Hard and soft aspects of project management: How to align project
approach with project circumstances?
Master Thesis
MSc. BA – Change Management University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
2
Abstract
Literature about project management is scattered. Terms are mixed and unclear. One of the goals of this study was to compile the literature about project management. Based on this compilation, a conceptual framework with two dominants contingencies (structural complexity and unpredictability) is developed to find a path of alignment. A multiple case study was conducted to analyse whether the conceptual framework corresponds with real cases. The results of cross- and within-case analysis indicates that the conceptual framework is partly supported by real cases. However, some refinement to the conceptual framework needs to be done. The concept of urgency seems to influence the alignment between project circumstances and project approach. Therefore, the concept of urgency should be included in the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework should help managers to make their choice for a project management approach.
3
Table of content
Abstract ... 2
Introduction ... 4
Literature review ... 6
Project management approaches ... 7
Contingencies on project management ... 8
Conceptual framework ... 10
Unpredictability ... 11
Structural Complexity ... 12
Sources of structural complexity ... 13
Urgency ... 14
Research design ... 16
Data collection ... 16
Data analysis... 17
Results ... 19
Within case analysis ... 19
Case 1 ... 19
Case 2 ... 20
Case 3 ... 22
Case 4 ... 23
Cross-case analysis ... 24
Structural complexity and iterative approaches... 24
Choice of project management approach ... 25
Urgency ... 26
Discussion ... 27
Theoretical implications ... 27
Practical implications ... 28
Limitations and further research ... 29
Conclusion ... 29
References ... 30
Appendices ... 36
Appendix I: Interview protocol ... 36
4
Introduction
The business environment has never been in such a pace of change as since the start of the new millennium. Due to several crises (dot-com bubble crisis in 2000 and financial crisis in 2008) in combination with new technologies and higher pace of change in the environment, new approaches towards project management emerged (Balogun & Hailey, 2008; Burnes, 2014; By, 2005). Therefore, organizations are in situations where the pressure to keep up with competition tend to be higher. To sustain the momentum of competitiveness, organizations need to implement project management approaches (Cummings & Worley, 2007).
The literature on project management is focusing on two main theoretical streams: hard (traditional) and soft (agile) projects (Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Pollack, 2007; Reezigt, 2014). The differences between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ approaches are regularly treated as a dichotomy, but it is important to make a notion that hard and soft approaches must be understood as two ends of a continuum (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). The project management approaches linked to the ‘hard’ end of the continuum are based on rational and traditional command and control approaches, where people are viewed to behave in predictable ways, such as machines in ‘machine’ organizations (Lane, 2000; Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Burnes, 2014). Goals are clearly defined and the focus lies on gaining efficiency (Lane, 2000; Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Soft approaches of project management aim on situations which tend to be ill-defined. Therefore, negotiations, interpretations and exploring for alternative solutions are basic cornerstones of soft approaches (Crawford & Pollack, 2004, Burnes, 2014, Reezigt, 2014). Furthermore, managers that use soft approaches focus on (or deal with) elements such as organizational culture and values, and organizational behaviour projects (Burnes, 2014).
It is important that managers understand the distinction between the approaches (Pich et al., 2002). Furthermore, they should be able to choose amongst them. Many studies tried to identify the critical factors, elements and circumstances that influence projects success, in order to avoid failure (Robert, 1997; Sanchez, Terlizzi, Roberto, & Cesar, 2017; Todorović, Petrović, Mihić, Obradović, & Bushuyev, 2015). However, studies on these factors have small impact on project management practice. Other streams of literature focus on specific sources and elements of project management approaches that influence the choice and success of the approach. Howell, Windahl and Seidel (2010) urged for future research to focus on these variables that contribute to the fit or misfit of managerial styles and their elements to the successful project outcome. In response of their suggestion, and to fill the current void on these variables, this research entails the following research question: How to align project management approaches with project circumstances?
5 2006; Andersen, 2002). “Project management as a profession and area of research, continues to grow and develop. In response to project management being applied in new industries, countries and application areas, the demands on project management continues to change” (Crawford, Pollack, & England, 2006: 175). This might help achieve successful project outcomes. It is crucial that project managers understand these circumstances, because projects are consisting of complex social systems embedded in and interacting with their environment (Hanisch & Wald, 2012).
6
Literature review
As a discipline, project management emerged in the first half of the 20th century. However, it did not
gain its importance and recognition until after the Second World War, ultimately attracting attention of business organisations, researchers and scholars. A decade ago, literature on project management started to become scattered. The significant growth of interest in project management concluded in introducing more project management standards and approaches (Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016; Pollack & Adler, 2015). Nowadays, project management and its methods, approaches and standards are used by almost every organization.
Despite the indicated diffusion in the project management literature around 1990 and onward, project management researchers started to use two terms to classify project management – ‘hard approaches’ and ‘soft approaches’ (Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). The term ‘hard approach’ of project management in the literature refers to traditional methodologies of project management with all its characteristics (stable environment, mechanistic processes etc.) and it promotes the world as an objective reality (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). This ‘hard’, traditional or classical approach relies on a linear or incremental life-cycle (PMI, 2018) and is based on traditional scientific methodologies, including analysis, planning and control (Reezigt, 2014). Furthermore, these methodologies are plan-driven and as such, objectives and requirements are clearly specified, and little change (if not no change at all) is expected along the way. Projects that are managed by hard approach use hard analytic skills (Reezigt, 2014). The traditional way of managing projects is prescriptive and has a strong focus on process and documentation (Sheffield and Lemétayer, 2013), as well as it presumes a predictable environment. Hence, all the tools and approaches tend to optimize the management of the project (Vinekar et al., 2006; Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Based on these characteristics it is possible to state that hard projects and approaches are the simple, rational and technical side of project management. Moreover, hard projects are seen as a closed system, which makes it harder to manage them when disruption appears (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014).
Projects, and therefore project management, are an important way to divide, structure and manage the work in most organizations (Svejvig & Andersen, 2015). However, ‘old project management’ and its methodologies remain static, mainly because of their natural characteristics (technocratic and rationalistic viewpoint of reality). Their practical benefits became subject to criticism around 1990s, both in literature and in practice (Koskela and Howell, 2002; Sahlin-Andersson and Söderholm, 2002; Svejvig & Andersen, 2015).
7 discipline for achieving organizational efficiency, effectiveness and innovation” (Jugdev et al., 2001: 41). This holistic and pluralistic understanding of project management gave rise to a new stream described as “rethinking project management” (RPM) (Winter et al., 2006). Based on these new ‘school of thoughts’ it can be assumed that there is a shift and ongoing differentiation from the ‘old project management’ and ‘hard approach’ towards the more subjective ‘soft approach’, such as RPM and Agile philosophy (Svejvig & Andersen, 2015).
The shift of approaches in the research literature demonstrates that new schools of thought, such as RPM or Agile manifesto, emerged. They began to remove the hard aspects, associated with traditional project management methodology (Erickson et al., 2005), and lean towards the flexibility – to the ‘soft approach’ of project management. The soft approaches emerged in order to promote quick response in a turbulent and fast-changing environment, where levels of uncertainty are growing and are relatively high (Conboy, 2009). Soft approaches and soft projects are linked with the human side of project management (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). According to Jaafari (2001) and Thiry (2002), soft aspects of project management elaborate on issues such as stakeholders, communication, environmental, political and social impacts, which are crucial for the ability to respond to the dynamic and changing aspects of organization and the environment.
Project management approaches
The literature on hard and soft project approaches was influenced by research of change management that introduced many different approaches so far. Therefore, it is important to broadly elaborate on change approaches. Scholars generally agreed on two main categories within the approaches to change – planned change and emergent change (Burnes, 2014; Cummings & Worley, 2001; Kanter et al., 1992). Planned change follows a logical step-by-step approach to accomplish the objectives (Burnes, 2014). In the late 1980s and beginning of 1990s, literature found a way to respond on popularized planned approach. The emergent change approach was introduced (Burnes, 2014). The main principle of the emergent approach is a continuous adaptation throughout the time frame, as decision-making processes are strongly influenced by political and cultural processes (Burnes, 2014; Beer & Nohria, 2000).
8 on the level of project management approaches. The combination of both hard and soft project management approaches is necessary for successful implementation of the projects (Söderlund and Maylor, 2012).
Analysing hard and soft aspects of project management helps to differentiate between features and dimensions of projects and programs, such as its approaches, systems and goals (Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014). However, there was no distinct line between hard and soft aspects when it comes to projects and project management (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). To uncover this distinction, a framework was developed by Crawford & Pollack (2004). This framework considers seven dimensions of project management processes. Furthermore, it demonstrates that every dimension has its own hard and soft aspects and how these aspects are interrelated (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Generally, the hard aspects of project management are accompanied to management and analytical skills, whereas soft approaches are more focused on leadership. Practitioners use to see and deal with projects as technical view on the system, which is based on ‘raw numbers’ and therefore they fail to meet the social issues of the project (Söderlund & Maylor, 2012; Karrbom Gustavsson & Hallin, 2014).
Projects have to be measured and controlled by a set of skills and tools. Hard projects are controlled and measured by more traditional tools such as the iron triangle: time, cost and quality (Burnes, 2014; Cleland & King, 1997). Management skills of hard approaches are cost and schedule control, control of quality and performance and risk analysis (Frame, 2002). Since soft approaches are related to deal with more complex projects (combining technical and social view on a system), skills that soft projects require to consider are negotiation or stakeholder analysis (Frame, 2002). Furthermore, introduction of soft approaches opens the discussion whether existing contingencies and variables are sufficient for predicting and identifying risks and issues or not.
Contingencies on project management
9 projects managed with hard approaches will at some point adopt some characteristics of soft approaches and vice versa (Atkinson, Crawford, & Ward, 2006).
One of the main contingencies in the literature of project management is the concept of uncertainty. However, this concept is defined differently in almost every research paper. Every author is elaborating on uncertainty differently and therefore, there is no clear and generally agreed definition. This brings substantial problems when the research needs to set clear definitions for comparison with cases. However, many authors agreed on one definition: “when decision makers do not know the possible outcomes or their probability of occurring when a decision is made” (Knight, 2012; Thiry, 2002; 222). According to Meyer, Loch & Pich (2002), uncertainty can be divided into two groups:
• Foreseen, known uncertainty – influences, which are identified and understood, that the project team cannot be sure to occur. Uncertainty is the result from missing knowledge and information; it can be reduced by collecting more insights (Stingl & Geraldi, 2017). This concept is often linked to structural complexity (Bosch-Rekveldt, Jongkind, Mooi, Bakker, & Verbraeck, 2011; Brady & Davies, 2014; Floricel, Michela, & Piperca, 2016; Geraldi, Maylor, & Williams, 2011). • Unforeseen, unknown uncertainty – cannot be identified in the preparation and analysis phase of a project, as the team is unaware of the unknown events that can happen and cannot be reduced by gathering more insights (Sting & Geraldi, 2017). This concept is often linked to the concept of unpredictability (Brady & Davis, 2014, Geraldi, Maylor & Williams, 2011).
10
Conceptual framework
Generally, uncertainty is present in every project and this concept leads to unexpected events in projects. Although the concept of uncertainty seems to be the most important in literature, this research cannot overlook two important concepts discussed in the literature: the concept of structural complexity and the concept of unpredictability. Since these concepts are closely related to foreseen and unforeseen uncertainty and often the literature is mixing those concepts together, this research needs to make a clear distinction. Furthermore, related authors will be linked to which conceptual theory they referring to.
Table 1 Synthesis on uncertainty, predictability, complexity
Before the thesis starts to elaborate on concepts of unpredictability and structural complexity, the conceptual framework will be presented. This framework in Figure 1 shows how unpredictability and complexity are related. This research introduced only hard and soft approaches so far, but now it will dive into details and specifics of four different situation projects could face. Furthermore, it will be presented how to deal with them. The four situations are defined:
• Low structural complexity, predictable (hard approach)
• Low structural complexity, unpredictable (combination of hard and soft approach) • High structural complexity, predictable (combination of soft and hard approach) • High structural complexity, unpredictable (soft approach)
Concept Structural complexity Unpredictability Authors
Uncertainty Foreseen Unforeseen
Hertog & Westerveld (2010); Meyer, Loch, & Pich (2002); Pich, Loch, Meyer (2002)
Complexity Structural Dynamic
Bosch-Rekveldt, Jongkind, Mooi, Bakker, & Verbraeck (2011); Brady & Davies (2014); Floricel, Michela, & Piperca (2016); Geraldi, Maylor, Williams (2011); Maylor, Vidgen, & Carver (2008); Oehmen, Thuesen, Ruiz, & Geraldi, 2015
Predictability Predictable Unpredictable
11 The framework provides a tool, which is addressing how to deal and how to manage highly differentiated terms used in the literature. For the rest of the research, terms such as hard and soft approach will be left out. They will be exchanged for linear and iterative approach.
Figure 1 – Conceptual framework
Unpredictability
The concept of unpredictability can be defined as interactions, that are continually changing (Daniel & Daniel, 2018; Sargut & Mcgrath, 2011). As an example, unpredictability might result from a change in scope. There are different types of unpredictability influencing the projects on levels such as technology, market novelty and pace (Brady & Davies, 2014; Hertogh & Westerveld, 2010; Loch et al., 2006; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
“Dealing with uncertainty in an era of rapid change and unpredictability requires a different approach than traditional project management can offer, especially when organizations are trying to accomplish something that has not been done before and might be done again” (Brady & Davies, 2014: 25). In line with different approach of Brady and Davies (2014), is the concept of ‘teaming’ (Edmonson, 2012). This concept aims to bring people together from different departments and from outside the organization, to set up temporary groups that will solve problem in real times: “some situations that call for teaming are … unpredictable, full of unexpected events, that require changes in course” (Edmonson, 2012: 75).
The concept of unpredictability is divided into two levels – low and high level of unpredictability. Generally, the higher the level of unpredictability, the more the iterative approach (emergent and learning based approaches) to manage the project is preferred (Pich et al., 2002). The linear approach tends to be linked with projects that are predictable (low unpredictability) and the structural complexity is low or high. Thus, structural complexity requires objective information which
Level Low High
Technical view on a system Technical and Social view on a system
Linear approach Linear approach
12 is extracted and obtained from the predictable organizational environment to fulfil the need of clear answers to specific questions to reach a clear goal (Thiry, 2002).
On the other hand, iterative approach has tendency to be linked with high unpredictability. Instead of building plans and keeping up to them, project teams should focus on continuous exploring and discovering of emerging events and situations and furthermore, they should be able to learn new things and identifying new possible outcomes (Oehmen et al., 2015). Therefore, managers should focus on flexibility to avoid resistance, providing explicit information and thus keeping clear and concise communication without possible disruptions and misunderstandings. Moreover, they should care about the right pace of collaboration, to avoid risks in situations where higher unpredictability can be observed (Pich et al., 2002; Maylor et al., 2008).
Structural Complexity
Structural complexity is addressing the amount of elements, to the extent how elements are heterogeneous and interrelated into one system (Brady & Davies, 2014; Floricel et al., 2016). According to Brady & Davies (2014) this concept covers the system size in terms of number of elements, variety of elements (Geraldi et al., 2011), the number of stakeholders (internal and external) and their relations between them (for example organization and governance of the project). Moreover, structural complexity also includes socio-political complexity and cultural differences (Geraldi, Maylor, & Williams, 2011). Structural complexity helps managers to analyse how system’s elements interact within the system and with its environment at one time (Brady & Davies, 2014).
According to Floricel et al. (2016), there are two different levels of structural complexity – high and low, depending on the scope of the project. Within the low level of structural complexity, it is possible to describe and analyse all factors, levels and interactions that shape project aspects. Projects with low structural complexity has tendency to be linked with project that face a technical view on the system. Technical projects are predictable. Therefore, the circumstances call for the expertise and knowledge to understand the situation (Bakshi et al., 2016). These circumstances are fit with the linear approach.
13 To summarize, it can be argued that the choice between linear and iterative approach is defined by unpredictability and structural complexity. Both levels of structural complexity lead to linear approaches, when the unpredictability is low. On the other hand, low unpredictability leads to linear approach and high unpredictability leads to iterative approaches. When the elements are combined within the conceptual model, it becomes clear, that different circumstances lead to four situations, that require different project approach.
Sources of structural complexity
Every project has different level of structural complexity. There are various sources of structural complexity that Paton and McCalman (2008) elaborated with the TROPICS test. This test helps to analyse the sources of change situation and it gives a continuum from low to high structural complexity (Paton & McCalman, 2008). Managers must recognize the change continuum, because TROPICS factors help to characterise and understand the elements and their parameters, which influence the project approach. These TROPICS factors resemble with difficulties and messes (Stacey, 2002) and the framework of Crawford and Pollack (2004).
The TROPICS test was developed to understand and to localize the change situation. Each factor of TROPICS test can be aligned with low or high level of structural complexity (Figure 2). This helps managers to find the source of the project issues and it improves managers understandings of the situation. Therefore, it triggers the process of how to guide the change and lead managers to categorize the situation, thus to choose the right approach – linear (low level of structural complexity) or iterative (high level of structural complexity) (Paton & McCalman, 2008).
According to the TROPICS test, each factor can be positioned to low or high level to understand the circumstances, that influence the project (Rees & French, 2016). This enables managers to characterize the situation and give them options which approach to choose to manage the project. As the circumstances are categorized in low structural complexity, they are leading to linear approach. On the
Figure 2 TROPICS factors and relationship with structural complexity; Adapted (Paton & McCalman, 2008)
Low High
Time scales Clearly defined (short to medium) Ill-defined (medium to long) Resources Clearly identified Uncertain
Objectives Clearly stated and could be quantified
Subjective and ambiguous
Perceptions Perceptions of the problems and its possible solution shared by all
No consensus on what constitues the problem/conflicts of interest
Interest Limited and defined Widespread and ill-defined Control Maintained by the managing group Shared with people outside the
managing group Source The source of problems originate
from within the organization
The source of problems originate from outside the organization
14 other hand, when the circumstances are categorized within high structural complexity, they will lead to iterative approach (Paton & McCalman, 2008). Therefore, as circumstances differ, the approach will be different too based on the source of the project.
When the situation is clearly defined, has clear objective and identified resources, project manager should choose a linear approach. The circumstances of high structural complexity are caused by ill-defined situation, interests are scattered and the source of the problem originate from outside the organization. All these circumstances are situated out of the project team’s control. Furthermore, in addition to technical circumstances, the social and emotional circumstances are involved (Paton & Mc Calman, 2008). Managers should choose iterative approach. From the conceptual framework (Figure 1), it can be understood, that high structural complexity should be managed with linear approach when the unpredictability is low and with iterative approach when the unpredictability is high. However, it seems, that high structural complexity can be very hard to manage as it is influenced by elements that are ambiguous, non-linear and unbounded (Bakshi et al., 2016, Paton & McCalman, 2008). Therefore, high structural complexity, based on the TROPICS factors and nature of the complex project (Bakshi et al., 2016), should be managed by iterative approaches. However, there is another factor, which might influence this statement.
Urgency
Another factor, that can play an important role along concept of unpredictability and structural complexity is urgency (Geraldi et al., 2011; Howell, Windahl, & Seidel, 2010). The concept of urgency is defined as a timeframe, pace or speed of the project. Managers can deal with the urgency with two approaches: traditional, linear approach; and agile, iterative approach (Reezigt, 2014). With the linear approach, managers are focusing on a perfect and detailed analysis. This is extremely time consuming and therefore, it can lead to the risk of inflexibility, when uncertain and unpredicted events emerge. If urgency is being ignored by managers, the possibility to detect the dynamics of projects is low (Geraldi et al., 2011; Howell et al., 2010), which can lead to failure. The iterative approach aims for flexibility during the whole project. Managers are spending less time with upfront analysis. Therefore, they choose to respond on unpredictability with adaptation (Reezigt, 2014). Therefore, the ability to work with unpredictability in organization, managers need to keep adaptive and flexible approach.
In conclusion, urgency has the power to change the nature of the situation. When the situation is facing structural complexity, urgency could change it into a situation where project will face the unpredictability. Since this change occur, linear approach would be useless and managers are forced to choose iterative approach.
16
Methodology
Research design
The previous part showed that literature on alignment project management approaches with their circumstances was underdeveloped. Therefore, theory refinement is needed. Addressing this kind of questions are most suited for qualitative research. Firstly, extensive literature review was done, following by multiple-case study. Multiple-case study allows to replicate theory, in which proposing conceptual framework are confirmed or disconfirmed based on the cases (Yin, 2013).
Cases were selected based on several criteria: 1) each project was done in a different organization and different industry, 2) the project had to be finished, 3) the project had to be managed by a project team, 4) each project had at least a project sponsor, a project manager and a project team member, and 5) project management approach used by project manager differ amongst the selected projects. Four finished projects have been elaborated according to the criteria. Four recently completed projects (between 2015 – 2017) within four companies were investigated in great detail from initiation phase to project outcomes.
The selection of cases was done within: 1) an organization in banking sector; 2) a company in automotive industry; 3) a start-up company in FinTech sector; 4) an IT organization in energetic industry. Delivered results of all cases were evaluated from success delivery to less success, but still the case was delivered in time. Case 1 aimed for implementation of IT interface for an organization operating in micro-loans business. This project was managed with agile, iterative approach, due to fresh internal environment. Project was successful and it was delivered in time. Case 2 aimed to increase effectivity and efficiency of customer services and to consolidate two tools, which differed in their functionality and therefore they did not fulfil the regulations set by government. The project approach consisted of combination hard and soft methods towards project management. Project was successful as a delivery, however, there were some minor issues, which were accepted. These issues were solved after the implementation and final phase of project. Case 3 focused on increasing internal effectivity of production processes. The project of this case obtained a soft approach with some hard elements based on internal set of project methods. Project was failure due to internal problems and incompetent project manager. Case 4 project was initiated to optimize the performance of the organization. The goal was to measure the efficiency of processes, redesign the processes. The project was managed with linear approach with small addition of iterative and soft approach. The project was success.
Data collection
17 Per case, there were three respondents, resulting in twelve interviews in total. During the visit of a company per case, at least project manager and project team member were interviewed.
Company Interviewee Code Number of interviews and comments Case 1 Project sponsor PS1 1
Project manager PM1 1 Project team member PTM1 1 Case 2 Project sponsor PS2 1 Project manager PM2 1 Project team member PTM2 1
Case 3 Project sponsor PS3 1 - Skype was used, due to full agenda Project manage PM3 1
Project team member PTM3 1
Case 4 Project sponsor PS4 1 - Skype was used, due to full agenda Project manager PM4 1
Project team member PTM4 1
Total 12
Table 2 Number of interviewees per case and per interview
To enhance and improve research results, the research needs to be measured for controllability, validity and reliability (Aken et al., 2012). To keep the controllability of the research, the researcher kept fieldnotes, developed a codebook, and described methods that explained the process in a way, that the research can be replicated.
Furthermore, analysing the phenomenon was held and carried out with the use of solely primary data, in the form of in-depth interviews. Semi-structured interview may help to target specific subjects the researcher is interested in and can be insightful due to the perceived causes, inferences and explanations (Yin, 2013).
For research to be reliable, all potential biases need to be controlled (Aken et al., 2012). Firstly, the researcher bias was controlled by developing interview protocols (see appendix I), where all roles were covered; namely the project manager, the project sponsor and project team member. Secondly, the respondent’s bias was controlled by interviewing three roles separately. Therefore, by interviewing these three roles, all crucial roles are represented in the sample (Aken et al., 2012). Lastly, circumstances bias was controlled by undertaking these interviews with respondents at a different moment in time.
To evaluate the validity of the research, construct validity, internal and external validity need to be high (Aken et al., 2012). To keep the validity of construct, the interview questions were based on the literature review assessed in this research.
Data analysis
18 manner. Example of deductive codes were based on 1) project management approaches (Bold Strokes, Long Marches by Kanter et al. 1992), 2) the seven dimensions framework of Crawford and Pollack (2004), 4) concepts of unpredictability and structural complexity (conceptual framework of this research) and 5) circumstances, elements and sources of TROPICS by Paton and McCalman (2000). Secondly, the coding process was iterative, therefore when the researcher reached the point of theoretical saturation and no new concepts or links emerged during category development (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). The codebook can be found in appendix II.
19
Results
This purpose of this analysis is to answer the research question, whether in four cases project approaches were aligned with the project circumstances. Following the conceptual model that was presented in the Conceptual framework chapter and what the consequences were in terms of success or failure of the project, results from the within-case analysis and cross-case analysis will be elaborated on in this chapter.
Within case analysis Case 1
The circumstances of case 1 are dispersed. The situation was high on structural complexity and high on unpredictability. The project was subject to strong external influences. Control needed to be shared with external groups and interest was widespread and scattered all over the stakeholders. Project elements were strongly interrelated and the organization didn’t allocate sufficient number of resources. The allocated resources weren’t sufficient for this project, so the project sponsor decided to take a risk and get an external vendor as well as an external project manager: “I heard, that headquarters didn’t want to go with this project, because they were scared that it will be a disaster, so they didn’t approve allocation of all important members. They were scared to invest some money and on the other hand they pushed us to increase the incomes” (PS1) and “I was hired with my team, because they couldn’t use the internal resources” (PM1). These elements are connected to a situation with high structural complexity. However, there are a few elements that can be categorized to low structural complexity, such as clearly defined goals (gain the competitive advantage) and timescale (one year) of the project. The rest of the elements and sources of project tended to be on high side of structural complexity.
The unpredictability was very high. Mainly, it was caused by the uniqueness of the situations that the project team was facing: “Some emerged problems were too unique, so we needed to be open to new ideas and new ways of working” (PS1). Therefore, the iterative approach needed to be for success of the project: “I kept the agile way of working, because there were small issues everywhere” (PM1). There were also problems with external vendors. The project team underestimated the quality of the vendor’s work: “We expected to have some tasks delivered by external vendors, like testing environment, but they didn’t deliver anything at all” (PM1).
20 didn’t have this functionality and service for their customers” (PTM1). Top management probably didn’t see this project as a top priority and the project sponsor couldn’t convince other stakeholders to obtain higher priority: “I was sure about the added value, but the other stakeholders didn’t care” (PS1). In conclusion, these factors and elements caused that the project faced a high structural complex, unpredictable and urgent situation. The conceptual model is pointing out that the project was having technical and social orientation and is suggesting an iterative project management approach.
The project manager chose an iterative approach, namely a personally adjusted scrum approach: “I choose to be very flexible, because I knew that no one did this type of approach before us, so there was no know-how” (PM1). To approve this choice, the project sponsor argued: “Some emerged problems were too unique, so we needed to be open to new ideas and new ways of working” (PS1). Also, “I kept the agile way of working, because there were small issues everywhere. For example, the testing environment wasn’t developed, so we needed to do it by ourselves” (PM1). However, the project team members were not used to work in the agile way of working: “It was very exhausting to be flexible and to deal with new issues every day. I had a feeling, that what I did yesterday was useless, but without this mistake, we couldn’t come up with new and better solution” (PTM1). Although there was some resistance, the project approach was the right choice. An iterative approach enables the exploration of alternatives and the managing of the project with small steps. The project was not only technical, as an implementation of a new IT application, but also social, by focusing on new processes for employees, which needed to be trained for the new application.
The overall result of the project was a successful implementation which was delivered in time. The expectations were fulfilled. To deliver this project there were two crucial conditions: “I really pushed people beyond the limit, however the bonuses were really high, because they were working amazing. Next time, I’d rather have more people in my team, so my people will not burn out” (PM1). The project sponsor stated: “I learned, that I need to set up the communication better from the day one. It will save a lot of time and misunderstandings” (PS1). This project was unpredictable and had many sources of high structural complexity. These elements lead to an iterative approach. The choice of project manager is in line with the conceptual framework and therefore it resulted in meeting expectations and project success.
Case 2
21 employees was underestimated. The unpredictability was low in the beginning, however there were changes within the project team. Firstly, the project manager was changed due to unexpected personal issues. Usually, this change in a project team could cause several unpredictable situations such as resistance towards the new project manager or change of atmosphere in the team. However, there can be a successful change of project manager: “During the project, there was a change of project managers. Me and a few colleagues were scared, but it was quite the opposite. Without this new project manager, the project could end up as a failure.” (PTM2). Secondly, the IT project managers were changing way too much, as well as test coordinators, which caused urgency of this project. This urgency came in the second half of the project, which was caused by underestimating the amount of work of the testing department: “I underestimated the testing of the application at some point, we somehow didn’t care about the time issues” (PM2). Lastly, the urgency was caused by political pressure to avoid the fine of not fulfilling the regulation law.
The chosen approach by the project manager can be described as linear and technical: “The project was managed with a technical approach, because he pushed people to deliver things in time. Sometimes he went over the edge and pushed way too much” (PS2). Later during this project, some iterative aspects were added, because the nature of the problems and situations explicitly pointed for an iterative approach: “I changed my attitude in managing the project, because I needed to be more flexible when solving testing issues” (PM2). The change of the approach to iterative was a right one, as otherwise it would probably have led to failure: “In the beginning it was managed in a classical way. But due to circumstances and unpredictable things in testing and third parties, the project manager switched to a more flexible and agile way of managing” (PTM2). In conclusion, this project was handled in the beginning with a linear approach, because of high structural complexity and low unpredictability. Moreover, it wasn’t only a technical system which needed to be dealt with. Therefore, elements of high structural complexity existed in the social system. However, during the realization phase and go-live phase, there were issues (testing, changing of IT project managers) which needed to be managed with a more iterative approach, when project manager and project team had to be swift on their feet.
22
Case 3
Case 3 had straightforward project circumstances. The situation faced by the project team was low on structural complexity and low on unpredictability. However, this project was very urgent in terms of delivery time: “This project was specific in terms of urgency of deployment of processes and all specifications from business were clear” (PM3). Low levels of structural complexity is showing that the project had clearly stated goals, a short project scope and interests were defined and limited. Control was maintained by the managing group. However, the project was strongly externally influenced, which increases level of structural complexity and higher levels of unpredictability. Although the project outcome was clearly stated, the external vendor delivered his parts later than it should. This decreased time for the project to be implemented, which increased unpredictability. According to the conceptual framework, technical focus on the system and low unpredictability suggests a linear approach for managing the project. Yet, it is important to consider the growth of the urgency, which might suggest for an iterative approach.
The project manager chose a linear approach, namely the waterfall method. This method has characteristics of managing projects such as strict planning with predefined requirements and designs. This could partially resemble with the Bold Strokes approach. However, as beforementioned, the project ran into two issues. First, there was an underestimated analysis, which concealed some business needs. The second issue was an incompetent project manager: “We had a lot of troubles to understand what the project manager wanted to do with the project, but he was saying that it is in a good progress and he will take care about it” (PTM3). This is supported: “I had weekly meetings with my project manager, but I didn’t see that coming. He falsified and concealed information and the communication wasn’t clear at all to everyone” (PS3). Therefore, based on increasing urgency and also unpredictability of the outcome of the project, the decision to change the approach was made: “The project was managed by a hybrid approach. I needed to combine agile with waterfall, because of internal methodology and because people weren’t used to flexibility and agility” (PS3).
23 which caused high unpredictability because of increasing urgency, it was very crucial to go over the limits of everyone in the team: “This caused, that half of the team burned out and they left the company after the project” (PS3).
Case 4
In case 4, circumstances were less dispersed. Circumstances were on a low level of both structural complexity and unpredictability. Circumstances that are linked with low structural complexity are clearly defined goals, clearly defined short timescale, source of the problem originated from within the organization and control was maintained by the managing group. However, control and interests were scattered due to a lack of activity of the project sponsor: “It was his main task to care about political games, pressure and convincing others to support this project. After I urged for changing the sponsor, the weight of the political games was taken out of my shoulders” (PM4). This implicates an area, where elements from high structural complexity could influence the project and its approach. However, the majority of circumstances and situations tended to be linked with a low level of structural complexity. Moreover, the scattered interests were solved by a change of project sponsor, thus the interests could be and were coordinated to secure the successful project delivery. As there was clarity in all important aspects, unpredictability was on a low level. However, the predictability could easily turn into unpredictability, as the urgency was very high, thanks to short delivery time. This could jeopardize the outcome of the project, because if the project analysis was poor, it could end up with failure. In conclusion, low structural complexity and low unpredictability are pointing out for a linear approach. Although the high level of urgency can indicate towards an iterative approach, the nature of this project is more technical and therefore a linear approach is appropriate.
The project manager decided to choose a linear approach toward the project, which was following characteristics of this approach, such as a detailed plan: “If we use the agile way of working, we would have been stuck in discussions. We needed to push things forward and deliver the project” (PM4). The nature of the project implicated to have a precise plan, to maintain the fast pace and precise project analysis to cover all problems: “The project was prepared extremely well and everyone knew what to do” (PTM4). However, some issues, like political pressures and widespread interests of key stakeholders needed a different approach: “The different interest and political plays needed to be managed gently, therefore in this part, it was very psychological game. The manager went very soft with these issues” (PTM4). The team sometimes faced aversion from employees, because they were supervised how they perform the task: “No one really likes, when you look what is he doing, how is he performing.” (PTM4). This could cause unpredictable situations, but everyone turned out to be okay in the end.
24 sponsor: “This change was more than important; the new project sponsor was pushing things forward” (PM4). To summarize, this project had low structural complexity and was technically oriented. Furthermore, the nature of the project was suggesting to use the linear approach. However, due to some unpredictable situations, at some point the project manager needed to change towards a soft approach (during dealing with the incompetent project sponsor).
Table 3 Summary of findings and results of all cases
Cross-case analysis
This chapter will compare the findings across all cases. The cross-case analysis of these four cases revealed interesting patterns and insights. The nature of high structural complexity and suggested relation with iterative approaches will be discussed. Furthermore, discussion on choice of project management approaches will be presented.
Structural complexity and iterative approaches
The within analysis of the cases revealed that there were two factors which influence the alignment of project approach and project circumstances. These factors are ‘Resources needed for the change uncertain’ together with ‘No consensus on what constitutes the problem/conflict of interests’. These factors influence the choice for the approach the most. Every case deals with insufficient resources. This factor of insufficient resources was present in Case 2 and Case 4, where changes of important roles such as IT project manager, Test coordinator or Project sponsor were found. This could negatively influence the outcome, however in these cases it was the other way around. In Case 2, the IT project managers couldn’t keep up the high pace, so they were giving up their position. Test coordinators were performing very poorly and they were hired from external companies, therefore the key activity was to find the right test coordinator with according know-how. In Case 4, the project sponsor was assigned by top management. However, he hadn’t demand quality by project manager. Moreover, it is obvious that the project sponsor should be affected the most by the project. But in this case he was not affected by the
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Structural
complexity High High Low Low
Unpredictability High Low and high Low and high Low
Urgency High Low and high High High
Chosen Iterative Linear and iterative Linear and iterative Linear
Exptected based
on the model Iterative Linear Linear Linear
Expected based
on urgency Iterative Linear and iterative Iterative Iterative
Results
Concepts
Approaches
Meeting
25 project at all. Therefore, he didn’t have any interests in this project, which led to resistance of the project and project team.
In the literature review, this study addressed the issue of linkage between factors of high structural complexity and different iterative approaches. Although, the conceptual framework addressed that linear approach should be used when the level of structural complexity is high, the TROPICS test is suggesting using the iterative approaches. When the study looks on the summary of findings, Case 1 and 2 are high on structural complexity. Case 1 is facing high structural complexity caused by external influences, scattered interests and the source of the problem originate outside of the company. High level of structural complexity in Case 2 is caused by conflicts in interests and uncertain resources. These circumstances were influencing the project from the outside.
In Case 1, the nature of the project together with circumstances lead to an iterative approach, since the project needed to explore alternative solutions. Case 2 was firstly managed by a linear approach. However, circumstances and issues forced the project manager to switch to an iterative approach. This iterative approach focused more on stakeholder (vendor) management to negotiate and find consensus between needs of studied organizations and its external vendor.
In conclusion, technically and socially oriented projects have a tendency to be managed with iterative approaches. Social aspects, such as various resources, negotiations and conflicts of interests, could change the nature and sources of the project. It doesn’t make projects highly unpredictable per se, but the high structural complexity can be managed with an iterative approach.
Choice of project management approach
26 In all cases, when the projects were facing unpredictable situations combined with urgency, project managers were following approaches, which were based on their personal experience. In case 2 and case 3, there was a change to more iterative types of approaches, since the situations required to be solved: “We needed to go full agile in the second half of the project, otherwise, we probably couldn’t meet the deadlines” (PS3). This statement is supported: “In the beginning it was managed in classical way. But due to circumstances and unpredictable things, project manager switched to more flexible and agile way of managing” (PTM2).
Urgency
From the previous parts, it becomes clear that three managers (Case 1, case 2, case 3) chose an iterative approach in case of high urgency. Case 4 was also influenced by high urgency; however, the nature and the goal of the project wouldn’t fit with the iterative approach. In case 2, the manager used a linear approach, till the point when the project faced first signs of urgency. At this point, the manager decided to use an iterative approach, although people weren’t familiar that much. Generally, in case 1, 2 and 3, people weren’t ready to work this way. It seemed obvious to use a linear approach, and thus plan and calculate everything again, instead of using the iterative approach: learning-based approach.
27
Discussion
The goal of this study was to explain how project circumstances influence choice of project management approach. The level of unpredictability and structural complexity is influenced by factors and sources. The concept of urgency emerged as a third major concept which influences choice of the approach. In this study, analysis indicates that the influence of these three contingencies seems crucial within the choice process of project management approach. In this chapter, concepts in the framework are contrasted with practical findings and existing literature. This gives indications about how the model should be refined.
Theoretical implications
This study aimed to answer the research question: How to align project management approaches with project circumstances? To answer this question, a conceptual framework was developed and a multiple-case study has been conducted. This framework aids in indicating how structural complexity and unpredictability influence the choice of project management approach. The cases show how much of the framework is appropriate and whether following the conceptual framework leads to success or not. Results from the multiple case study indicate that the technical and social view on the system require an iterative approach. In case 1, the project manager followed the suggested approach and the project was a success. In case 2, the suggested approach differed in the beginning phase. However, during realization, the project manager changed the approach from a linear approach to an iterative approach. There were indications that this change of approach, which was in line with project circumstances, led to project success. In case 3, the suggested approach was used. However, urgency and unpredictability change the nature of the project. The project accommodated changes to the iterative approach too late and consequently the project ended up as a failure. Lastly, the project manager in case 4 used the suggested approach and the project was a success.
28 In case 1, high unpredictability and high structural complexity were present from the beginning and therefore urgency didn’t influence the chosen iterative approach. In case 2 and 3, urgency led to an increase of unpredictability. For case 2, a linear approach was chosen in the beginning, until urgency emerged. This caused a need to change towards an iterative approach. Based on new circumstances, the project manager changed the approach and the project ended up as a success. In case 3, the project was in a comparable situation, when urgency emerged. However, the project manager didn’t react in time. Urgency and high unpredictability led to failure. The conceptual framework suggested to combine the linear and iterative approach. In the end, this case was changed to an iterative approach, only to prevent complete disaster.
During the analysis of cases another factor emerged which possible influence the project approach. The most important insight is ‘experience of project managers’ and emerged in the second and third case. When the project started to fall apart, due to unpredictable situations and circumstances, an experienced project manager could deal with the problematic situation in case 2. He came with a solution and started to motivate people to find the right solution and stopped them from being ‘stuck in the mud’. In Case 3, the project was led by a junior project manager who was incapable to react appropriately to urgency. However, when the project sponsor entered the project as a temporary project manager, all issues were possible to solve. The junior project manager did not seem to have the right set of skills and know-how. He fell into the pitfalls of poor communication, and lacked the necessary leadership skills to solve and deal with behavioural problems inside the team.
In conclusion, the conceptual framework should be refined in two ways: incorporating concept of urgency; and high level of structural complexity should be managed with an iterative approach.
Practical implications
The conceptual framework on unpredictability and structural complexity provides managers with a tool to understand and position the situation they face. The framework helps managers to choose the most appropriate project management approach. Together with other frameworks, such as the seven dimensions (Crawford & Pollack, 2004) and TROPICS tests (Paton & McCalman, 2000), managers are provided with a set of tools to analyze important circumstances, in order to make the right choice.
29
Limitations and further research
The limitation of this study is that the conceptual framework needs to be tested. This study only focuses on exploring, whether this theory might make sense. For a more extensive data collection and better overview of how circumstances influence a project management approach, more companies from different countries should be interviewed. The inclusion of more companies would make results stronger and more generalizable. Next to that, two interviews were conducted over videocall. Thus, quality of the interview was negatively influenced, as the virtual communication cannot replace a face to face interview. A last limitation of this study is that the interviews were conducted only in Czech Republic. The difference in management approaches and behaviours of managers can be different in other countries.
This study is a first step in developing a conceptual framework for the alignment of project circumstances and project approaches. Future research can focus on testing and refining the conceptual framework. This framework should be tested with quantitative research. Testing this framework should validate the concepts and validate whether this framework is appropriate for managers to use. In conclusion, the conceptual framework should not be seen as a complete yet.
Conclusion
The aim of this study was to explore how project management approaches are aligned with project circumstances and help managers to identify the ideal approach towards the project. This study developed and presented a conceptual framework on structural complexity and unpredictability. This framework should help to align project circumstances with project approaches.
Scattered literature on project approaches and main contingencies in project management were synthesized. A multiple-case study was conducted to refine the theory. Moreover, the study provided ground for the alignment between circumstances and project approaches. However, the conceptual framework needs to be refined. Urgency is an important contingency in choosing the right approach to manage projects. The case analysis revealed that urgency is missing in the conceptual framework.
Another important insight from this study is that experience of project managers plays an important part when urgency emerges in projects.
30
References
Abbas, N., Gravell, A. M., & Wills, G. B. (2008, June). Historical roots of agile methods: Where did “Agile thinking” come from?. In International Conference on Agile Processes and Extreme Programming in Software Engineering (pp. 94-103). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Alliance, A. (2001). Agile manifesto. Online at http://www. agilemanifesto. org, 6(1). Aken, J.E. van, Berends, H., & Bij, H. van der (2012). Problem Solving in Organizations – A
Methodological Handbook for Business and Management Students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Andersen, E. S., Dyrhaug, Q. X., & Jessen, S. A. (2002). Evaluation of Chinese projects and
comparison with Norwegian projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(8), 601-609.
Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: revisiting Kotter's 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764-782.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687–698.
Balogun, J., & Hailey, V. H. (2008). Exploring strategic change. Pearson Education
Bakhshi, J., Ireland, V., & Gorod, A. (2016). Clarifying the project complexity construct: Past, present and future. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1199–1213.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. HBR’s 10 must reads on change, 78(3), 133-141.
Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H., & Verbraeck, A. (2011). Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: The TOE (Technical, Organizational and
Environmental) framework. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), 728–739. Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2014). Managing structural and dynamic complexity: A tale of two projects.
Project Management Journal, 45(4), 21–38.
Burnes, B. (2014). Managing Change (6th edition). Pearson Education Limited
By, R. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380.
Campanelli, A. S., & Parreiras, F. S. (2015). Agile methods tailoring–A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 110, 85-100.
Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2011). Organizational change: An action-oriented toolkit (Vol. 2). Sage.
Cicmil, S., Cooke-Davies, T., Crawford, L., & Richardson, K. (2009). Exploring the complexity of projects: Implications of complexity theory for project management practice. Project
Management Institute.
31 Fisher, D. (Eds.), Project Management Handbook, second ed. John Wiley & Sons.
Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329-354.
Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004). Hard and soft projects: A framework for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 645–653.
Crawford, L., Costello, K., Pollack, J., & Bentley, L. (2003). Managing soft change projects in the public sector. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 443–448.
Crawford, L., Pollack, J., & England, D. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, 24(2), 175–184.
Cristóbal, J. R. S. (2017). Complexity in Project Management. Procedia Computer Science, 121, 762– 766.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2007). Organization development and change (9th edition). Cengage learning.
Daniel, P. A., & Daniel, C. (2018). Complexity, uncertainty and mental models: From a paradigm of regulation to a paradigm of emergence in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 184–197.
De Carvalho, M. M., & Rabechini Junior, R. (2015). Impact of risk management on project
performance: The importance of soft skills. International Journal of Production Research, 53(2), 321–340.
Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213 – 1221
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and software technology, 50(9-10), 833-859.
Emblemsvag, J. (2017). Handling Risk and Uncertainty in Project Planning. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 4(3).
Erickson, J., Lyytinen, K., & Siau, K. (2005). Agile modeling, agile software development, and extreme programming: the state of research. Journal of database Management, 16(4), 88. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532–555.
Floricel, S., Michela, J. L., & Piperca, S. (2016). Complexity, uncertainty-reduction strategies, and project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1360–1383. Frame, J., (2002). The New Project Management, second ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., & Williams, T. (2011). Now, let's make it really complex (complicated) A
32 Gersick, C. J. G. (1994). Pacing Strategic Change: the Case of a New Venture. Academy of
Management Journal, 37(1), 9–45.
Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2012). A Bibliometric View on the Use of Contingency Theory in Project Management Research. Project Management Journal, 43(3), 4–23
Hobbs, B., & Petit, Y. (2017). Agile methods on large projects in large organizations. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 3-19.
Howell, D., Windahl, C., & Seidel, R. (2010). A project contingency framework based on uncertainty and its consequences. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 256–264.
Hummel, M. (2014, January). State-of-the-art: A systematic literature review on agile information systems development. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 4712-4721). IEEE.
Jaafari, A. (2001). Management of risks, uncertainties and opportunities on projects: Time for a fundamental shift. International Journal of Project Management, 19(2), 89–101.
Jugdev, K., Thomas, J., & Delisle, C. (2001). Rethinking project management–Old truths and new insights. Project Management Association Finland/Norwegian Project Management Forum. Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. & Jick, T.D. (1992). The Challenge of Organizational Change: How
Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. New York (NY): Free Press.
Kanter, R. M. (2003). Challenge of organizational change: How companies experience it and leaders guide it. Simon and Schuster.
Karrbom Gustavsson, T., & Hallin, A. (2014). Rethinking dichotomization: A critical perspective on the use of “hard” and “soft” in project management research. International Journal of Project Management, 32(4), 568–577.
Knight, F. H. (2012). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Courier Corporation.
Koskela, L. J., & Howell, G. (2002). The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. In Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference (pp. 293-302). PMI.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard business press. Lane, D. C. (2000). Should system dynamics be described as a ‘hard’or ‘deterministic’systems
approach?. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 17(1), 3-22.
Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. Mis Quarterly, 34(1), 87-114.
Loch, C. H., DeMeyer, A., & Pich, M. (2011). Managing the unknown: A new approach to managing high uncertainty and risk in projects. John Wiley & Sons.
Mann, C., & Maurer, F. (2005, July). A case study on the impact of scrum on overtime and customer satisfaction. In Agile Conference, 2005. Proceedings (pp. 70-79). IEEE.
33 Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., & Carver, S. (2008). Managerial complexity in project-based operations: A
grounded model and its implications for practice. Project Management Journal, 39(1_suppl), S15-S26.
Maylor, H. R., Turner, N. W., & Murray-Webster, R. (2013). How hard can it be?: Actively managing complexity in technology projects. Research-Technology Management, 56(4), 45-51.
Medeiros, D. B., Neto, P. D. A. D. S., Passos, E. B., & De Souza Araújo, W. (2015). Working and playing with Scrum. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering , 25(06), 993-1015.
Mir, F. A., & Pinnington, A. H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management: Linking Project Management Performance and Project Success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 202–217.
Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480-491.
Oehmen, J., Thuesen, C., Ruiz, P. P., & Geraldi, J. (2015). Complexity Management for Projects, Programmes , and Portfolios : An Engineering Systems Perspective. Project Management Institute, 1–31.
Padalkar, M., & Gopinath, S. (2016a). Are complexity and uncertainty distinct concepts in project management? A taxonomical examination from literature. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 688–700.
Padalkar, M., & Gopinath, S. (2016b). Six decades of project management research: Thematic trends and future opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 34(7), 1305–1321. Paton, R. A., & McCalman, J. (2008). Change management: A guide to effective implementation.
Sage.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1992). The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic management journal, 13(S2), 5-16.
Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H., & Meyer, A. De. (2002). On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management. Management Science, 48(8), 1008–1023.
Pollack, J. (2007). The changing paradigms of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 266–274.
Pollack, J., & Adler, D. (2015). Emergent trends and passing fads in project management research: A scientometric analysis of changes in the field. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 236–248.
Rees, G., & French, R. (Eds.) (2016). Leading, managing and developing people. (5th ed.) London: CIPD Publications.
Reezigt, C. (2014). Agile of traditioneel projectmanagement? Projectie: Tijdschrift voor Projectmanagement, 21(3), 14=16.
