For many tech leaders—especially those operating in regulated industries or maintaining legacy platforms—Agile can feel like a risky leap. Waterfall models have provided predictability, documentation, and control. But the market isn’t slowing down, and the demand for faster delivery and adaptive development is real.
In cities like Austin and Dallas, Agile transformation is becoming the standard. But the path from traditional methodologies to Agile must be carefully planned—especially when product stability, security, or compliance can’t be compromised.
Understanding the Foundations: Waterfall vs. Agile at the Core
Before diving into how to migrate, it’s essential to revisit the foundations of each methodology.
The Waterfall model is a linear software development process in which each phase—requirements, design, implementation, verification, and maintenance—must be completed before the next one begins. This method was first formally described in Winston W. Royce’s 1970 paper on software development for large systems, where he also acknowledged its limitations for projects that required flexibility.
In contrast, Agile methodology was introduced in the early 2000s with the publication of the Agile Manifesto, which describes Agile as a methodology based on “incremental, iterative work cadences, known as sprints,” emphasizing early and continuous delivery of valuable software.
Agile shifts the focus from documentation and rigid planning to working software, collaboration, and responsiveness to change.
Waterfall
Requirements
Design
Implementation
Testing
Maintenance
vs.
Agile
Agile
Why U.S. Companies Are Moving From Waterfall to Agile
Shifting to Agile is more than a trend—it’s a necessity driven by today’s software demands:
Speed to market:
Agile enables iterative development and continuous delivery.
Changing requirements:
Stakeholders want adaptability, not rigid roadmaps.
Collaboration:
Agile builds cross-functional accountability and team ownership.
Competitive pressure:
Your competitors are releasing faster—and learning faster.
According to the State of Agile Report, over 80% of enterprise software teams report using some form of Agile in their workflows. However, transitioning is different from adopting—and many still struggle to do it without disruption.
The Risks of a Poorly Planned Agile Migration
Agile transformation has its pitfalls, especially when executed too quickly or without a plan tailored to your existing architecture and organizational structure.
What can go wrong?
Code instability:
Incomplete refactoring and parallel legacy integration issues
QA workflow breakdown:
From gated releases to continuous testing isn’t a flip of a switch
Audit trail and compliance gaps:
Especially dangerous in healthcare, fintech, or SaaS environments under regulation
Team confusion or cultural resistance:
Developers trained in waterfall may feel disoriented or disengaged
For tech leaders managing mission-critical platforms, these aren’t theoretical risks—they’re operational liabilities.
Waterfall vs. Agile: Framework Comparison for Tech Leaders
Here’s how Waterfall and Agile typically compare across crucial criteria:
Criteria
Waterfall Model
Agile Framework
Planning & Requirements
High (9/10)
Medium (5/10)
Delivery Speed
Low (4/10)
High (9/10)
Change Flexibility
Very Low (2/10)
Very High (10/10)
Stakeholder Involvement
Low (3/10)
High (9/10)
Documentation
High (9/10)
Medium (6/10)
Compliance & Traceability
High (8/10)
Medium (5/10)
Team Collaboration
Low (4/10)
High (9/10)
Risk Management
High (7/10)
Medium (6/10)
Legend: 10 = Excellent; 1 = Very Poor
This breakdown shows why many hybrid models are emerging—bridging the documentation and compliance strength of Waterfall with the speed and flexibility of Agile.
Lifecycle Models: Linear vs. Iterative
Phase
Waterfall
Agile
Requirements Gathering
Before project begins
At start of each sprint
System Design
Complete before dev
Lightweight and ongoing
Development
Linear execution
In 1–4 week sprints
Testing
After full build
Per sprint (continuous)
Deployment
Once
Frequent releases
Adjustments
Costly, late-stage
Expected and welcomed
Agile enables revisiting earlier phases, while Waterfall requires fully defined specifications from the start.
Best Practices for Agile Migration (Without Breaking What Works)
If your company still relies on waterfall or a documentation-heavy model, here’s how to transition without the chaos:
1. Start with a Hybrid Model
Don’t jump all-in on Agile. Use Agile sprints for development cycles while keeping Waterfall-style release sign-offs for QA and compliance.
2. Define Roles and Onboarding Paths
Agile doesn’t work without well-understood roles. Ensure your team understands the responsibilities of Product Owners, Scrum Masters, and Agile squads. Provide onboarding playbooks and coaching for legacy teams.
3. Preserve Documentation (Where It Matters)
Regulated teams still need to document decisions and workflows. Adapt Agile to include living documentation or automatic audit trails using tools like Confluence or Jira Align.
4. Empower Change Agents
Identify team members who can act as Agile ambassadors—mentoring others, reinforcing best practices, and advocating for continuous improvement.
Agile promotes continuous involvement of stakeholders through sprint reviews and backlog prioritization.
Stakeholder Involvement: Visibility vs. Engagement
With Waterfall, customers provide input mainly during requirements gathering, then wait until the product is nearly finished. This model works for fixed-scope, well-defined projects.
Agile flips this dynamic. Customers are engaged throughout the entire process—attending sprint reviews, prioritizing backlogs, and seeing iterative results. This ongoing involvement results in more satisfaction and better product-market alignment.
Documentation: Rigid vs. Strategic
Waterfall emphasizes thorough, formal documentation in every phase. Agile doesn’t discard documentation—it repositions it as purposeful and streamlined.
Instead of static specs, Agile uses:
User stories
Backlogs
Annotated code and comments
Living documents that evolve with the product
Why Scio Is the Right Partner for Agile Migration
At Scio, we work with U.S. tech companies—especially in Texas—that need to modernize while maintaining control and stability. We know how to operate in both Waterfall and Agile environments, and we help our clients find the balance that works for their context. Here’s what sets us apart:
Bicultural teams fluent in Agile & legacy methodologies
Experience in regulated industries
Structured onboarding & hybrid development models
Customizable Agile roadmaps aligned to business goals
Clear communication across time zones and cultural alignment with U.S. teams
With offices in Mexico and a track record of scalable, easy-to-integrate teams, we specialize in strategic digital nearshoring that reduces risk—not adds to it.
Which One Should You Choose?
The answer depends on your project’s characteristics:
Factor
Waterfall
Agile
Scope clarity
High
Evolving
Customer availability
Low
High
Regulation/compliance
Strong
Adaptable with hybrid
Team co-location
Not required
Helpful, but not essential
Speed to market
Slower
Faster
Budgeting
Fixed upfront
Flexible per sprint
For large enterprise systems with strict specifications, Waterfall may still apply. But for startups, MVPs, and iterative product development—Agile is often the better path.
FAQs on Agile Migration for Legacy or Regulated Environments
Q1: Is it possible to be Agile and still meet audit and compliance requirements?
Absolutely. Many teams adopt Agile-with-compliance practices that include audit trails, traceable commits, and documented user stories.
Q2: How long does a typical Agile transition take?
A hybrid rollout can start showing results in 3–6 months, depending on team size and tooling. Full transformation may take 12+ months for large enterprises.
Q3: What if our developers are unfamiliar with Agile?
That’s where training, onboarding, and change management come in. Scio can provide team augmentation that includes mentoring and embedded Agile roles.
Q4: What tooling is recommended for Agile compliance?
Tools like Jira, Confluence, GitLab, Azure DevOps and TestRail are common. What matters most is consistent process and traceability, not the tool itself.
Q5: We’ve tried Agile before and failed. Why would it work now?
Because it’s not about Agile as a dogma—it’s about finding a model that works for your product, people, and pace. Scio helps design exactly that.
The shift to Agile can be smooth, structured, and aligned to your roadmap.
Conclusion: Transition Without Turbulence
The move from Waterfall to Agile doesn’t need to disrupt your team, your roadmap, or your users. Done right, it leads to more flexible, faster, and future-ready development—without sacrificing quality or compliance.
Let’s talk about how we can help you modernize your development without compromising stability.
Why User Conversations Are Your Most Underused Engineering Tool
Not long ago, after one of those painfully failed product validations, I found myself wondering: how many key decisions have I made without truly understanding who I’m trying to help? I’ll admit—it hurt to realize the answer.
As a Founder / Product Owner / Business Developer, I’ve had the privilege of working with brilliant technical minds. People who write code like poetry—masters of distributed systems, CI/CD, pipelines—the whole stack. But when it comes to having a genuine conversation with a user, many freeze up. Not because they don’t care, but because no one ever taught them the art of asking the right questions.
If you’re a CTO or COO leading a software team—especially in growth-stage companies from Austin to Dallas—here’s your wake-up call:
If your engineers can’t talk to users, you’re not just building in the dark. You’re handing the job to AI, one disconnected sprint at a time.
What Happens When Dev Teams Work Without User Signals
Without user context, your team may:
Ship features instead of solving real problems.
Use deadlines as the only motivator—eroding product purpose.
Iterate fast, but in circles.
Turn your backlog into a graveyard of half-guessed ideas.
Miss out on disruptive innovation. Real innovation comes from human empathy, not just roadmaps.
I once led a team where the technical challenge wasn’t particularly complex. A CTO told me building the KHERO app didn’t feel “intellectually interesting.” Later, I realized my mistake: I hadn’t explained the impact of what we were building. If I had conveyed that his work would help thousands of people feel like heroes and change the lives of hundreds of breast cancer survivors, I’m sure his perspective would’ve shifted.
When your developers fall in love with the problem, not just the tech, you’ve got an unstoppable team—even when the intellectual challenge isn’t the biggest.
The Mom Test: Why It Should Be Required Reading for Tech Leads
Based on The Mom Test by Rob Fitzpatrick, here’s what we train our developers to do:
Don’t pitch—listen.
Wrong: “Would you use this?”
Right: “How did you solve this last time?”
Ignore compliments.
“Sounds good” ≠ commitment. Real signals come from past actions, not vague future promises.
Ask about reality, not hypotheticals.
“Would you walk to fundraise?” → 100% yes.
“Do you walk or run? When was the last time?” → 20% follow-through. Reality > good intentions.
We seek validation, but what we really need is truth. And truth doesn’t emerge when you talk—it shows up when you listen.
Using this shift in approach, we fine-tuned our segment and doubled download and usage rates for the KHERO app.
Want to Build a Better Team Culture? Start with This Ritual
We implement a simple practice called Coffee with Customers for our engineering teams (in Mexico, Colombia, and with partners in Texas):
Prep (15 min): Devs create one hypothesis and write 3 user-safe questions.
Live Call (20 min): A real user call—no selling, just learning.
Post-Mortem: We analyze what we learned, share it, and use it to shape the backlog.
The result?
Devs stop building because someone said so. They start building because someone needs it.
For CTOs, COOs & Product Leaders: This Is About More Than Research—It’s About Leadership
A tech lead who can’t explain the “why” behind a sprint is managing, not leading. Great leaders:
Create space for devs to hear users.
Reward curiosity over code volume.
Coach their teams to spot truths hiding in plain sight.
Why This Matters in Nearshore Teams
With distributed teams across LATAM, communication gaps can multiply. But when nearshore engineers—like those we place from Morelia to Medellín—talk to end users in real time, everything changes:
Higher alignment
Better backlog quality
Shorter cycles
Stronger culture
Lower churn
Final Thoughts (and a Gift)
I’ve made all the mistakes—mistaking interest for intent, validating products with my own pitch, skipping user contact. But I’ve learned. And I’m still learning.
If you want a practical, one-page cheat sheet based on The Mom Test—something you can use in your next team meeting—just reach out to me at linkedin.com/in/guillermotp
Remember: Don’t try to be interesting. Stay interested.
Guillermo Tena
Head of Growth
Founder @ KHERO (clients: Continental, AMEX GBT, etc.)
Head of Growth @ SCIO
Consultant & Lecturer in Growth and Consumer Behavior
Nowadays, it’s not enough for software development teams to be technically brilliant, they also need to know how to learn, adapt, and grow together. As Co-founder of Scio and a certified organizational coach, I’ve seen firsthand how the right coaching skills can elevate an Agile team from simply functioning to truly thriving.
Let’s unpack why coaching skills are essential for every dev team, not just managers or Scrum Masters, and how to bring them into your day-to-day practice.
Why Coaching Belongs in Agile Teams
At its core, coaching is a way to help others learn or change. Unlike mentoring or directing, coaching relies on powerful questions, deep listening, and trust to spark self-discovery and action. That’s exactly the kind of dynamic learning we want inside Agile teams.
Agile teams work in environments of constant change and iteration, where new technologies, tools, and requirements emerge faster than most formal training programs can keep up. In this setting, the ability to teach each other, problem-solve collaboratively, and reflect as a team becomes critical.
Here are a few characteristics that make coaching especially relevant in Agile teams:
Cross-functionality: Everyone has a different specialty, and often, different viewpoints.
Self-organization: Teams are expected to take ownership, not wait for top-down direction.
Frequent feedback loops: Scrum ceremonies demand reflection and adaptation.
Psychological safety: Learning can’t happen without trust.
When team members are equipped with coaching skills, they’re more effective at giving and receiving feedback, challenging each other constructively, and making sure that learning sticks—without turning every mistake into a crisis.
What Coaching Skills Bring to the Table
Training team members in coaching techniques builds essential competencies that go far beyond people management:
Active listening – really hearing what’s said (and unsaid)
Powerful questioning – opening up thinking without prescribing
Building trust – essential for psychological safety
Giving and receiving feedback – candid, kind, and constructive
Following through on action plans – turning insights into impact
Supportively challenging teammates – helping others grow, not stay comfortable
These skills not only improve collaboration but support the Agile principles of transparency, inspection, and adaptation.
Team-Led, Not Top-Down
While having an organization-wide coaching culture is ideal, that kind of transformation can take years and requires deep buy-in from senior leadership.
I want to make the case for a more accessible approach: let every team create their own coaching culture, with the support of a coach when needed. Agile teams are already empowered to self-organize, why not self-develop too?
By starting at the team level, you keep it practical, grounded, and tailored. Over time, these micro-cultures create a ripple effect throughout the organization.
A Road Map for Bringing Coaching into Your Team
You don’t need a full-blown organizational transformation to start cultivating a coaching culture in your team. However, you may need the sponsorship of a manager to get access to a team coach for training and support. Here’s a practical rollout plan:
1. Start with your Team Lead(s) and senior devs
Train your team lead(s) and senior devs first. They’ll model the skills in one-on-ones, the agile ceremonies, code reviews, and standups.
2. Then train the whole team by focusing on the Basics
Start small with three core skills:
Active listening
Powerful questions
The GROW coaching model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will)
3. Build It into Agile Practices
Coaching works best when it becomes part of how the team communicates, reflects, and improves every day.
Start by making small but meaningful adjustments to your existing Agile ceremonies:
Daily Scrum
Add one coaching-style question, for example: “What’s the small experiment you’ll try today?” This encourages learning through action and supports a growth mindset.
Backlog Refinement
Invite developers to coach the Product Owner on how stories could be sliced thinner or clarified. This creates shared ownership and teaches developers to ask thoughtful, outcome-focused questions.
Sprint Review
Help stakeholders structure their feedback using a coaching-inspired format:
Appreciation → Question → Suggestion.
It frames feedback constructively and invites dialogue instead of judgment.
Retrospective
Rotate the facilitator role so each team member gets to guide the session.
Use the GROW model to turn insights into real action. Over time, this develops leadership and coaching confidence across the team.
Additionally:
Add “ask before telling,” “coach, don’t criticize,” and “we give timely, kind, candid feedback” to your team working agreements.
Set aside time during the sprint for informal peer-coaching conversations and practice.
Host a monthly “coaching development series” where more nuanced knowledge about coaching can be discussed.
By weaving coaching into the fabric of Agile, you make it feel natural and not like another task, but simply how the team works and grows.
Final Thought
We often talk about upskilling in tech—new frameworks, new languages, new stacks. But what if the biggest unlock for your team isn’t technical at all?
Teaching coaching skills may be the smartest, most scalable way to build adaptability, trust, and sustainable high performance into your development teams.
The GROW Model
A breakdown of one of the most popular coaching models used in organizations, perfect for Agile retrospectives, one-on-ones, and learning conversations.
Psychological Safety – Amy Edmondson
The foundational research article that introduced the concept of psychological safety—crucial for any team trying to implement a coaching mindset.
Coaching Agile Teams – Lyssa Adkins
A must-read book for Agile coaches and leaders, exploring how to blend Agile principles with coaching stances to help teams mature.
Rotating team members on agile software development teams is a controversial subject. Some leaders in the agile community are strongly opposed to the idea and won’t consider it at any level. Others are open to the subject, but frankly too concerned about the possible downsides to actively plan rotations or even hint to their customers it might be a good idea. And of course, there are the wild-eyed optimists who claim it is the best idea possible for every situation.
Our focus for this article is dedicated teams – teams with members selected for their skills and reliability over the long run. Typically, dedicated teams have no set sunset. They are dedicated to a product or part of a product suite and they generally stay through the active development and maintenance of a product lifecycle – which for enterprise software maybe years. But, that said, the ideas that bring up the subject of rotating members of a dedicated team could apply to any long term project, especially with smaller (3-5 member) teams.
And let’s be honest about one other thing too: the longer the project or product lifecycle, the more likely it is there will be an «unplanned» member rotation. Births, deaths, illness, vacations, career advancements and changes – all sorts of life events have to be managed as a part of maintaining a dedicated team. Even if the time a member is away is relatively short, in less than two weeks, the impact on the productivity of a small team needs to be managed to continue to meet client schedules and expectations. In some cases, the remaining team members can sustain production for a period of time by adding additional hours daily and on weekends, but eventually, that will take a toll on their personal commitment to the team. And when there is an unplanned need to bring in a replacement, there are consequences to the team regardless of the additional manpower provided. In fact, it is well understood that if for some reason two members of a small team needed to be replaced over a short period of time, it would be catastrophic for the team. Bringing the new member «up-to-speed» with mentoring and knowledge transfer takes time and effort of other team members away from their work. And, there is the well-understood impact of a team «forming, storming, norming, and performing» cycles as described by Tuckman. Changing a member of a small team always creates issues. Without some planning and forethought – it can kill the effectiveness of a team for an extended period of time.
So – why would anyone want to consider the idea of rotating team members on dedicated agile teams?
If unplanned changes in a dedicated team are going to happen anyway, why not be prepared? Why not have the process for selecting, integrating, training and mentoring a new team member planned, documented and tested before it actually happens? Why wouldn’t you want the expectation that «this can happen» and «this is how we deal with it» in place and in front of the team and the client from the beginning?
The longer a team works on a product, the more likely they are to develop «tunnel-vision.» They see the UI, but they become blind to the problems a new user might encounter trying to use it. They know there are newer technologies that might make something more efficient or resilient, but it takes time to test, advocate change, and demo the option to the client team. If what you have works, is it really worth the effort? The longer a team works together, the more «normal» the little quirks about a product become. In the long run, it can make them resistant to needed change and reluctant to suggest options.
Working with the same people, on the same product, eventually leads to a level of isolation that can begin to make it difficult to want to get started on the «same old stuff» each day. Developers are part of «geek culture» and love to see new technologies, get input from other sources and try «cool» things. When this happens, production slips and members of the team may become less committed to the success of the product they are working on. It doesn’t happen in a day; it is a slow drip that eventually eats away at the team and makes it less effective. It can also make individuals on the team consider career changes because they are afraid their resume will reflect stagnation rather than stability.
Bringing in «fresh (but experienced) blood» can bring cross-pollination from other experiences, new points of view on coding practices and processes, a new look at alternatives as you move forward and other benefits from another set of eyes on the project. If long term members of the project are not ready to accept new ideas, they can create strong resistance, but if they are positively primed for the idea by considering they could also benefit individually and as a team, it can be a shot in the arm for the team.
«Ownership» of a product, or an area of responsibility, can be a strong motivator for a team. Their understanding of its deeper value and continued success is part of their pride and keeps the team on track. But, there is also a downside. If the team is the single point of knowledge and «truth» for a product, they are also the single point of failure. If there is no base of knowledge about the product outside of the team, in the wider pool of developers around them, there is no way to replace a team member easily or help them if there is a problem that causes a loss of a member or if the team runs into a serious internal disagreement (it does happen).
Operationally, these long-term teams become silos. Outside the team, they are the go-to subject matter experts that always have the answers. Inside the team, individuals tend to become specialists, filling a niche that no one else can come close to. This not only runs against the whole concept of «agile organizations» – it becomes a growing risk within the organization.
There are more reasons too – but those concerns represent some of the more common drivers of the idea. They are all real issues and the problems the teams dealing with them have an impact on the projects they are in. But – does planned rotation actually solve the problems? Does the upside outweigh the downsides? Can rotation be planned well enough to overcome internal team dynamics? Will the supposed benefits last long enough to make rotations something you want to do? Can you actually present a case that would make client support, rather than oppose, the practice?
The answer would have to be – it all depends on implementation.
Like any change, member rotations have to be sold internally before they can be implemented.
Frank conversations about the health of teams, experiences in long term engagements have to be surfaced and alternative solutions have to be discussed.
The timing and requirements for new members have to be considered and accepted by the existing team members. Simply dumping the idea on them without preparation is sure to bring disaster.
The level of the incoming team member will make a difference in acceptance. Replacing a senior member with another senior developer may be more difficult than bringing in a mid-level or junior developer in their place. With less seniority, the new member will have lower expectations and less to live up to. They will be more accepting during knowledge transfer and mentoring and give existing team members new opportunities to grow. But if the outgoing member is considered to be a team leader, the impact may be very deep no matter who is brought in.
If the practice is fairly new within the organization, replacing a team member is likely to be more problematic regardless of planning and thought. The practice can be new institutionally or within the team, it really doesn’t matter. If team members are not experienced with the concept, issues will arise. Assuming the issue will iron themselves out eventually is not a good way to manage change.
Frequency is important. Single-member rotation will always cause thrash and lost productivity no matter how well it is planned. A team can only sustain so much change without becoming distracted and losing their center. In complex environments, it may take a considerable time for a new member to build up the necessary knowledge base. Most industry experience seems to circle around a period between six and nine months for the change of one member. More than that and the team might never gain cohesion again. Less than that and silos will begin to form. But, there is no perfect point. You can’t change a member during a critical release for a product, no matter what the calendar says. You have to work with the client team to gain acceptance and cooperation. Timing is a hard nut to crack and will be different in every situation.
This is an important and evolving area of management for outsourced agile teams. It is not widely discussed in the software development industry. Clients come to outsourcing vendors to avoid issues like team cohesion, resilience, and long-term stability. It may be difficult to bring them into a conversation about an issue that is seen as a vendor responsibility.
But, there are some ideas that are coming forward and worth considering. Larger outsourcing vendors can propose a dedicated «pool» rather than a team. The actual team in production continues to be a small number, but the vendor commits to a larger group, perhaps 7-10 including the active team, of developers that are involved and can become a team member with less overhead from change. This allows the members of the pool to become involved in project and product discussions, review code, and be the sounding board for ideas. There has to be an adjustment of the cost to allow this kind of an arrangement and a clear commitment by the vendor to avoiding the issues that are considered part of dedicated team contracts, but in certain situations, it is worth considering.
In the final analysis, it is hard to value the practice of rotating team members on dedicated teams. It can seem like a great idea if you have experienced the downsides of long-term engagements where unplanned changes and team stagnation become barriers to success. If the motivation, implementation, and outcomes are not carefully considered and monitored, it can become a serious distraction from productive development. Neither outcome is good so this is an important consideration and the decisions are likely to be different in every situation.
If you have experience with team member rotation (and not just fears or wild optimism) – I would be interested to hear your thoughts. This is still an unsettled area in agile team dynamics.
Scio is a provider of outsourced, dedicated and project teams for agile software development to our nearshore clients in North America. We have experience with many team and project configurations and would love to discuss how we could help with your next project. Please contact us with your questions.