Agile vs. Traditional Project Management: What Works Best in Major Projects?

Decoding delivery strategies for infrastructure and capital programmes

Traditional Project Management: Strengths and Shortfalls

The traditional model (also known as waterfall) follows a linear sequence: plan, design, execute, close. It suits projects with defined scope and minimal expected change.

Advantages:

• Clear timelines and milestones

• Fixed budget and resource allocation

• Strong governance for regulatory-heavy sectors

Challenges:

• Inflexibility to change once underway

• Long feedback cycles can hide problems

• Risk of misalignment between early assumptions and real-world execution

Agile Project Management: Is It Suitable for Major Projects?

Agile—rooted in software delivery—uses iterative development and close stakeholder engagement to enable adaptability. While traditionally used in digital environments, it’s gaining traction in engineering and construction.

Advantages:

• Adaptive planning responds to change

• Early stakeholder feedback reduces rework

• Incremental delivery keeps momentum and visibility high

Challenges:

• Less suited to rigid compliance or fixed-price contracts

• Requires cultural shift and high collaboration

• Can lead to scope creep without discipline

Hybrid Approaches: The Best of Both Worlds?

More major programmes are opting for hybrid models—merging agile sprints and continuous feedback loops within a structured programme governance framework.

At Murray & Joy, we often implement:

• Agile methodologies for design, digital integration, and change management

• Waterfall structures for construction sequencing, safety assurance, and regulatory gates

• Embedded roles to bridge the cultural gap between stakeholders

Case in Point: Digital Twin Implementation in Infrastructure

On a recent transport infrastructure project, our client needed to integrate a digital twin during construction. We ran agile sprint cycles to deliver the data modelling components, while aligning with the project’s stage-gate waterfall structure for build. This hybrid approach kept the programme compliant—but flexible.

What’s Right for You?

There is no one-size-fits-all. Consider:

• Project certainty vs. complexity: Waterfall suits certainty; agile thrives amid evolving needs

• Stakeholder environment: Agile benefits from close collaboration; waterfall enforces structure

• Contractual model: Traditional contracts may restrict agile iterations unless managed carefully

Conclusion

Major projects demand clarity, control, and adaptability. Whether agile, traditional, or hybrid, the delivery model should align with your objectives—not force-fit your project into a framework.

Let’s Talk Delivery Strategy

Looking to assess or enhance your project delivery approach? Contact Murray & Joy to explore how we can shape a method that works best for your programme—blending structure with flexibility for smarter delivery.