Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol.

23(3) Fall 2012

Planning and Sprinting: Use of a Hybrid Project

Management Methodology within a CIS Capstone Course

Aaron Baird
Assistant Professor of Health Administration and Health Information Systems
Institute of Health Administration, J. Mack Robinson College of Business
Georgia State University
P.O. Box 3988, Atlanta, GA 30302-3988
abaird@gsu.edu

Frederick J. Riggins
Associate Professor of Management Information Systems
College of Business
North Dakota State University
NDSU Dept. 2410, PO Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108-6050
fred.riggins@ndsu.edu

ABSTRACT

An increasing number of information systems projects in industry are managed using hybrid project management
methodologies, but this shift in project management methods is not fully represented in our CIS curriculums. CIS capstone
courses often include an applied project that is managed with traditional project management methods (plan first, execute
second). While agile methods (adapt to change through iterations) are making inroads, little research has been conducted on
using a hybrid of these two project management methods in a capstone course. In this paper, we explain the hybrid project
management methods we used in four sections of an undergraduate CIS Capstone course during the Fall and Spring of the
2011-2012 academic year. We also present the results of an end-of-term student satisfaction and critical success factor survey.
We find that overall satisfaction with the hybrid approach is high among our sample. We also find that more client
involvement and a pragmatic approach to initial project planning are areas for future improvement. The results of our
experience and survey provide lessons learned and best practices for those who wish to provide students with applied
experience that combines waterfall (traditional) and Scrum (agile) project management techniques in their own courses.

Keywords: Capstone course, Project management, Student perceptions, Teaching Tips, Curriculum design & development

1. INTRODUCTION within information systems education. Studies suggest

(either directly or indirectly) that traditional project
Plan first, execute second—this is the paradigm of traditional management methods are often the focus of project
project management. Adapt to change as you iterate—this is management education in information systems courses (e.g.,
the paradigm of agile project management. These competing Du et al., 2004; Lesko, 2009; Reinicke and Janicki, 2011;
methodologies represent two ends of a spectrum between Smith et al., 2008). While there are some exceptions (e.g.,,
linear (traditional) and non-linear (agile) project Jones, 2003; Tan et al., 2010; Yue et al., 2009), and demand
management processes. While early debate raged as to which for more variation in project management methodologies
methodology was best (Glass et al., 2001; Nerur, 2005), the may be increasing, to our knowledge research on the
debate now seems to be settling on middle ground. Gartner effectiveness of hybrid project management methodologies
recently forecasted that a majority of software development within information systems classes has not yet been
projects will use some form of agile project management conducted.
methods by 2012 and also acknowledged that most software Our primary objective within this paper is to demonstrate
projects use a combination of waterfall and agile methods the validity of using a hybrid project management process
(Murphy et al., 2010; Norton, 2008). for an applied project within a computer information systems
Even though this shift toward middle ground is occurring (CIS) capstone course. We explain how we organized and
within industry, this shift has not necessarily been reflected delivered four sections of an undergraduate senior-level CIS

243
 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

capstone course during the 2011-2012 academic year within include: strength of the project mission, client consultation,
which teams of students were asked to develop prototypes support from top management, client acceptance, and
for a real-world client using a process combining traditional scheduling/planning (Pinto and Prescott, 1988). We applied
(waterfall) and agile (scrum) project management these success factors to the development of our course and
methodologies. We also report the results and analysis of a these success factors also form the basis for the portion of
survey taken by the students at the end of the course. the end-of-term student survey that assessed the perceptions
Specifically, the cross-sectional survey assesses student associated with the use of traditional project planning within
perceptions associated with the hybrid project management the course.
methodology implemented within the course. Survey
questions were based on the following theoretically 2.2 Agile Project Management (APM)
motivated constructs: satisfaction (Melone, 1990; Hayes, Agile Project Management (APM) is defined by Wysocki
1998), behavioral predictors of adoption and diffusion of (2009) as a non-linear, iterative or adaptive approach to
innovations (Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 2003), project management (consisting of the same five process
critical success factors of traditional projects (Pinto and groups as mentioned above). APM projects are typically
Prescott, 1988), and critical success factors of agile projects completed in cycles with the next cycle returning to the
(Chow and Cao, 2008). planning phase prior to launching. Additionally, APM
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: 1) methods prioritize the values specified in the Agile
We discuss the background of traditional project Manifesto (Fowler and Highsmith, 2001): “Individuals and
management, agile project management, and the hybrid interactions over processes and tools, working (products)
approach, 2) We present the teaching methods used in our over comprehensive documentation, customer collaboration
redesigned CIS capstone course, 3) We report the results of over contract negotiations, (and) responding to change over
an end-of-term survey designed to assess student perceptions following a plan.”
of our hybrid approach, and 4) We conclude with discussion, While agile methods, including one particular agile
lessons learned, implications, and best practices. method referred to as “Scrum,” have been shown to be
beneficial when used on projects where requirements
2. BACKGROUND changes are unavoidable, it is often reported that Agile
works best with skilled developers working on small-to-
2.1 Traditional Project Management (TPM) medium sized projects in environments that facilitate
Traditional project management (TPM) is defined by communication (Dyba and Dingsoyr, 2008; Lindvall et al.,
Wysocki (2009) as a linear or incremental approach to 2002). Additionally, it has been found that efficiency often
project management that consists of five primary phases or suffers if change requests require extensive responses (Lee
process groups: scoping, planning, launching, monitoring and Xia, 2010). Therefore, overall project goals, objectives,
and controlling, and closing. The linear approach, often and success criteria must be considered when applying agile
called the “waterfall” approach, assumes that once a phase is project management methods.
complete, it will not be returned to for the duration of the Critical success factors of agile methods include:
project. The iterative approach uses the same phases, but culture, communication, and people (Lindvall et al., 2002),
typically involves scoping and planning the entire project as well as delivery strategy, software engineering techniques,
first, then launching and delivering increments of the team capabilities, management support, customer
software sequentially, while not returning to the scoping or involvement, and strength of the process (Chow and Cao,
planning phase for the duration of the project. Such linear 2008). Therefore, project success when using APM is
and incremental methods are also taught by the Project contingent upon multiple factors, not just a high degree of
Management Institute (PMI) in their Project Management expected change. We applied these success factors to the
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Guide (ANSI and PMI, development of our course and these success factors also
2004) using five similar process groups: initiating, planning, form the basis for the portion of the end-of-term student
executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing. survey that assessed the perceptions associated with the use
Traditional approaches such as this are often taught in of agile project methods.
project management and applied CIS courses due to the In our use of Agile in the capstone course, we applied the
perceived simplicity and belief that such methods are still Scrum methodology. Scrum is described by Rising and
adhered to in industry projects. However, a shift is occurring Janoff (2000) as, “… a software development process for
whereby non-linear approaches to project management are small teams…. The entire team must have a single focus.
making significant inroads due to the realization that The priorities must be clear” (p. 30). Scrum is made up of
information leading to change is often costly, especially sprints (short durations of time, from about 2 to 4 weeks,
when obtained later in the course of the project (Pich et al., where potentially deployable features must be completed)
2002). While strong project planning has been shown to lead and backlogs (prioritized lists of tasks or user stories that are
to high quality and improved project outcomes (Zwikael and waiting to be completed). Within each sprint, a small team of
Globerson, 2006), it is well-known that linear waterfall developers selects a subset of prioritized activities they
methods often become risky (and costly) as a project believe they can complete within the duration of the sprint
progresses if requirements are subject to change (Krutchen, from the backlog. Each day during the sprint, the team gets
2001). However, if critical success factors are present, together once per day—huddles in a scrum—to individually
especially at the beginning of the project, some of these risks answer the following questions: 1) What have I completed
can be mitigated. Critical success factors identified as having since our last stand-up meeting?, 2) What do I plan to do
significant impacts on the early phases of a project life cycle between now and our next meeting?, and 3) Are there any

244
 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

obstacles that will prevent me from completing my tasks? enterprise system environment). The learning objectives in
At the end of the sprint, the potentially deployable features the course included: 1) Obtain an understanding of the tools,
are demonstrated to the product owner (the individual who techniques, and methodologies used to analyze, design, and
manages the product backlog) and/or the client as well as implement enterprise-level information systems, and 2)
other members of management. Demonstrate knowledge acquired throughout the CIS
program (and this course) through the development of a
2.3 Hybrid Project Management prototype of an enterprise-level information system applied
Research has found that many firms are now using a project. This paper focuses on the project management
combination of both agile and traditional methods for aspects of this capstone course and the work toward
information systems projects and suggests that such an completion of the final deliverable for the applied project: a
approach provides better support for both explorative and working prototype of a web-based or cloud-based
exploitive capabilities (Vinekar et al. 2006). Recent studies information system for a local non-profit organization.
also suggest that structure and agility can complement each
other when used together in hybrid form on the same project 3.2 Redesign of the CIS Capstone Course
(Batra et al., 2010; Fernandez and Fernandez, 2008; In the school’s information systems curriculum, the CIS
Karlström and Runeson, 2005). Such findings are supported undergraduate capstone course is where students “put it all
by innovation literature suggesting that a combination of together” and apply concepts from their entire undergraduate
both structure and chaos (both planning and emergence) may curriculum to design, build, implement, and understand the
lead to the most innovative outcomes (in the context of role of IT in business today. The motivation for the
product development) (Cunha and Gomes, 2003). While pedagogical course redesign was based on the following
such a hybrid approach may introduce more overhead in points that are derived from existing literature on IS and
regards to additional project documentation and planning, business education:
which typically is not the primary focus of agile methods
(Karlström and Runeson, 2005), the benefits of a hybrid  Provide a functionally integrative curriculum experience
approach include: a focus on business value versus time and and deliver the capstone course within a specific
budget only (Hass, 2007), ability to customize the project experience-based business context (Abraham et al., 2006).
management methodology to the problem at hand rather than In this sense, the goal is to draw together learning from all
applying a single method to all projects (Vinekar et al., 2006; CIS core courses and allow students the opportunity to
Wysocki 2009), and higher software quality on complex apply these concepts to a real-world business problem
projects (Beckett, 2008). setting.
 Integration of IS and business environments where an
3. CAPSTONE COURSE ORGANIZATION AND outcome IS artifact solves a specific business problem
TEACHING METHODS (Carlsson et al., 2010). To do this, students must interact
with the business setting, understand the specific needs
3.1 Course Overview within the context, and develop an IS solution to solve a
The CIS capstone course described in this study was taken problem.
by CIS undergraduate students enrolled in a business school  Design a solution using best-practice tools and
at a major university in the U.S. in the Fall and Spring of the methodologies, and apply technical capabilities to be able
2011-2012 academic year in four sections (131 total to build a working IT artifact (Bowden, 2004). For this to
students). All students enrolled in the capstone course had happen, students must be current in practice capabilities
previously completed many CIS courses providing basic to both technically and organizationally.
advanced core knowledge in areas including: computer  Engage in agile practices based on iterative prototyping
programming, system analysis and design, database concepts making use of management and user feedback for
and design, and e-commerce concepts and design. The subsequent iterations (Schon, 1983). This challenges the
capstone course consolidated and expanded upon learning students to engage in reflective learning through multiple
objectives from prior courses by applying a hybrid project learning cycles for the development of tacit knowledge.
management process, which combined the best practices of
waterfall (traditional) methods and Scrum (agile) methods, to We used these theoretical underpinnings to completely
the required course project. While the CIS capstone course redesign the CIS capstone course using a number of
had always included some sort of real-world or prototype pedagogical methods that were captured with the course
project, traditional project management methods had syllabus all the way through final project presentations and
typically been taught and applied. The completely deliverables. Specifically, the course was designed around a
redesigned course sought to prepare students for a shift major applied team project where teams would design,
toward the middle ground of project management develop, and install a working prototype of an enterprise
methodologies, while also bringing together and building system for a real industry client that had to address a real
upon learning objectives from the entire CIS curriculum. business problem of the client. Second, students learned
The course was organized into three learning modules current techniques of project management as outlined by the
(each comprising about 5 weeks during the course of a Project Management Institute (PMI) in the Project
typical, 16-week semester): 1) Project Management (using Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), and were
Wysocki, 2009), 2) the view from the CIO’s office (use of expected to apply these techniques to their team project.
select case studies to expose students to enterprise systems Third, since no single methodology fits all situations,
issues), and 3) an ERP simulation (exposure to a simulation students learned and applied multiple project management

245
 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

methodologies including traditional project management, goals and requirements, and could be deployable in the
agile project management, and a hybrid approach. Fourth, future. Additionally, students were asked to develop
since many graduating students would later pursue an MBA solutions that were targeted (aimed at solving a specific
to enhance their career options, students were expected to business problem), innovative (representative of new
prepare and discuss graduate-level Harvard Business School business strategies, new digital platforms, or new
cases on topics relevant for the management of projects approaches), and professional (appropriate for the client’s
similar to their applied project. Finally, students concluded situation).
the CIS program by participating in the ERPsim simulation
game as developed at HEC Montreal to learn how enterprise 3.4 Course Organization and Delivery
systems integrate the functions of marketing, finance, After the initial introduction of the syllabus and structure of
accounting, and production operations. the course, the client representative for the project came to
speak directly to the class to provide unique insights into the
3.3 Hybrid Project Management Approach business strategy, mission, wants, and needs of the non-profit
Deliverables for the final project (discussed further in the organization. The client representative concluded the
next section) were organized into three sprints. However, presentation with an extensive question and answer session
rather than follow the typical agile life cycle and have the with the students, providing an opportunity for clarification
students jump right into development in the first sprint and requirements gathering. The students were tasked with
(following the selection of tasks, stories, or activities from a developing “targeted, innovative, and professional”
“product backlog”), they were instead asked to use Sprint 1 prototypes of a portion of the web site (of their choice,
to develop a traditional project plan and presentation (to be subject to instructor approval), based on a cloud-based
given at the end of the sprint). This change to the typical technology (e.g., developed with WaveMaker and deployed
agile process was significant and represented a hybrid on Amazon’s EC2 infrastructure) or built on top of an
between the traditional and agile methodologies. The goal existing web-based content management system (e.g.,
was to search for a potential solution while working their WordPress, Joomla!, etc.). Students proposed their initial
way through traditional project planning activities. The recommendations at the end of Sprint 1, the planning sprint,
project planning deliverable would provide a strong when student teams presented their concepts (prior to any
foundation for the next two sprints. development) and traditional project plan (consisting of five
Once the project plan and proposal were completed, we individual components explained in the next section). The
continued the use of a hybrid project management client remained involved throughout the project and
methodology in the following important ways: 1) The frequently responded to requests for more information via e-
deliverables for scrum-based Sprints 2 and 3 were prototypes mail (through the instructors), but did not return to the class
and proofs-of-concept rather than final deliverables of until the final presentations. Prior to initially proceeding with
immediately deployable software, where the first prototype the project, however, and to reduce the risk of “jumping right
was supposed to represent the “critical path” of the final in,” students were guided through a series of project
prototype, 2) The students developed their backlogs planning assignments, lectures, and activities.
(prioritized lists of activities) themselves without direct The first learning module of the course was dedicated to
involvement from the client (although the instructor and TA project planning concepts and providing the student teams (3
were available to act as client proxies), and 3) Scrum to 5 members each) with the time needed to develop a
meetings were held twice per week in-class, rather than concept and traditional project plan. The project
daily, and involved the instructor or TA meeting briefly with management learning module was designed to expose
each team individually to answer the three questions often students to both traditional (linear) and non-traditional
seen in Scrum: What did you do since last time? What are (agile) project management processes. Lectures and class
you going to do between now and the next time we meet? activities were based on Wysocki (2009) and learning
Are you having any problems you need help with? outcomes included: 1) understanding of how project
We believe this approach was realistic given that the management methodologies differ, 2) experience with
students were still learning to be information systems project planning and management, 3) knowledge of how
professionals and helpful given that we guided the students project management methodologies impact system analysis
through the process with a helping hand. Specifically, and design, and 4) understanding of how risk and change
developing the traditional project plan and proposal in Sprint management impact project management decision making
1 gave them time to brainstorm, but also required them to processes. The first project management lecture provided an
establish goals, objectives, success criteria, and initial overview of the “project management landscape” and
requirements (with the stated understanding that the emphasized how the various project management methods
requirements would almost certainly change as time are suitable to projects of specific types. For instance,
progressed). Keeping the client involved at arm’s length (i.e. traditional project management is often best applied when
not involved in every aspect, with the instructors as proxies) the goal and solution are clear (as specified by Wysocki,
gave the students access to information, but also did not bog 2009). Agile project management is often best applied when
the client down with an undue amount of work or requests. the goal is clear, but the solution is not (e.g., I know where I
Focusing on prototypes, rather than immediately deployable want to go, but not how to get there). For the remainder of
software, gave the students room to explore and make the project management learning module, a combination of
mistakes with the understanding that their final prototype lectures, group exercises, in-class activities, and homework
had to work (i.e. be as bug free as possible), be user-friendly assignments was used to demonstrate how linear and non-
(i.e. be as easy-to-use as possible), meet specific business linear methodologies approached the execution of the five

246
 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

main process groups: scoping, planning, launching, the proposed project, the project goal, specific objectives,
monitoring and controlling, and closing. While these lectures success criteria, and a final section dedicated to assumptions,
and in-class activities were on-going, students were also risks, and obstacles. The RBS was formatted as a list of high
responsible to begin working on their applied projects, level functional, non-function, global, and constraint
outlined in the following section. requirements (expected to change as the course progressed).
The WBS was a list of task and activities, directly related to
3.5 Course Assignments and Deliverables the requirements, which would need to be completed to
The following summarizes the assignments given to students conclude the project (also expected to change as the project
associated with planning and completing their final progressed). The BPD was a swimlane diagram illustrating
prototypes. The applied project was divided into three, some aspect of the “critical path” (the core process) of the
primary sprints: 1) Project plan and proposal, 2) Draft project. Finally, the students were asked to represent either a
prototype consisting of the critical path of the proposed technical or business process aspect of their project with a
project, and 3) Development of a final prototype. Figure 1 single UML diagram and many chose the UML activity
provides a visual overview of the how the applied project diagram.
was organized. Sprint 1 culminated in a presentation given to the
instructor and TA by each team (no other teams were
3.5.1 Prior to Sprint 1 (The Project Planning and present). Feedback was provided in-person and additional
Proposal Sprint): Prior to the beginning of Sprint 1, feedback was provided in the grading reports. Suggestions
students were asked to create a team web site (using private resulted in refinements to the project plans prior to the
Google Sites) to facilitate online collaboration between team beginning of Sprint 2.
members. The project plan and future sprint backlogs would
be placed on the site and shared by all team members (and 3.5.3 Prior to Sprint 2 (First Prototype—“Critical
the instructors) throughout the semester. Each team was Path”): Before the kickoff of Sprint 2, in which the first
asked to develop an initial backlog (list of prioritized tasks) prototype would be assembled and built, student teams were
that would be required for creating the project proposal and asked to create a backlog for all activities they could foresee
plan in Sprint 1. requiring completion in Sprint 2. The backlogs were created
on each team’s private Google Site. We asked the students to
3.5.2 Sprint 1: Traditional Project Plan and Proposal: keep their backlogs updated throughout the entire sprint. We
Sprint 1 required each student team to create a traditional also asked that the Sprint 2 backlog represent the “critical
project plan consisting of five components (one page each): path” (the tasks representing the core, essential components)

Sprint 1 TPM: Sprint 2 APM: Sprint 3 APM:

Backlog Project Plan/Proposal Backlog Critical Path Prototype Backlog Final Prototype
(Sprint 1: 3 weeks) (Sprint 2: 3 weeks) (Sprint 3: 3 weeks)

Sprint 2 Sprint 3 Presentation

Sprint 1 Presentation Presentation to Sprint 2 Testing to Professor / TA,
to Professor / TA only Professor / TA By Another Team entire class, and client
only representatives

Software Used to Manage the Hybrid Project Management Process (Documentation and Backlogs):
Google Sites (and built in templates for document and list creation/management)

Software Used for the Completing the Applied Project Prototype:

A Content Management System (CMS) (e.g. Joomla! or WordPress) or cloud-based system such as Force.com or WaveMaker deployed on EC2

Figure 1: Applied Project Process, Schedule, and Deliverables

1) Project Overview Statement (POS), 2) Requirements of the project. The next sprint, Sprint 3, would be used for
Breakdown Structure (RBS), 3) Work Breakdown Structure fixing bugs, adding additional features, and additional
(WBS), 4) Business Process Diagram (BPD) in swimlane graphic design, but Sprint 2 activities needed to be focused
format, and 5) a Unified Modeling Language (UML)1 on the most essential aspects of the prototype.
diagram of their choice applicable to their project context.
The POS was based directly on the format recommended by 3.5.4 Sprint 2: Development of a Critical Path Prototype:
Wysocki (2009, p. 94) and consisted of sections dedicated to The majority of the work for the development of the critical
outlining the business problem or opportunity addressed by path prototype was conducted during Sprint 2. We suggested

247
 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

that they develop the most comprehensive prototype possible independent variables and the dependent variable, were also
during this sprint to avoid undue pressure at the end of the run to verify the findings. Due to the insignificant
course. At the end of Sprint 2, student teams once again differences between the ordered probit models and the linear
presented to the instructors (no other teams present). regression models, linear regression results are reported in
Feedback was provided in-person and on the grading reports. this paper.
Suggestions for improvement (or change) were expected to
be handled in Sprint 3. 4.3 Data Analysis and Results
41 students were registered for the two sections of the CIS
3.5.5 Prior to Sprint 3 (Final, Full Featured Prototype): Capstone course in the Fall of 2011 (11 students in the first
Between Sprints 2 and 3, black-box testing occurred. Each section and 30 students in the second section) and 90
student team was assigned to test another team’s prototype students for two sections of the same course offered in the
and write-up a one-page test report. Prior to testing, the team Spring of 2012 (40 students in the first section and 50
would read the other team’s Project Overview Statement students in the second section), for a total of 131 students.
(POS) (see Appendix A) and reviewed their Sprint 2 113 students responded to the voluntary survey resulting in a
backlog. Testing reports specified: 1) whether or not the response rate of 86.3%. Students received a small amount of
prototype matched the goal and objectives specified in the extra credit for participating in the survey, but were offered
POS, 2) whether or not the “requirements” (activities) had an alternative form of extra credit if they decided not to
been completed, and 3) major bugs that had been found. participate in the survey. There was very little missing data
After the completion of testing and trading of test reports (i.e. unanswered questions). The total missing data rate was
between teams, the backlog for Sprint 3 was created. Student 0.88%. Table 1 describes the demographics and
teams were asked to prioritize bug fixes, instructor characteristics of the sample. The research measures are fully
suggestions, and requirements issues (identified by the test described in Table 2. Composite scores and related
report) prior to the inclusion of activities for additional descriptive statistics are reported in Table 3.
features.
Characteristic Qty %
3.5.6 Sprint 3: Development of the Final Prototype:
Sprint 3 was also about three weeks in duration and focused Gender
on completing the items in the Sprint 3 backlog. The final Male 92 81.42%
prototype was presented at the end of Sprint 3 to the entire Female 21 18.58%
class and to the board members of the client. Employment Status
Full-time 15 13.27%
4. STUDY DESIGN AND RESULTS
Part-time 62 54.87%
4.1 Study Design Do not work 36 31.86%
To assess the students’ perception of the value of using a Student Status
hybrid project management methodology within the capstone Full-time 102 90.27%
course, we developed and administered a theoretically undergraduate
motivated student satisfaction and perception survey in two Part-time 11 9.73%
course sections at the end of the Fall 2011 semester and two undergraduate
course sections at the end of the Spring 2012 semester. Previously taken or currently taking separate
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (as an exempt Project Management elective course2
study) was obtained prior to administering the survey.
Yes 92 81.42%
Survey questions were based on theoretically-derived
constructs (satisfaction and behavioral perceptions of No 21 18.58%
innovations), critical success factors associated with Age
traditional project management, traditional success factors Mean 23.91 --
associated with agile project management, and two Std. Dev. 4.12 --
additional questions developed by the authors. Min. 20 --
Max 43 --
4.2 Method 131 students registered for the two sections of the
To assess the satisfaction and perceptions of the use of a CIS capstone course; 113 responded to the survey;
hybrid project management methodology, we used the 86.3% response rate
following methods: 1) descriptive statistics for each the
sample (Table 1) and individual questions (reported in detail Table 1: Sample Characteristics
in Appendix A), 2) descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s α (a
measure of reliability) for composite scores associated with
each construct (reported in Tables 2 and 3, correlations
reported in Appendix C), and 3) a regression of satisfaction
on the other composite scores (and control variables) to
assess the most significant impacts on overall satisfaction
(reported in Table 4). Additional “ordered probit” models,
which do not assume a linear relationship between the

248
 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

# of
Construct Abbr. Description
Items
General Theoretically-Based Constructs based on Satisfaction (Melone, 1990; Hayes, 1998) and Behavioral Innovation
Constructs (Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 2003)
Satisfaction (with the use of The perceived satisfaction with using a combination of Tradition
SAT 4
the hybrid methodology). Project Planning and Agile / Scrum in the course.
The perceived advantage the respondent sees in using the hybrid
Relative advantage RA 4
method over other methods.
The perceived compatibility of the hybrid methodology with the
Compatibility (with preferred current work style preferences (i.e. someone who already makes
CPT 3
work style) plans and then works adaptively may be more attracted to the
hybrid approach).
The perceived ease-of-use associated with learning and using the
Ease-of-use EU 3
hybrid methodology.
Traditional Project Management (TPM) Constructs associated with Traditional Project Management Critical Success
Factors (Pinto and Prescott, 1988)
Perceptions associated with the expectations for the final
Project expectations TPM_PE outcome of the project conveyed by the client and by the 4
instructors.
Client presentation and Perceptions associated with the presentation and information
TPM_CPI 4
information given by the client at the beginning of the semester.
Perceptions associated with developing a traditional project plan
Planning process TPM_PP 6
prior to beginning the Agile process.
Agile Project Management (APM) Constructs associated with Agile Critical Success Factors (Chow and Cao, 2008)
Perceptions associated with Agile/Scrum delivery strategy and
Technical APM_Tech 7
software engineering (e.g., simple design and refactoring).
Perceptions associated with the people involved in the project
People APM_Ppl including: team member capabilities, management (instructors), 7
and client involvement.
Perceptions associated with the Agile/Scrum processes (e.g.,
Process APM_Proc 4
keeping track of progress and meeting regularly).
Additional Questions (created by the authors)
(TPMOnly) I believe future offerings of this course should use TRADITIONAL PROJECT PLANNING /
1
METHODS ONLY (Agile / Scrum should not be used).
(APMOnly) I believe future offerings of this course should use AGILE / SCRUM ONLY (traditional project
1
planning / methods should not be used).

Table 2: Research Measures Used in the Student Satisfaction and Perception Survey

Composite Obs α Mean Std. Dev. Min Max

Satisfaction (SAT) 113 0.91 5.90 0.92 2.75 7.00
Relative Advantage (RA) 113 0.91 5.33 1.02 2.00 7.00
Compatibility (CPT) 113 0.93 5.48 1.29 1.00 7.00
Ease-of-Use (EU) 113 0.83 5.64 0.94 3.00 7.00
TPM Project Expectations (TPM_PE) 113 0.84 5.58 1.06 1.75 7.00
TPM Client Pres. and Info. (TPM_CPI) 113 0.90 5.47 1.19 1.75 7.00
TPM Planning Process (TPM_PP) 113 0.90 5.21 1.10 1.67 7.00
APM Technical (APM_Tech) 113 0.83 5.47 0.93 1.29 7.00
APM People (APM_Ppl) 113 0.82 5.47 0.98 3.00 7.00
APM Proj. Mgmt. Process (APM_Proc) 113 0.84 5.47 1.16 1.25 7.00
Composite scores calculated in Stata with the ‘alpha’ command and represent composite inter-item correlations
for the each group of survey items.

Table 3: Survey Results Descriptive Statistics (Including Composite Scores)

249
 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

All items (questions) associated with each of the research a valuable format for this sample. For the question regarding
measures were answered using a seven-point Likert scale whether or not the use of only Traditional Project
ranging from 1-Strongly Disagree to 7-Strongly Agree. Management (TPM Only) would have been preferred, the
A mean of 5 or above suggests that, on average, students responses did not have a significant impact on satisfaction.
at least “Somewhat Agree” with the statement. A mean of 3 Interestingly, though, when respondents were asked if they
or below suggests that, on average, students’ perceptions would prefer the use of Agile only (APM Only), the results
range from “1-Strongly Disagree” to “3-Somewhat suggest a negative and significant effect on satisfaction,
Disagree.” A mean of 4 is a neutral response (“4-Neither suggesting that the hybrid method was preferred over an
Agree nor Disagree”). Agile-only approach.
In summary, the majority of responses averaged 5 Among the composite variables, three had a significant
(“Somewhat Agree”) or higher on all questions. The impact and three had a marginally significant impact on
questions associated with using Traditional Project satisfaction. Compatibility (CPT) and the TPM Planning
Management only and Agile Project Management only Process (TPM_PP) had significant and positive impacts on
(rather than the hybrid approach) received the lowest mean satisfaction. Interestingly, the composite variable
scores (1.92 and 2.83, respectively). One question resulted in representing the Agile Project Management Process
a mostly neutral average response: “I felt a strong (APM_Proc) had a negative effect on satisfaction. This
commitment by the client to the project” (m=4.37), which suggests that more could have been done to encourage
suggests that client involvement could have been somewhat regular meetings between team members and taking the time
stronger. When asked, “I believe future offerings of this to update the sprint backlogs.
course should continue to Relative Advantage
use a combination of Std. (RA), Ease of Use (EU),
Traditional Project Planning Variables β Err. and TPM Project
and Agile / Scrum,” the Expectations all had
Individual questions created by the authors for TPM Only
mean fell between 6-Agree positive and marginally
and APM Only
and 7-Strongly Agree significant (p<0.10) impacts
(TPM Only) I believe future
(m=6.05), which provides on satisfaction. This
offerings of this course should use 0.035 0.053
support for using the hybrid suggests that students
TPM only
method. perceived a positive relative
(APM Only) I believe future
Composite scores for advantage of the hybrid
offerings of this course should use -0.083* 0.040
each construct were approach, perceived the
APM only
calculated in Stata 11 using method as easy to use, and
the ‘alpha’ command. The Composite Variables perceived the project as
results are reported in Table Relative Advantage (RA) 0.180+ 0.094 having reasonable
4. The reliabilities (alphas) expectations. Demographic
were all 0.80 or above. All Compatibility (CPT) 0.153* 0.069 variables (control variables)
composite means were 5 Ease-of-Use (EU) 0.131+ 0.068 did not significantly impact
(“Somewhat Agree”) or TPM Project Expectations the results, but having
0.116+ 0.063
higher. Correlations are (TPM_PE) previously taken a project
available in Appendix C. TPM Client Pres. and Info. management course
To assess the most 0.096 0.060 positively impacted
(TPM_CPI)
significant impacts on TPM Planning Process (TPM_PP) 0.148* 0.074 satisfaction. Implications of
overall satisfaction, we these results and the other
regressed the satisfaction APM Technical (APM_Tech) 0.119 0.094 results are discussed in the
composite on the other APM People (APM_Ppl) 0.152 0.109 next section.
composites, the two APM Proj. Mgmt. Process Finally, we also ran an
additional questions asked -0.283** 0.084 ‘ordered probit’ model,
(APM_Proc)
by the authors (TPM Only Control variables which does not assume a
and APM Only), and linear relationship between
Gender -0.133 0.143
controlled for demographics the dependent and
and sample characteristics. Age 0.000 0.014 independent variables. The
The model explains 69.25% Employment Status -0.006 0.064 results were not
of the variation in the significantly different than
Student Status 0.014 0.196
student satisfaction the regression results
composite score associated Project Management Course reported in Table 5 with the
0.296* 0.145
with satisfaction with the (previous or current) exception of the APM Only
use of a hybrid project Constant 1.748** 0.559 and Relative Advantage
management methodology Composite score for Satisfaction (SAT) is the dependent variable; (RA) variables. In the
within the course. The results reported from OLS estimation using linear regression; ordered probit model, the
results are reported in Table +p<.10 *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001; R2=69.25% APM Only coefficient was
4. not significant and the RA
The results suggest that Table 4: Student Satisfaction and Perception Survey coefficient was significant
the hybrid methodology was Composite Score Regression Results at p<0.05 instead of being

250
 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

marginally (p<0.10) significant. Therefore, we report the performing the planning steps. After Sprint 2, though,
results from the linear regression in Table 4 due to the more motivation dropped off significantly as graduation was
straightforward interpretation of the coefficients. approaching. Therefore, encouraging students to create a
strong plan followed by a strong development phase (Sprint
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 2) seemed to reduce stress and problems in the final sprint
(Sprint 3). We did not have any complaints during Sprint 3
This study described the teaching methods and survey results of not being able to get the project done on time or
associated with our use of a hybrid project management discovering significant problems that would result in delay.
methodology combining the best practices of waterfall Such problems can often occur with traditional methods,
(traditional) and Scrum (agile) in an undergraduate CIS especially when students procrastinate, but dividing the
Capstone course. Our primary finding is that satisfaction deliverables into three, separate segments significantly
with the use of this hybrid methodology is high among our reduced the potential for such challenging issues to occur.
student respondents and that many theoretically motivated We also believe that our emphasis on developing a
variables (e.g., compatibility, relative advantage, etc.) had prototype contributed to overall satisfaction and success.
significant impacts on satisfaction associated with the use of Rather than asking students to develop a final, working
a hybrid methodology. We also find that our respondents do product that would be deployed and used by the client
not believe that future offerings of the course should use immediately after the semester ended, we encouraged
only traditional methods or only agile methods. Secondarily, students to develop proof-of-concept prototypes. The
we find that overall satisfaction can be lowered if the client prototypes had to be as bug-free and user-friendly as
is perceived as having limited involvement and that efforts possible, but students were also given the flexibility to try
need to be made to ensure that student teams are meeting new platforms, software packages, and cloud-based solutions
regularly and updating their sprint backlogs. with which they had limited experience. This approach
These results provide several valuable lessons and best resulted in more learning than may have occurred if we
practices for those who wish to use this approach in their encouraged them to take the safest route possible.
own courses. While traditional project planning was useful to Additionally, it provided more variation in the final
initiate a strong initial backlog and give the student teams a presentations (and more ideas) presented to the clients.
well-researched head start, it was not perceived as the ideal Board members of the client were then free to pick-and-
solution to solving future problems or overall project time choose the best combination of features and platform(s) that
savings. Therefore, traditional project planning should be would best serve their needs. Granted, they did not get a
used as a catalyst to get the project moving in the right final, deployable complete solution in the end, but they were
direction and used to develop a strong backlog, but should provided with a valuable base of information to use in their
not be expected to reduce unknown, potential bugs or digital business planning decision making process that would
shorten the duration of the project—especially when the have taken a significant and costly effort to obtain otherwise.
students are still inexperienced and very new to many In fact, the board members were very impressed with the
aspects of the project. Many student teams ran into capabilities of the web-based and cloud-based systems
unexpected issues in Sprint 2 and, while the agile demonstrated by the students in the final presentations and
methodology provided the flexibility needed to overcome commented on how professional the solutions had been. The
these issues, getting involved in the project was an essential board members went on to comment in private that they had
part of the discovery (and “fail forward”) process. been won over by how well the solutions had been directed
It should also be noted that the clients only came to class at specific organizational needs and how the students had
twice: once at the beginning of the semester to give a paid so much attention to solving specific business
presentation and answer questions, and once at the end of the requirements. They commended them for their hard work,
semester to view the final presentations. While the instructor especially given that only a few members of the board had
and TA acted as proxy clients, traded e-mails with the client, visited with the students on a limited basis to provide
and conducted conference calls with the client (and reported background, answer questions, and help establish
back to the students, including providing answers to requirements.
questions that had come up), the student perceptions It is important to note that this approach is also unique
associated with client involvement were somewhat low. because implementation of the final product was conducted
Therefore, having the client show up more during the outside of the classroom environment by the clients, after the
semester or answering a few questions directly (perhaps even students had demonstrated their prototypes. We initially
through video conferencing) may improve this aspect of explained to the clients (board members) that they would be
satisfaction. Additionally, such an approach may provide receiving a wealth of information in trade for their time,
additional motivation for students to keep working on the however, they would not be receiving a fully deployable
project, especially for students who are graduating, due to solution. Specifically, we told them that the students would
the fact that motivation tends to attenuate as the semester be showing them the pros and cons of going with different
progresses. platforms (e.g., Joomla! vs. WordPress and other cloud-
While not reported directly in the survey results, we based options) and, through the students efforts and
should also mention that we found success with encouraging brainstorming processes, the clients would be provided with
the student teams to perform the majority of the designing, new ideas on how to proceed that they may not have
developing, and coding work in Sprint 2. Motivation was considered before (e.g., the inclusion of social networking in
high after spending time on the planning process. Most certain aspects of their digital business needs) as well as
students just wanted to get going and tired quickly of more detailed information regarding certain requirements

251
 Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

(e.g., how intensive of an effort might it be to create a 8. REFERENCES

“members-only” section containing secured content?).
Overall, the clients were very satisfied with the approach and Abraham, T. C., Beath, C., Bullen, C., Gallagher, K., Goles,
we attribute some of this satisfaction to setting initial T., Kaiser, K., and Simon, J. (2006) "IT Workforce
expectations, which is an important aspect of an applied Trends: Implications for IS Programs," Communications
project focused on prototypes rather than deliverable of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 17,
solutions. Essentially, we were providing an opportunity for Article 50, pp. 1147–1170.
the clients to assess various risks (platforms, approaches, ANSI and PMI (2004) A Guide to the Project Management
outside-of-the-box ideas, etc.) prior to full scale requirements Body of Knowledge: PMBOK Guide, Project
gathering, development, and implementation, without the Management Institute, Inc.
committing to the variety of risks associated with using Batra, D., Xia, W., VanderMeer, D., and Dutta, K. (2010)
students as professional developers. In the end, the board "Balancing Agile and Structured Development
members commented how useful it was to have so many Approaches to Successfully Manage Large Distributed
different ideas and possibilities demonstrated to them (and to Software Projects: A Case Study from the Cruise Line
have many requirements further solidified throughout the Industry," Communications of the Association for
process), prior to conducting a larger scale development and Information Systems, Vol. 27, Article 21, pp. 379-394.
implementation effort on their own. Beckett, R. (2008) "An Integrative Approach to Project
In conclusion, we believe that this hybrid approach Management in a Small Team Developing a Complex
offers students a chance to use project management Product," Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE IEEM, pp. 1028-
methodologies that are now becoming commonplace in the 1032.
corporate environment while simultaneously improving the Bowden, J. A. (2004) "Capabilities-driven Curriculum
experience with completing a final, applied project in a Design," in Baille, C., and I. Moore (eds.). Effective
capstone course. Such an approach provides a nice balance Learning and Teaching in Engineering, New York:
between rigid, traditional processes and flexible, agile Routledge, pp. 36–47.
processes. The comments we received on the course in the Carlsson, S. A., Hedman, J., and Steen, O. (2010) "Integrated
Senior Exit Interviews were very positive and it was Curriculum for a Bachelor of Science in Business
mentioned that the project was a great bridge from the Information Systems Design (BISD 2010),"
classroom to the real world of information systems projects. Communications of the Association for Information
We suggest that CIS capstone course education and Systems, Vol. 26, Article 24, pp. 525-546.
management methods should continue to evolve in such a Chow, T. and Cao, D. B. (2008) "A Survey Study of Critical
way that gives students the knowledge necessary to compete Success Factors in Agile Software Projects," Journal of
and succeed in the ever-changing job market while providing Systems and Software, Vol. 81, No. 6, pp. 961-971.
them with an opportunity to learn, apply, and integrate these Cunha, M. P. and Gomes, J. F. S. (2003) "Order and
methods and overall CIS curriculum objectives within the Disorder in Product Innovation Models," Creativity and
classroom. Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 174-187.
Du, S. M., Johnson, R. D., and Keil, M. (2004) "Project
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Management Courses in IS Graduate Programs: What is
being Taught?," Journal of Information Systems
We would like to acknowledge Dr. Michael Goul, Professor Education, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 181-188.
and Chair, Department of Information Systems, W. P. Carey Dyba, T. and Dingsoyr, T. (2008) "Empirical Studies of
School of Business, Arizona State University, for his support Agile Software Development: A Systematic Review,"
of this research and teaching project. We would also like to Information and Software Technology, Vol. 50, No. 9-10,
thank the client representatives and board members who pp. 833-859.
donated so much of their time and effort to make this project Fernandez, D. J. and Fernandez, J. D. (2008) "Agile Project
a success. Management: Agilism Versus Traditional Approaches,"
Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 49, No. 2,
7. ENDNOTES pp. 10-17.
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. (2001) "The Agile Manifesto,"
1: An anonymous reviewer suggested that the use of SysML Software Development, Vol. 9, No. 8, pp. 28-35.
requirement diagrams or FMC (Fundamental Modeling Glass, R. L. (2001) "Agile Versus Traditional: Make Love,
Concepts) as alternative or additional approaches to Not War!," Cutter IT Journal, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp. 12-18.
traditional requirements gathering and modeling. We Hass, K. B. (2007) "The Blending of Traditional and Agile
appreciate the feedback and have included it here for others Project Management," PM World Today, Vol. 9, No. 5,
who may be interested in options beyond UML and/or pp. 1-8.
traditional RBS/WBS approaches. Hayes, B. E. (1998) Measuring Customer Satisfaction:
Survey Design, Use, and Statistical Analysis Methods,
2: An elective, undergraduate course in Project Management Milwaukee:ASQ Quality Press.
was offered by our department. This elective course was not Jones, C. G. (2003) "Integrating Agile Development
taught by the same professor who taught the course Methodologies into the Project Capstone–A Case Study,"
discussed in this study. The elective course focused on Information Systems Education Journal, Vol. 1, No. 18,
Traditional Project Management methods such as methods pp. 1-12.
included in the Project Management Institute curriculum.

252
Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 23(3) Fall 2012

253
 STATEMENT OF PEER REVIEW INTEGRITY
All papers published in the Journal of Information Systems Education have undergone rigorous peer review. This includes an
initial editor screening and double-blind refereeing by three or more expert referees.

Copyright ©2012 by the Education Special Interest Group (EDSIG) of the Association of Information Technology Professionals.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this journal for personal or classroom use is granted without fee
provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial use. All copies must bear this notice and full citation.
Permission from the Editor is required to post to servers, redistribute to lists, or utilize in a for-profit or commercial use.
Permission requests should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Information Systems Education, editor@jise.org.
ISSN 1055-3096