Agile Workflow

Agile is an iterative way of working — build in stages, get feedback, adjust, repeat — instead of locking in every detail upfront and hoping it’s all correct months later. It maps directly onto “Listen. Adjust. Deliver.”

The formal ceremonies (sprints, standups) are built for larger teams, but the underlying principle — iterate, get feedback, adjust — works just as well, maybe better, on a small, focused project.

Regular check-ins and visible progress rather than disappearing for weeks and delivering a surprise at the end — you see the site taking shape and can course-correct along the way.

That’s expected and planned for, not a problem — an iterative approach is specifically built to absorb changing priorities better than a rigid, fixed-scope plan.

Not necessarily — iterating on details doesn’t mean an open-ended timeline. It means the plan can adjust intelligently as real feedback comes in, rather than being locked to assumptions made on day one.

More involved than a traditional “hand it off and wait” model, since feedback along the way is what makes the iterative approach actually work — but not so involved that it becomes a burden.

The traditional alternative (waterfall) plans everything upfront and executes in one long pass — fine for extremely well-defined projects, but risky for anything where requirements are likely to sharpen as you see it take shape.

Generally, yes — catching a wrong assumption after the first iteration is far cheaper to fix than discovering it after the entire project is built.

It doesn’t inherently cost more — if anything, catching misalignment early tends to prevent the expensive kind of rework a rigid, all-upfront plan is more prone to.

No — there’s still a clear plan and scope. It just stays responsive to real feedback instead of being treated as untouchable once it’s written down.