Caution: I seem to have got into a bit of a diatribe on this subject!

<soapbox>

I have found that companies and management prefer waterfall cause its easier "to get".  Project managers like it because they can focus around the dates.  Where waterfall projects struggle, in IT at least and probably elsewhere, is with changes to deliverables.  All to often what people ask for and what people need are not the same thing.  I have issues with waterfall in all kinds of IT projects.  If you've got a clear single deliverable like "deliver SFB/Teams to the company" then its an acceptable approach.  The tasks involved are reasonably clear from the outset, the people you need likewise.  However; if you have a project that is less clear or worse being driven by someone who wont use the resulting product then waterfall will fail.  You may deliver the desired outcome, eventually, however you've likely run over time and over budget because the goal posts kept moving.  As an example; how often do you hear of government IT projects running over time and over budget? And these are almost always a big waterfall project.

This is where Agile tries to come and solve.  Agile attempts to get rapid regular feedback from your stakeholders and customers to help guide you both to the eventual outcome.  You actually dont have to have a clear final state to start the project.  An example might be "deliver our contact centre a knowledge base tool that they can update and will help them find answers quickly".  There are lots of products out there that'll do that already, but if for some reason you decide to create your own or need to evaluate the many as part of the project you can start right away.  You'd go away try a few things and come back to your stakeholders and customers with a first rough draft of something. It might just be "here are our ideas and how we think this might work" rather than prototype.  The goals of these iterations are to make that unclear desired result more clear.  You're also talking to your customers more directly. Something that almost never happens with waterfall (unless you're the BA maybe).

A lot of companies struggle with agile for all kinds of reasons from what I've seen and I am far from an expert....but I've worked long enough to see things!  Most project managers dont seem to get it at all - especially if they've worked a long time with waterfall.  They really struggle with the lack of clear dates and outcomes.  CxO and higher level managers also want clear dates and clear costs.  Thats not always obvious with agile.  If you're a "coalface" IT worker how often are you asked "when will have this done" or "how much is that going to cost" (if you're a little higher up the food chain).  Those questions arent easy to answer and as a result the answers are often wrong.  Even with everyones best intentions.

What people often do not realise is that agile itself does not prescribe a way to manage the project per se.  Scrums arent a requirement of agile - though they are regularly adopted.  Different teams in the same organisation might run their agile projects differently.  Different companies often will too.  Indeed if youre allowed to change the way you work within your team you will likely be more successful.  If something is prescribed onto you (because pointy haired manager said you'd do it that way) you'll probably find everything jarring and difficult to work with. And you'll question things (I like people who question the status quo!) as you wont see the point of it.

So which methodology is right for you or your company? Dunno.  I've got a preference and its probably clear from the above which that is!  As others have said the methodology isnt necessarily the important part. People are.  Always.  If you've got good people across the board you'll have successful outcomes.  Learning how you work with your colleagues is probably even more important than all of that.  Your personality types are different. Your motivations are different.  What engages each of you is different.  If you can learn these things about each other you'll work more cohesively as a team (your immediate team and wider department and ultimately company).  Finding a company that values this above all else is rare.  And having worked abroad a bit it seems NZ is behind a bit here - but starting to get there.

</soapbox>

Edit: And as someone earlier said dont bother with Skype for Business (its "deprecated"). Go with Teams (which whilst it has its own problems is way better than SFB).