From Waterfall to Agile: Lessons from the Rapid Construction of Huoshenshan and Leishenshan Hospitals

The source material is a DevOps case study (fourth part) that examines the construction of the Huoshenshan and Leishenshan hospitals as a concrete example of large‑scale, time‑critical project delivery.

It describes how the hospitals were built using a classic waterfall approach: clearly defined phases, sequential hand‑offs, strong constraints on time, scope, and cost, and a refusal to accept changes once development began.

The article notes that the waterfall model originated from industrial manufacturing and construction practices that emerged after the software crisis of the 1960s.

Because software development often faces high uncertainty and rapidly changing requirements, the industry has gradually moved toward more flexible models such as spiral, iterative, and Scrum.

Key characteristics of the models are listed:

Waterfall: sequential, document‑driven, extensive upfront discussion to reduce risk.

Spiral: risk‑driven, incremental phases with risk assessment before each stage.

Iterative: deliver a minimum viable product quickly, then improve based on feedback.

Scrum: combines incremental and iterative practices, fixed cycles, strong team collaboration, and rapid validation.

The article asks how to choose among these models and suggests that for simple, well‑defined domains a waterfall approach can be effective if strong execution, automation, communication, and team empowerment are in place.

However, for complex, innovative business applications where requirements evolve continuously, agile methods are more appropriate.

It highlights the Agile Manifesto’s final statement—valuing the left‑hand side (agile) over the right‑hand side (waterfall) when trade‑offs arise—implying that hybrid approaches are often needed.

From the hospital construction perspective, the overall project followed a waterfall schedule, but the granularity was reduced and agile best practices were incorporated to improve communication and efficiency.

The article then introduces the “three‑step quality‑built” concept (doing the right thing, doing things right, minimizing quality cost) and outlines quality management across design, implementation, acceptance, and operation phases.

It enumerates four major challenges faced by the medical teams acting as “all‑round operations” during the emergency:

Urgent business with incomplete delivery.

New business type with insufficient training.

Temporarily assembled teams lacking prior collaboration.

High infection risk requiring strict personal protection.

Despite these difficulties, the medical staff successfully delivered rapid, high‑quality care, earning the description of an all‑capable operations team.

The article notes that, as of March 15 2020, the Huoshenshan and Leishenshan medical teams had achieved zero infections, moving closer to the goal of a “double‑zero” outcome.

Finally, it invites readers to continue following the series (four parts total) and promotes an upcoming live session on Kubernetes‑based application automation.