Three project management approaches—traditional, agile, and hybrid—were considered in this study. Results from an international study, including 477 cross-industry projects, indicated that 52% of projects could be categorized as hybrid approaches. A regression analysis using multiple outcome measures indicated substantial explanatory power (0.21 < R2 <0.41). Analysis suggested that hybrid and agile approaches significantly increase stakeholder success over traditional approaches while achieving the same budget, time, scope, and quality outcomes. Hybrid approaches were found to be similar in effectiveness to fully agile approaches. Results validate decisions by practitioners to combine agile and traditional practices and suggest that hybrid is a leading project management approach.
AguannoK. (2004). Managing agile projects. Multi–Media Publications Inc.
2.
AladwaniA. M. (2002). An integrated performance model information systems projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 185–210.
3.
Association for Project Management (APM). (2019). APM body of knowledge (7th ed).
4.
BagozziR. P.YiY.PhillipsL. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.doi:10.2307/2393203
5.
BannermanP. L.ThorogoodA. (2012). Celebrating IT projects success: A multi-domain analysis [Conference session]. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences4874–4883.
6.
BaskervilleR.Pries-HejeJ.MadsenS. (2011). Post-agility: What follows a decade of agility?Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 543–555.doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.10.010
7.
BatraD.XiaW.VanderMeerD.DuttaK. (2013). Balancing agile and structured development approaches to successfully manage large distributed software projects: A case study from the cruise line industry. Communications of the Association of Information Systems, 27(1), 378–394.
8.
BickS.SpohrerK.HodaR.ScheererA.HeinzlA. (2017). Coordination challenges in large-scale software development: A case study of planning misalignment in hybrid settings. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 44(10), 932–950.doi:10.1109/TSE.2017.2730870
BoehmB.TurnerR. (2003). Balancing agility and discipline: A guide for the perplexed. Addison Wesley.
11.
CaoL.MohanK.RameshB.SarkarS. (2013). Adapting funding processes for agile it projects: An empirical investigation. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(2), 191–205.doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.9
12.
ChinC. M. M.SpowageA. C. (2010). Defining & classifying project management methodologies. PM World Today, 12(5), 1–9.
13.
ChowT.CaoD.-B. (2008). A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(6), 961–971.doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.08.020
14.
CohenS. G.BaileyD. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.doi:10.1177/014920639702300303
ConfortoE. C.SalumF.AmaralD. C.da SilvaS. L.de AlmeidaL. F. M. (2014). Can agile project management be adopted by industries other than software development?Project Management Journal, 45(3), 21–34.doi:10.1002/pmj.21410
17.
Cooke-DaviesT. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185–190.doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00067-9
18.
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
DenscombeM. (2007). The good research guide: For small-scale social research projects. Open University Press.
21.
DingsøyrT.NerurS.BalijepallyV.MoeN. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221.doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.033
Drury-GroganM. L. (2014). Performance on agile teams: Relating iteration objectives and critical decisions to project management success factors. Information and Software Technology, 56(5), 506–515.doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2013.11.003
24.
DulaimiM. F.NepalM. P.ParkM. (2005). A hierarchical structural model of assessing innovation and project performance. Construction Management and Economics, 23(6), 565–577.doi:10.1080/01446190500126684
25.
DvirD.LechlerT. (2004). Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: The impact of changes on project success. Research Policy, 33(1), 1–15.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2003.04.001
26.
DvirD.RazT.ShenharA. J. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 89–95.doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00012-1
27.
DybåT.DingsøyrT. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9-10), 833–859.doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006
28.
GableGSederaDChanTQueensland University of Technology, Australia. (2008). Re-conceptualizing information system success: The IS-impact measurement model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(7), 377–408.doi:10.17705/1jais.00164
29.
GeminoA.ReichB. H.SauerC. (2008). A temporal model of information technology project performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 9–44.doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222240301
30.
GeminoA.ReichB. H.SauerC. (2015). Plans versus people: Comparing knowledge management approaches in IT-enabled business projects. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 299–310.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.012
31.
GillA. Q.Henderson-SellersB.NiaziM. (2018). Scaling for agility: A reference model for hybrid traditional-agile software development methodologies. Information Systems Frontiers, 20(2), 315–341.doi:10.1007/s10796-016-9672-8
32.
GinzbergM. J. (1981). Early diagnosis of MIS implementation failure: Promising results and unanswered questions. Management Science, 27(4), 459–478.doi:10.1287/mnsc.27.4.459
33.
HaasK. B. (2007). The blending of traditional and agile project management. PM World Today, 9(5), 1–6.
34.
HighsmithJ.CockburnA. (2001). Agile software development: The business of innovation. Computer, 34(9), 120–127.doi:10.1109/2.947100
35.
IivariJ.HirschheimR.KleinH. K. (2000). A dynamic framework for classifying information systems development methodologies and approaches. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(3), 179–218.doi:10.1080/07421222.2000.11045656
36.
IkaL. A. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 6–19.doi:10.1002/pmj.20137
37.
IntronaL. D.WhitleyE. A. (1997). Against methodism: Exploring the limits of method. Information Technology & People, 10(1), 31–45.
38.
JahrM. (2014). A hybrid approach to quantitative software project scheduling within agile frameworks. Project Management Journal, 45(3), 35–45.doi:10.1002/pmj.21411
39.
JarvenpaaS. L.IvesB. (1991). Executive involvement and participation in the management of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 205–227.doi:10.2307/249382
40.
JørgensenM. (2016). A survey on the characteristics of projects with success in delivering client benefits. Information and Software Technology, 78(C), 83–94.doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2016.05.008
41.
JørgensenM. (2019). Relationships between project size, agile practices, and successful software development: Results and analysis. IEEE Software, 36(2), 39–43.doi:10.1109/MS.2018.2884863
KarlströmD.RunesonP. (2006). Integrating agile software development into stage-gate managed product development. Empirical Software Engineering, 11(2), 203–225.doi:10.1007/s10664-006-6402-8
44.
LappiT.KarvonenT.LwakatareL. E.AaltonenK.KuvajaP. (2018). Toward an improved understanding of agile project governance: A systematic literature review. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 39–63.
45.
LarmanC.BasiliV. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental developments. A brief history. Computer, 36(6), 47–56.doi:10.1109/MC.2003.1204375
46.
LechlerT. G.YangS. (2017). Exploring the role of project management in the development of the academic agile software discourse: A bibliometric analysis. Project Management Journal, 48(1), 3–18.doi:10.1177/875697281704800101
47.
MarchionattiR.MornatiF.. (Eds.) (2007). Considerations on the fundamental principles of pure political economy (pp. xi–xxix). Routledge.
48.
MarnewickC.ErasmusW.JosephN. (2017). The symbiosis between information system project complexity and information system project success. AOSIS (Pty) Ltd.
49.
MüllerR.TurnerR. (2007). The influence of project managers on project success criteria and project success by type of project. European Management Journal, 25(4), 298–309.doi:10.1016/j.emj.2007.06.003
50.
NgJ. J. (2018). Tailoring a project management methodology that suits one’s needs. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 46(2), 49–54.doi:10.1109/EMR.2018.2839670
51.
NiedermanF.LechlerT.PetitY. (2018). A research agenda for extending agile practices in software development and additional task domains. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 3–17.doi:10.1177/8756972818802713
52.
Office of Government Commerce (OGC). (2009). Managing successful projects with Prince 2. The Stationary Office.
53.
PaasivaaraM. (2017). Adopting SAFe to scale agile in a globally distributed organization. In2017 IEEE 12th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE) (pp.36–40). IEEE.
54.
PapadakisE.TsironisL. (2018). Hybrid methods and practices associated with agile methods, method tailoring and delivery of projects in a non-software context. Procedia Computer Science, 138(8), 739–746.doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.097
55.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.87914516251
56.
PremkumarG.KingW. R. (1992). An empirical assessment of information systems planning and the role of information systems in organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(2), 99–125.doi:10.1080/07421222.1992.11517960
57.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2017). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide)– Sixth edition. Author.
58.
RehmanI. U.UllahS.RaufA.ShahidA. A. (2010). Scope management in agile versus traditional software development methods. InProceedings of the 2010 national software engineering conference (pp.1–6).
59.
ReichB. H.LiuL.SauerC.BannermanP.CicmilS.Cooke-DaviesT.GeminoA.HobbsB.MaylorH.MessikomerC.PasianB.SemeniukM.ThomasJ. (2013). Developing better theory about project organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), 938–942.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.001
SchmitzK.MahapatraR.NerurS. (2019). User engagement in the era of hybrid agile methodology. IEEE Software, 36(4), 32–40.doi:10.1109/MS.2018.290100623
62.
SerradorP.PintoJ. K. (2015). Does agile work?—A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040–1051.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006
63.
SerradorP.TurnerR. (2015a). The relationship between project success and project efficiency. Project Management Journal, 46(1), 30–39.doi:10.1002/pmj.21468
64.
SerradorP.TurnerR. (2015b). What is enough planning? Results from a global quantitative study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(4), 462–474.doi:10.1109/TEM.2015.2448059
ShenharA. J.DvirD.LevyO.MaltzA. C. (2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725.doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-8
67.
SommerA. F.HedegaardC.Dukovska-PopovskaI.Steger-JensenK. (2015). Improved product development performance through agile/stage-gate hybrids. Research Technology Management, 58(1), 34–44.
68.
ŠpundakM. (2014). Mixed agile/traditional project management methodology – reality or illusion?Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119(2014), 939–948.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.105
69.
StavruS. (2014). A critical examination of recent industrial surveys on agile method usage. Journal of Systems and Software, 94(2014), 87–97.doi:10.1016/j.jss.2014.03.041
70.
SuitsD. B. (1957). Use of dummy variables in regression equations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 52(280), 548–551.doi:10.1080/01621459.1957.10501412
71.
TatikondaM.RosenthalS. R. (2000). Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: A deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1), 74–87.doi:10.1109/17.820727
72.
TessemB. (2018). What causes positive customer satisfaction in an ineffectual software development project? A mechanism from a process tracing case study. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 6(4), 83–98.
73.
TrippJRienemschneiderCThatcherJClemson University. (2016). Job satisfaction in agile development teams: Agile development as work redesign. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(4), 267–307.doi:10.17705/1jais.00426
74.
TurnerR.ZolinR. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87–99.doi:10.1002/pmj.21289
75.
VernerJ. M.EvancoW. M. (2005). In-house software development: What project management practices lead to success?IEEE Software, 22(1), 86–93.doi:10.1109/MS.2005.12
76.
VijayasarathyL.TurkD. (2008). Agile software development: A survey of early adopters. Journal of Information Technology Management, 19(2), 1–8.
77.
VinekarV.SlinkmanC. W.NerurS. (2006). Can agile and traditional systems development approaches coexist? An ambidextrous view. Information Systems Management, 23(3), 31–42.doi:10.1201/1078.10580530/46108.23.3.20060601/93705.4
78.
WallinC.EkdahlF.LarssonS. (2002). Integrating business and software development models. IEEE Software, 19(6), 28–33.doi:10.1109/MS.2002.1049384
79.
WestD.GilpinM.GrantT.AndersonA. (2011). Water-scrum-fall is the reality of agile for most organizations today. Forrester Research, 26(2011), 1–17.
