What’s up with Stage-gate?

The preferred approach of developing products within big companies has been the stage-gate (SG) approach. SG is also known under the name of Waterfall and the strengths of this approach are stability and structure but the gates also make it difficult for making changes to the product/service when the gates are closed. With the rise of IT, the SG has seen it’s limitations because IT product development relies on quick iterations which is exactly the opposite of SG.

Taking a look at the Iron-triangle the qualities of SG are: Scope is fixed and resources/time are flexible. This is the reason why developments using the SG approach have a tendency to run over time and over budget but having a fixed scope has the strength that the leadership easily can control the outcome of the development. Also, the gates make it easy to stop a project – if the project doesn’t live up to the requirements/goals the project is terminated.

On a big scale, the SG is useful because it has a clear distinction between which department are involved during development.

Stage-gate doesn’t offer that many tools. It is good enough on a big scale but on a small scale, it is note good.
Scrum is faster than stage-gate
Op for change during the process

Insert math as
$${}$$