope, complexity, and stakeholder needs. His insights contribute to the ongoing discussion in project management, particularly for those in healthcare seeking to navigate the challenges of process improvement with agility and precision.
