The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8378.htm

How project management approach Project

management
impact project success? approach

From traditional to agile

Danijela Ciric Lalic, Bojan Lalic, Milan Deli
c, Danijela Gracanin and
Darko Stefanovic
Received 26 April 2021
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Revised 14 December 2021
Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia Accepted 24 January 2022

Abstract
Purpose – This research aimed to explore whether different project management approaches (traditional,
agile or hybrid) differentiate concerning their impact on project success, taking project success as
multidimensional phenomena. In addition to this, the authors wanted to explore if specific project
characteristics moderate these effects.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors empirically addressed these on a sample of 227 project
professionals worldwide. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of project success dimensions was done to
validate these factors’ constitution concerning their manifest variables. The K-means cluster method was used
to distinguish respondents’ profiles among agile, hybrid and traditional project management approaches. To
test the significance among research groups, the research hypotheses were tested with ANOVA tests.
Findings – The authors evidenced that the agile approach has a more significant positive impact concerning
the two out of five dimensions of project success, under analysis in this research (impact on the team and
preparing for the future), over the traditional approach.
Practical implications – The research is relevant for project management practitioners to tailor the success-
oriented project management approach and for academics to develop project management contingency theory.
Originality/value – The authors constructed a research framework to test the impact and effectiveness of
different project management approaches (traditional, agile, hybrid) on the dimensions of project success in
different contextual conditions (organization industry, project type, novelty, technology, complexity and pace).
The paper’s main contribution is to expand data on the impact of these approaches on project success and
compare them with relevant results and findings of previous research.
Keywords Agile, Traditional, Hybrid, Project success, Project management approach, Cluster analysis, EFA
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Today, there are many different, and in some cases, overlapping approaches to manage the
complexities of any given project, making it rather complicated to choose the best one
(Sheffield and Lem
etayer, 2013) to achieve project success. Things get further complicated as
the project’s success definition is still elusive (Mohanarajah, 2015), and it’s controversially
discussed in the literature. Some consider it as a one-dimensional construct that should be
perceived through the prism of budget, time, quality and meeting technical requirements
(Atkinson, 1999; Brown and Adams, 2000; Bryde, 2005; M€ uller and Turner, 2007; Carvalho
et al., 2015). Others see it as a complex, multidimensional concept with many more attributes
(Judgev et al., 2001; Shenhar et al., 2001; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007; Mir and Pinnington, 2014).
We acknowledge that project success is a complex concept that should be considered
multidimensional, dynamic and relative, making it challenging to compare sensibly. This has
to be taken into account (inspired by Svejvig and Andersen (2015)). However, a universal
International Journal of Managing
This paper and the research behind it would not have been possible without the Project Management Projects in Business
Institute’s support, provided under the Academic Research Grant in 2018, for the research proposal © Emerald Publishing Limited
1753-8378
“Extending Agile Project Management Beyond Software Industry.” DOI 10.1108/IJMPB-04-2021-0108
IJMPB recipe for achieving the desired project success does not yet exist. It is unlikely that a
universal project management approach that guarantees success will ever be developed.
Such a thing is neither realistic nor desirable in today’s changing environment. Intense
industrial competition and ever-changing customer requirements have led organizations to
deviate from a traditional project management approach (Young et al., 2012), as evidence
accumulated that it can result in significant downstream pathologies. This could include
excessive rework, lack of flexibility, customer dissatisfaction and the project’s potential to be
fully developed (Serrador and Pinto, 2015). In recent years, agile has taken the world of project
management by storm, especially in software development (Sweetman and Conboy, 2018).
Previous studies provided some valuable knowledge on the effectiveness of the agile
approach in managing software development projects (e.g. Butler et al., 2020; Gemino et al.,
2020; Mohagheghi and Jørgensen, 2017; Chin, 2004; Augustine, 2005; Highsmith, 2004;
Adkins, 2015; Goodpasture, 2010; Wysocki, 2009; Crowder and Friess, 2015; Cobb, 2011; Dyb a
and Dingsøyr, 2004; VersionOne, 2014). Still, little research has been done on whether the
agile approach delivers more successful projects comparing software and non-software
domain, even though, more recently, in several studies, the interest in transferring agile
outside of software development is evident (Abrahamsson et al., 2009; Lappi et al., 2018;
Niederman et al., 2018).
To date, the majority of research exploring the impact of the agile approach on project
success, beyond the software domain where the more traditional approach was common, has
been circumstantial, based on small-sample, or limited by industry or geography (Owen et al.,
2006; Chen et al., 2007; Nowotarski and Paslawski, 2015; Olsson et al., 2015; Tomek and
Kalinichuk, 2015; Demir and Theis, 2016).
The early adopters of agile believe that agile may positively affect project success
(Berinato, 2001; Larman, 2004; Lindstrom and Jeffries, 2004). Followers of a more traditional
approach believe that agile is more chaotic and lacks the formal procedural rigor that the
former possess (Vinekar et al., 2006), affecting project success. The question about the value
and effectiveness of different project management approaches in different contextual
conditions could be raised.
Empirical studies comparing traditional and agile project management approaches were
recommended by several authors so far (Ahimbisibwe et al., 2015; Lappi et al., 2018;
Niederman et al., 2018).
Some of the recent researches have delved deeper into this topic and made a significant
contribution to understanding the impact that agile versus traditional approaches can have
on project success. Serrador and Pinto (2015) explored the efficacy of the agile approach
through a comprehensive and large-scale empirical analysis of projects being developed with
varying levels of agile approaches and their subsequent likelihood of success. They provided
valuable research findings supporting the agile project management approach. They found
that the level of agile used in projects has a statistically significant impact on project success
but is limited a way in that it covers just the following two dimensions of success as judged by
efficiency and stakeholder satisfaction and two items taken as a measure of the agile in the
project (how much agile process is used in the project; how much planning is completed
during execution). This research did not directly compared the impact of agile with other
approaches such as traditional and hybrid. The most recent study done by Gemino et al.
(2020) goes one step further. It considers the relative impact of three project management
approaches – traditional, agile and hybrid on project success. They also confirmed the value
of agile in delivering stakeholder satisfaction. Namely, both agile and hybrid approaches
outperformed traditional approaches with regard to this project success dimension. On the
other hand, the three approaches exhibited similar performance levels on budget and time
success and scope and quality success dimension. This research is also limited to the
aforementioned project success dimensions and the fact that it focused on the project, not the
surrounding organization or industry. The global reach was also limited, as most projects Project
were completed in North America. management
More research in this field is needed, comparing these approaches taking into account
different contextual conditions and multidimensional aspects of project success, signaling a
approach
clear gap in the literature.
Following the aforementioned, this research is underpinned by the following research
questions: How agile, hybrid, and traditional project management approaches differentiate
concerning their impact on individual project success dimensions? Do specific project
characteristics differentiate agile, hybrid, and traditional project management approaches
concerning their impact on individual project success dimensions?
We empirically addressed these questions on a sample of 227 project professionals
worldwide. Research results provided more extensive evidence and findings for scholars and
practitioners that could support project management approach selection in various
contextual settings, to achieve project success and more visible results.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. The following section reviews the literature
on agile, traditional and hybrid approaches in project management and project success. In
Section 3, the project management approach and its relationship to project success are
discussed. The research framework and hypothesis are presented, followed by explaining the
research instrument, research data collection process, and sample demographics in Section 4.
In Section 5, statistical data and results are presented, and Section 6 gives a discussion of
results followed by a conclusion with limitations and directions for future research.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Discussion of traditional, agile and hybrid project management approach
The managing principles established in the 1950s stipulated that project management should
be uniquely applied to each project. Such a uniform application should ensure robustness and
applicability to a wide range of projects, from simple and small projects to the most complex

and large ones (Spundak, 2014).
The traditional project management approach includes highly disciplined and thoughtful
planning and control methods, based on logical sequencing activities, emphasizing the
importance of planning (Conforto et al., 2014; Serrador and Pinto, 2015), but is limited by the
fact that projects rarely follow the sequential flow. The basic idea behind the traditional,
rational and normative approach is that projects are relatively predictable and linear, with
clearly defined constraints and project goals (DeCarlo, 2004; Fernandez and Fernandez, 2008).
Such projects are expected to have a very low rate of change in requirements, and no major
end-customer involvement in the project is needed. The emphasis is placed on planning and
linear monitoring to optimize project activities and efficiency in their execution (Boehm, 2002;
DeCarlo, 2004; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007; Boehm and Turner, 2005; Williams, 2005; Wysocki,
2009). After all, the traditional approach is often the best fit in a stable environment where a
defined result needs to be delivered for a fixed budget. Such projects are usually known to the
organization, or similar projects have already been realized in the past.
Although the good practice and efficiency of the traditional project management approach
has been proven and distributed around the world for decades (Crawford, 2006; Kloppenborg
and Opfer, 2002; Kolltveit et al., 2007; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007), specific problems may arise
when this approach is applied in a dynamic environment, on projects that contain a certain
degree of innovation and uncertainty. Today, most innovative products are developed under
uncertainties where a plan-oriented traditional project management approach has reached its
limits. This approach is characterized by inflexibility for adapting to project uncertainty,
implying changing customer requirements and unpredictable activities, and to project
complexity implying complex relationships both within the project team as well as with
IJMPB internal and external stakeholders where the traditional approaches have reached their limits
(Chin, 2004; Bergmann and Karwowski, 2019). Therefore, in uncertain situations where
project complexity and ambiguity in requirements are significant, and the level of experience
with tools and techniques used within the development environment is minimal, a less rigid
management approach is needed.
Limitations imposed on the traditional project management approach caused by the
growing demands for continuous innovation, followed by the pressure to reduce costs, have
affected all industries, resulting in the emergence of new project management approaches.
These emergence approaches were closely linked to the information technology (IT) sector
and software development due to the significant specifics that characterize this sector. A high
level of uncertainty characterizes such projects, vague objectives or incomplete and
unpredictable requirements, which one might assume will change significantly during the
project (Boehm, 2002; DeCarlo, 2004; Hass, 2007; Highsmith, 2004; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007;
Wysocki, 2009). Project management in the IT sector has become increasingly challenging.
Short deadlines, daily technological advances and changing demands have forced the
profession to deliver competitive software to the market faster and faster.
Project management practitioners are aware that various projects need different project
management approaches (Ciric et al., 2016). Consequently, new project management
approaches have emerged under different names, emphasizing differentiation from the
traditional one, even in its own name. The word chosen to distinguish these new approaches

from the existing one was agility (Spundak, 2014).
In 2001, prominent software development practitioners convened to arrive at a consensus
on how the software development industry could produce better results and overcome
limitations (Hass, 2007) of traditional software development. It is generally accepted that the
agile project management approach has emerged from the Agile Manifesto (Beck et al., 2001),
which constitutes 12 principles and four values for agile software development and compacts
the basic idea of the agile movement. The agile approach implies a set of management
practices based on iterative cycles and incremental development, where requirements and
solutions evolve and prioritize through collaboration between self-organizing, cross-
functional teams and customers (Denning, 2013; Boehm and Turner, 2005). It aims to
promote a better understanding of the project complexity through decomposition and
emphasizes the project system’s flexibility to a permanently changing environment (Chen
et al., 2007). The agile approach aims to achieve customer satisfaction, taking as naturally
that the client will have frequent changes to the request. These changes will be adopted
during development through the iterative process. In an agile project, change is the norm, not
the exception. According to different project parameters identified in the literature,
differences between agile and traditional project management approaches are presented in
Table 1.
The traditional approach is comprehensive, and for decades has been proven to work in
the management of various project types. Simultaneously, the agile approach adds new ideas
and offers solutions to the challenges posed by technological development to project
management, initially in the software industry. But any of these two is not an all-or-nothing
approach. The “command and control” traditional management style, used in many
industries and projects, provides a sense of trust and security. In contrast, an agile approach
facilitates leadership, encourages creativity and motivates the team (Owen et al., 2006).
However, this is not an absolute proposition and choice, whether full control or no control
(Cobb, 2015). There are many ways to achieve the right balance of control over agility.
After the agile approach came to life and experienced its expansion in the software
industry, some software companies began to incorporate specific agile practices into their
existing management processes, thus creating hybrid models. Their experience suggests that
agile and traditional approaches could be combined to use their advantages’ synergy (Cooper,
Project parameter Traditional Agile Representative source Project

management
Scope Known early, largely stable; Largely emergent, rapid Spundak (2014), Lappi et al.
designed for current change; designed for current (2018), Serrador and Pinto (2015), approach
requirements and foreseeable requirements Boehm et al. (2002)
Project plan Linear Iterative 
Spundak (2014), Ahimbisibwe
et al. (2015)
Team Plan oriented; less collaboration Collaborative; agile Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015),
collaboration Boehm et al. (2002)
Team location Distributed due to different Co-located; all located at the Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015),
physical locations same place 
Spundak (2014), Boehm et al.
(2002)
Team Strict separation of roles; access Self-organized and cross- Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015)
organization to external knowledge; pre- functional teams; 100%
structured teams; spread across dedicated to the project
different projects
Management style Command and control Leadership and collaboration Nerur et al. (2005), Ahimbisibwe
et al. (2015), Dyba and Dingsøyr
(2004)
Customer Minimal commitments; not co- Dedicated, knowledgeable; co- Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015),
located and not empowered located; representative, 
Spundak (2014), Boehm et al.
frequent collaboration (2002)
Development Linear or incremental Evolutionary-delivery model Nerur et al. (2005), Ahimbisibwe
model (anticipatory) (iterative or adaptive models) et al. (2015), Dyba and Dingsøyr
(2004)
Fundamental Systems are fully specifiable, Continuous design Nerur et al. (2005), Ahimbisibwe
assumption predictable, and are built improvement and testing et al. (2015), Dyba and Dingsøyr
through meticulous and based on rapid feedback and (2004)
extensive planning change
Quality control Substantial planning and strict Continuous control of Nerur et al. (2005), Ahimbisibwe
control; late heavy testing requirements; design and et al. (2015), Dyb
a and Dingsøyr
solutions, continuous testing (2004)
Prioritization Manager negotiated; scope- Client prioritized; time-boxed By the authors of this article
based delivery delivery
Requirements Clear initial requirements; low Creative, innovative; Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015),
change rate expected requirements unclear; changes 
Spundak (2014), Boehm et al.
expected (2002)
Refactoring Expensive, difficult to Inexpensive, easy to Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015),
implement implement Boehm et al. (2002)
Organizational Mechanistic (bureaucratic with Organic (flexible and Nerur et al. (2005), Ahimbisibwe
form/structure high formalization and rigid participative encouraging et al. (2015), Dyba and Dingsøyr
procedures) cooperative social action, (2004)
adaptable procedures)
Team size Larger teams Smaller teams Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015),

Spundak (2014), Boehm et al.
(2002)
Project size Bigger projects Smaller projects 
Spundak (2014)
Knowledge Explicit Tacit 
Nerur et al. (2005), Spundak
management (2014), Boehm et al. (2002),
Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015), Dyb a
and Dingsøyr (2004)
Communication Formal Informal Nerur et al. (2005), Ahimbisibwe
et al. (2015), Dyba and Dingsøyr
(2004)
Table 1.

Source(s): Adapted by the authors from Serrador and Pinto (2015), Spundak (2014), Lappi et al. (2018), Agile vs. traditional
Ahimbisibwe et al. (2015), Dyb
a and Dingsøyr (2004), Imreh and Raisinghani (2011), Nerur et al. (2005) and approach in project
Boehm et al. (2002) management

2016). By introducing a hybrid approach, organizations can benefit from agile practices
without abandoning the traditional approach’s stability (Barlow et al., 2011). Many
organizations successfully use hybrid models to introduce new features quickly, respond
IJMPB to change, improve team performance while ensuring proper system documentation, and
utilize traditional business analysis techniques to help keep a project on track (Conforto and
Amaral, 2015; Sommer et al., 2015; Cooper, 2016; Cooper, 2016; Lehnen, 2016). However, the
mechanisms driving the positive effects of hybrid models remain mostly unknown.

2.2 Project success

Projects differ in terms of complexity, size, value, length and type; thus, there is a divergence
of opinions on what constitutes project success and criteria by which a project is judged
(Pinto and Slevin, 1988; Freeman and Beale, 1992; Gemuenden and Lechler, 1997; Shenhar
et al., 1997; M€uller and Turner, 2007; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007; Khan et al., 2013; Lisher and
Shtub, 2019). There is no single adopted concept for measuring project success,
and consequently, different models and frameworks have been developed (Mir and
Pinnington, 2014).
Project success measure criteria have evolved from simple quantifiable time, scope
and cost, which primarily are related to project efficiency (Atkinson, 1999; Bryde, 2005;
Carvalho et al., 2015), to a multidimensional construct that, besides the short term, have a long
term perspective directly relating to effectiveness and organizational impact (Judgev et al.,
2001; Khan et al., 2013; Pacagnella et al., 2019; Shenhar and Dvir, 2007). The focus is on
achieving organization goals, the project purpose and the customer’s satisfaction with the
product (Albert et al., 2017).
Indeed, the short-term view triple constraints are essential, but they are often less
important than customer satisfaction in stakeholders’ long-term view (Shenhar and Dvir,
2007). M€ uller and Jugdev (2012) describe project success as “predominately in the eyes of the
beholder,” meaning one stakeholder may consider a project successful, where another
stakeholder would consider it a failure. The same is argued by Nara et al. (2015), including
that the project success depends on the type of project, the temporal perspective and the
organization. Shenhar et al. (1997) advocated that projects are strategic, and project success
should be assessed according to short-term and long-term project objectives. They proposed
a comprehensive multidimensional framework for determining project success, including five
dimensions, with assessment criteria presented in Table 2. This framework was cited and
used in many project management studies (Pacagnella et al., 2019; Serrador and Pinto, 2015;
Mir and Pinnington, 2014; M€ uller and Jugdev, 2012; Bryde, 2008). The model presented by
Shenhar et al. (1997) was selected to assess project success in this research.

3. Research framework: project management approach and its relationship to

project success
Linking project management approach with project success was a topic of interest for many
authors (Pacagnella et al., 2019; Rolstadas et al., 2019; Joslin, 2017; Badewi, 2016; Carvalho
et al., 2015; Inayat et al., 2014; Joslin and M€
uller, 2014; Mir and Pinnington, 2014; Dvir et al.,
2003a, b). However, these studies looked at this linkage through different lenses, i.e. the
governance of the project, project management performance, project management enablers
and efforts, individual project management practices, and their impact on project success,
usually referring to project success as one-dimensional phenomena.
As argued by some authors, the traditional project management approach that
exclusively pursues the success criteria of costs, time, quality and meeting technical
requirements and the project plan has become considered ineffective (Bourne et al., 2000;
Walton and Dawson, 2001). Serrador and Pinto (2015) and Gemino et al. (2020) provided some
valuable research findings supporting agile project management approach. Both studies
found that the level of agile used in projects significantly increase stakeholder success. In
Project Success Dimension Measures
Project
management
Project efficiency Meeting schedule goal approach
Meeting budget goal
Impact on the team Team morale
Skill development
Team member growth
Team member retention
Impact on the customer Meeting functional performance
Meeting technical specifications
Fulfilling customer’s needs
Solving customer’s problem
The customer is using the products
Customer satisfaction
Business success Commercial success Table 2.
Creating a large market share The five dimensions of
Preparing for the future Creating a new market project success after
Creating a new product line Shenhar and
Developing a new technology Dvir (2007)

addition, Serrador and Pinto (2015) confirmed the positive impact on project success, as
judged by efficiency (project budget, time and scope goals). Even though frequent changes in
requirements could negatively affect project success, the agile approach is more likely to be
successful than the traditional one when the requirements change rate is high since it has
been specifically developed to address the circumstances when requirements and
specifications change frequently. Iterative delivery helps reduce uncertainty and leads the
project through uncertainty while basing on customer feedback for continuous quality
improvements (Ahimbisibwe et al., 2015). Close customer collaboration and user participation
are some of the main pillars of the agile approach. Although it could be assumed that close
collaboration with the customer, and his continuous involvement in the development process,
can further encourage suggestions for changes in the specification, which may increase
variations in the budget, Yetton et al. (2000) found that customer involvement can also reduce
budget variations by managing expectations and resolving potential problems quickly. The
positive impact of continued customer collaboration on the software development project’s
success has been proven in several studies (Chow and Cao, 2008; Misra et al., 2009).
Both agile and traditional project management approaches bring specific challenges when
analyzing their suitability for projects of different characteristics. To overcome these
challenges, the concept of a hybrid project management approach was introduced, which
unites and combines the features, principles, values and practices of both agile and traditional
approaches (Mohanarajah, 2015). Various studies confirmed the effectiveness of the hybrid
project management approach (Gemino et al., 2020; Serrador and Pinto, 2015; Conforto and
Amaral, 2015; Cooper, 2016; Sommer et al., 2015). Gemino et al. (2020) suggested, based on
their research results, that hybrid is a leading project management approach. Sommer et al.,
2015 conducted in-depth case studies within seven manufacturing companies to explore how
agile/traditional hybrids can improve product development performance. They indicated
several advantages of hybrid processes: increased team productivity, improved
communication and coordination, improved morale and motivation, a better fit between
the work process and methods, more flexibility in the design process. Conforto and Amaral
(2015) examined applying a hybrid approach in technology-based projects as part of a case
study. The research results showed a positive impact on the performance of the project and
the product development process. The authors pointed out the importance of combining these
two approaches to balance the stability and flexibility necessary for managing innovation
IJMPB projects in high-tech companies. Research findings by Carvalho et al. (2012) also indicated a
positive impact of applying the hybrid approach. The combination of rigorous requirements
management, guided by the traditional approach, and taking advantage of the agile process
dynamics resulted in a 16% increase in productivity.
Based on the literature review and previous research findings, our a priori contention is
that the agile or hybrid project management approach could be more successful than the
traditional approach concerning its impact on individual project success dimensions.
For research purposes, we considered.
P1. The agile or hybrid project management approach is more successful than the
traditional approach concerning the perceived impact on individual project success
dimensions.
The following hypotheses, from H1 to H5, will be tested to test the relevance of this
proposition:
H1. The agile or hybrid project management approach is more successful than the
traditional approach concerning the perceived impact on project efficiency.
H2. The agile or hybrid project management approach is more successful than the
traditional approach concerning the perceived impact on team satisfaction.
H3. The agile or hybrid project management approach is more successful than the
traditional approach concerning the perceived impacts on customer/client
satisfaction.
H4. The agile or hybrid project management approach is more successful than the
traditional approach concerning the perceived impact on business and direct
organizational success.
H5. The agile or hybrid project management approach is more successful than the
traditional approach concerning the perceived impact on preparation for the future.

3.1 Variables moderating the relationship between project management approach and
projects success
Different industries may have various project management needs depending on the project
type and its frame conditions (Rolstadas et al., 2019; Collyer et al., 2010). This may have an
impact on the need for planning and the effect of planning on success. So, the first two
moderating variables are defined as follows:

Organization industry (clustered in non-information and information technologies)

Project type (clustered in non-software and software development projects)
According to Wysocki (2009), as project technical complexity increases, a more flexible and
adaptive project management process is needed. As opposed to that, Shenhar and Dvir (2007)
and Highsmith (2010) indicate the need to resort to a more formal, traditional approach when
project complexity increases. Serrador and Pinto (2015) found that project complexity does
not moderate the relationship between agile and project success, taking into account two
dimensions: efficiency and overall stakeholder satisfaction. Furthermore, the use of new
technologies in projects increases uncertainty and requires a team to adapt as they learn.
According to Shenhar and Dvir (2007), projects with a higher level of technological
uncertainty may increase budgets and longer projects and require a more formal approach
indicating better planning and control. The agile project management approach was
developed to respond to change and uncertainty in requirements and reduce the cost of
change throughout the project (Cockburn and Highsmith, 2001). Regardless of the industry or Project
technology involved, Shenhar and his associates identified four dimensions to distinguish management
among projects: novelty, technology, complexity and pace (Shenhar, 2001; Shenhar and Dvir,
2007). Together, these four dimensions create the NTCP model and form a context-free
approach
framework for selecting the proper management style. These variables were included as
remain four moderators in our research:

Novelty – how new the product is to the customers and the market (derivative, platform
and breakthrough).

Technology – the extent of use of new or even non-existing technology at the time of
project initiation (low-tech, medium-tech, high-tech and super-high-tech).

Complexity – is a measure of the project scope, reflected in characteristics such as the
number of tasks and the degree of interdependency (where the project’s product is
located on the scale from a simple component to an array).

Pace – how urgent the project is at the time of initiation, the criticality of the project’s
completion time (regular, fast/competitive, time-critical and blitz).
For research purposes, we considered.
P2. Project characteristics moderate the difference in the level of impact that an agile,
hybrid or traditional project management approach has on the perceived impact on
individual project success dimensions.
The following hypotheses, from H1a to H5a, will be tested to test the relevance of this
proposition.
H1a. Project characteristics moderate the impact that an agile, hybrid or traditional
project management approach has on the perceived impact on the project efficiency.
H2a. Project characteristics moderate the impact that an agile, hybrid or traditional
project management approach has on the perceived impacts on team satisfaction.
H3a. Project characteristics moderate the impact that an agile, hybrid or traditional
project management approach has on the perceived impact on customer/client
satisfaction.
H4a. Project characteristics moderate the impact that an agile, hybrid or traditional
project management approach has on the perceived impact on business and direct
organizational success.
H5a. Project characteristics moderate the impact that an agile, hybrid or traditional project
management approach has on the perceived impact on preparation for the future.
This research includes a project management approach as an independent variable and
project success as a dependent variable, with six moderating variables representing project
characteristics. The research framework is graphically presented in Figure 1.

4. Research instrument, research data collection process and sample

demographics
4.1 Research instrument
This research can be considered descriptive and explanatory. It follows a quantitative
approach, being implemented through the survey method. The questionnaire used for the
survey had four sections with 66 questions. In the first section, respondents gave their
background information. In the second section, respondents were asked to select one project,
IJMPB

Figure 1.
Research framework

concluded in the last year, in their organization, and answer all further questions concerning
that project. In the third section, the project management approach applied to that particular
project was assessed, and the fourth section was dedicated to project success assessment.
This research used a self-reporting (subjective) assessment of the project management
approach and project success, as perceived by respondents. The project management
approach and project success assessment factors were operationalized with 44 manifest
variables in the questionnaire. According to the results of previous studies, literature review,
and relevant literature sources (see Table 1), the project management approach, as the
independent variable, was operationalized with 21 questions and analyzed through
differentiation between agile and traditional project management approach.
The variables were classified into five groups: (1) project initiation and planning, (2)
personnel management, (3) customer involvement, (4) modularity of work and (5)
troubleshooting. Each group describes a specific managerial aspect of the project
management process and is entitled to that by the authors to simplify the questionnaire’s
clarity. Project initiation and planning include four questions describing the project’s
initiation process (definition, clarity and stability of project scope and the upfront planning
level). Personnel management consists of five questions describing the team and the manager
role (how the team collaborates, the team members’ location, the organization of the work, and
manager role). Customer involvement includes two questions describing the importance and
the level of customer involvement throughout the project life cycle. The modularity of work
consists of five questions describing the development process (the value of modularized and
incremental work, sequence of iterations, prioritization). Trouble-shooting includes five Project
questions explaining how changes in requirements are managed and implemented. management
While the fife-dimension framework (see Table 2) for assessing project success, as a
dependent variable, consisted of (1) impact on the project efficiency, (2) impact on the team, (3)
approach
impact on the customer, (4) impact on the business and direct organizational success and (5)
impact on the preparation for the future, taking the project success assessment questionnaire
proposed by Shenhar and Dvir (2007). Following relevant literature sources, only variables
with the theoretical background and academic validation in previous studies constituted
research dimensions.
For conducting face validity, the final version of the questionnaire was tested with a group
of University professors dealing with project management and 30 project managers from
various industry sectors. The final version of the questionnaire, in section project
management approach, was consisted of 4 questions for project initiation, five questions
for personnel management, two questions for customer involvement, five questions for
modularity of work, and five questions for trouble-shooting. The operationalization of project
success was measured with at least four manifest variables for project efficiency, impact on the
customer, five questions for impact on the team, business and directional success, and
preparing for the future.
To capture respondents’ subjective estimates about the project management approach
applied in a particular project, a continuum of seven-point, bipolar Likert type scale was used
(Nunnaly and Bernstein, 1994), where a far-left point (i.e. 1) is a measure of a strong, agile
approach, opposed to a far-right measure of strong, traditional approach (i.e. 7). The medium-
scale section (i.e. 4) was designed to indicate the hybrid approach (nor strongly in agile or
traditional, but a mixture of these two). Given that they are different by nature, in contrast to
the afore-mentioned, a unipolar, five-point Likert type scale was used (Nunnaly and
Bernstein, 1994) to measure respondents’ perception of project success dimensions (1 –
strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree).

4.2 Sample and data collection

The sample used in this research is non-probabilistic and individuals were selected using
expert sampling as a type of purposive sampling technique. The distribution process was
done electronically through the PMI (Project Management Institute) worldwide network of
project management professionals. Invitations were sent by email, via surveymonkey.com, to
PMI members, and posted in PMI communities or PMI LinkedIn and other professional
groups.
The distribution process was conducted following Dillman’s approach (Dillman and
Smyth, 2008). Thus, only one reply was accepted by the respondents. To ensure the receipt of
one response per respondent, multiply answers were unable in SurveyMonkey questionnaire
settings, only allowing the survey to be taken once from the same device. Moreover, given
that Dillman’s approach utilities social exchange theory, the dissemination process was
followed by a series of follow-up email reminders. After the two months, responses were
obtained from 314 respondents. The exact number of targeted project professionals and
response rate could not be defined as various PMI chapters distributed the questionnaire
through their communities and different channels with no specific information concerning
the number of persons contacted. However, only 227 received responses were considered and
treated as a “completed survey.” In other words, 87 responses were omitted from the final
respondents’ database due to the potential risk of non-engaged bias, measured by the very
low standard deviations in responses (below 0.2) or with the low percentage of non-completed
questions (below 70%). To ensure sample representativeness, 227 respondents were
IJMPB compared with the omitted ones. The results show there are no differences between these
groups.

4.3 Sample demographics

The sample consisted of respondents across different categories of age, education and years
of work experience. 227 respondents were from 49 different countries worldwide,
encompassed staff with vast project management working experience. 148 respondents
had 10 or more years of project management working experience (with 48 of them with 20–
30 years and 8 with more than 30 years), and more than 80% of respondents have a
professional PM certification.
The organizations where respondents were employed and to which all furthered questions
are related varied in size with 43 (18.9%) organizations with 1–50 employees, 30 (13.2%) with
51–200 employees, 21 (9.3%) with 201–500 employees, 27 (11.9%) 501–1,000 employees and
106 (46.7%) with over 1,000 employees. Respondents came from organizations from diverse
industries: 25% from IT, 11.5% finance and financial services, 8.8% construction, machinery,
and homes, 8.4% telecommunications, 7.5% utilities, energy, and extraction, 7.5%
government, 5.3% education, 4.8% manufacturing, 4% healthcare and pharmaceuticals,
3.1% business support and logistics, 3.1% insurance, 2.2% airlines and aerospace (including
defense), 1.8% food and beverages, 1.8% transportation and delivery and other industries
have less than 1% (advertising and marketing, automotive, nonprofit, real estate). The
sample structure for the moderating variable is given in Table 3.

5. Results
5.1 Exploratory factor analysis
The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of project success dimensions was done for two main
reasons. First, aside from theoretical validations in prior studies (Mir and Pinnington, 2014;
Shenhar and Dvir, 2007; Shenhar et al., 2001), it was essential to validate these factors’
constitution concerning their manifest variables. Second, previous studies did not mention
any specifics about the construct robustness and structural consistency across different
states and organizational types. Such differences might affect the composition of research
constructs by their respective manifest variables.
Subsequently, the authors Shenhar et al. (2001), in their study, have empirically validated
only four out of five factors constituting the project success (i.e. project efficiency, impact on
the customer, business success and preparing for the future). The fifth factor, impact on the
team, was, eventually, proposed and incorporated into the same authors (Shenhar and Dvir,
2007). This five-factor solution to project success was empirically tested in a study conducted
by Mir and Pinnington (2014) afterward. However, to empirically validate the constitution of
these factors by their respectful manifest variables, the authors have used PCA (principal
component analysis), which is, opposed to the factor extraction method used in this research
(i.e. maximum likelihood), a simple linear combination of manifest variables (Hair et al., 2009).
Thus, bearing in mind the results and diversity of methodological approaches in previous
studies, EFA was conducted to validate and confirm the constitution of these factors, by their
respectful manifest variables (i.e. (1) project efficiency, (2) impact on the team, (3) impact on the
customer, (4) business and direct organizational success and (5) preparing for the future). For
EFA, the maximum likelihood method of extraction was used. A un-rotated factor solution
was examined first. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy) has
yielded a value of 0.877, while Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant
(p < 0.01, df 5 210). These values were acceptable (Thompshon, 2004). Concerning the
eigenvalues greater than one, the extraction results have yielded a five-factor solution
 Percent
Project
Type of variable Frequency (%) management
approach
Organization industry clustered in non-information and information technologies
Non-information technologies 165 72.7
Information technologies 57 25.1
Missing 5 2.2
Project type clustered in non-software and software development
Non-software development 160 70.5
Software development 67 29.5
Type of project client/customers
An internal client 75 33.0
External client 145 63.9
Other 7 3.1
Project length
To 6 months 45 19.8
6 months to 1 year 79 34.8
1–2 years 64 28.2
More than 2 years 39 17.2
Project value
To $100.000,00 57 25.1
$100.000,00–$500.000,00 55 24.2
$500.000,00–$2 million 51 22.5
Over $2 million 64 28.2
Team size
Less than 8 members 82 36.1
8–15 members 76 33.5
More than 15 members 69 30.4
Project complexity level
I level “assembly” 70 30.8
II level “system” 157 69.2
Project novelty level
Products, services, features new to the market 68 30
Product, service (project output) totally new to the organization (but not for the 50 22.0
market)
Some components features new to the organization (but not for the market) 63 27.8
Routine operation – not new for the organization neither for the market 46 20.3
Project technology utilization
Low-tech 43 18.9
Medium-tech 112 49.3
High-tech 72 31.7
Project pace
Regular-time 57 25.1
Fast-competitive 110 48.5 Table 3.
Time-critical 60 26.4 The sample structure

(Thompshon, 2004). The five-factor solution was also confirmed by the values of the scree plot
(Thompshon, 2004). Eigenvalues were also acceptable. Moreover, the five-factor solution has
yielded a good result in the percent of the cumulative sample variance (68%). The explained
variance of the five-factor solution is given in Table 4.
IJMPB Consequently, the rotated factor solution, with a fixed number of five factors, was applied.
Since the relevant literature sources did not mention that factors should not be correlated, the
promax method of rotation was used (Thompshon, 2004). Among 23 items, two items had a
very low factor loading scores. Thus, these items were omitted from the matrix structure
(Thompshon, 2004). The values of factor loadings for the remaining 21 items were following
literature recommendations (Thompshon, 2004). Hence, the final, five-factor solution for EFA
was accepted. This is shown in Table 5.
The remaining items formed a five-factor solution for project success. Thus, the first factor
was identified as “Impact on the team” (I53.2-I53.1), followed by the “Impact on the Customer/
Client” (I54.4-I54.1), “Business and Direct Organizational Success” (I55.2-I55.4), “Preparing for
the Future” (I56.5-I56.3) and “Project efficiency” (I52.1 and I52.2), respectively. This final
solution is further analyzed by the Cronbach’s alpha test of reliability α ≥ 0.7 (Nunnaly and
Bernstein, 1994), while the associations between these constructs were tested by Spearman’s
correlations (Hair et al., 2009). These values were acceptable (Thompshon, 2004). This is
shown in Table 6.
Thus, the results of EFA provided the empirical validation of project success factors. The
constitution of five factors of project success, concerning their manifest variables, was
empirically tested. It could be argued that project success factors are robust and structurally
consistent across different origins of the respondents (i.e. states) and organizational types.
For further analysis, EFA results were recorded as regression latent factor scores.

5.2 Cluster analysis of project management approach

The K-means cluster method was used to distinguish respondents’ profiles among agile,
hybrid and traditional project management approaches. This method’s application was
carried out following previous studies in project management, where cluster analysis was
commonly applied (e.g. Yang et al., 2011; Huang and Han, 2008; Reyck et al., 2005). In a study
by Reyck et al. (2005), the grouping of organizations with different levels of project portfolio
management (PPM) adoption was done with the K-means method of clustering. Using this
multivariate statistical method, the authors could classify elements into relatively
homogenous groups by minimizing the variance in using PPM approaches within the
groups and maximizing the variance across the research groups. Similarly, Hunag and Han
(2008) have used cluster analysis to classify software projects according to project duration.
The authors have observed the statistically significant distance between group means of
clusters to distinguish among research groups. In the study of Yang et al. (2011), identifying
homogenous project clusters with the same perceptions of teamwork was also carried out
with K-means clustering as a primary classification method.
Thus, to continue the empirically validated good research practice in project management,
K-means of clustering were also used in this research. Given that the cluster analysis requires
continuous data (Hair et al., 2009), the summation of respondents’ scores was conducted
across 21 manifest variables. This way, the composite value was obtained for each row (i.e.
response). Presumably, the number of clusters was set to three (i.e. agile, hybrid and

Factor Eigenvalue % Variance Cumulative %

1 7.971 37.955 37.955

2 2.003 9.540 47.495
Table 4. 3 1.818 8.657 56.152
Five-factor solution 4 1.375 6.548 62.700
explained variance 5 1.071 5.101 67.801
Manifest variable Fac. 1 Fac. 2 Fac. 3 Fac. 4 Fac. 5
Project
management
I53.2 0.830 approach
I53.3 0.779
I53.5 0.778
I53.4 0.764
I53.1 0.740
I54.4 0.866
I54.3 0.815
I54.2 0.788
I54.1 0.636
I55.2 0.940
I55.3 0.742
I55.1 0.736
I55.5 0.375
I55.4 0.332
I56.5 0.817
I56.1 0.631
I56.4 0.580
I56.2 0.538
I56.3 0.421 Table 5.
I52.1 0.872 Rotated, five-factor
I52.2 0.793 solution

No Construct Items α 1 2 3 4 5

1 Impact on the team I53.2-I53.1 0.896 1

2 Impact on the customer/Client I54.4-I54.1 0.873 0.60* 1
3 Bus. and org. success I55.2-I55.4 0.839 0.47* 0.52* 1
4 Preparing for the future I56.5-I56.3 0.754 0.50* 0.39* 0.43* Table 6.
5 Project efficiency I52.1, I52.2 0.783 0.55* 0.65* 0.50* 0.37* 1 Rotated, five-factor
Note(s): *Significant at the level 0.01 level (2-tailed) solution

traditional). After six iterations, the values of cluster centers do not significantly change.
Thus, we could presume that the composite variable’s cluster analysis has yielded an
acceptable solution (Hair et al., 2009).
Moreover, the ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) test has shown statistically significant
differences between the final cluster mean values concerning their mutual distances
(F 5 468.567, p < 0.01). Hence, it could be said that the three-cluster solution is stable (Hair et
al., 2009), where cluster 1 captures the middle values of the composite variable (i.e. hybrid
approach), while cluster 2 and 3 are leaning towards the opposite sides of each other (far left –
agile, far-right – traditional, respectively). Cluster analysis statistics are shown in Table 7.
An additional descriptive data about the main cluster characteristics are presented in the
Table A1 in Appendix, which provides a cross tabulation of clusters (agile, hybrid,
traditional) with a distribution of organizational size and industry sector across clusters.

5.3 Testing research hypotheses

Similar to the previous studies in project management (e.g. Reyck et al., 2005; Yang et al.,
2011), to test the significance among research groups, the research hypotheses H1 to H5 were
tested with ANOVA tests. Specifically, the differences in EFA regression latent factor scores
IJMPB Cluster 1 – Hybrid Cluster 2 – Agile Cluster 3 –Trad

Initial cluster centers

88.0 43.0 133.0
Changes in cluster centers
Iteration 1 0.749 12.500 12.643
Iteration 2 0.394 5.341 6.714
Iteration 3 0.220 2.808 4.038
Iteration 4 0.119 1.242 1.217
Iteration 5 0.312 0.497 0.000
Iteration 6 0.000 0.000 0.000
Final cluster centers
87.86 65.39 108.39
Distance between final cluster centers
Cluster 1 0 – –
Cluster 2 22.468 0 –
Cluster 3 20.532 43.000 0
Table 7.
Cluster analysis Number of cases per cluster
statistics 111 67 49

of project success dimensions were compared across the project management approach (i.e.
cluster 1 – hybrid, cluster 2 – agile, cluster 3 – traditional).
The results have shown a statistically significant difference in the case of two project
success dimensions: “impact on the team” and “preparing for the future.” The results of the
homogeneity of variances tests between clustered groups speak in favor of these results. The
ANOVA descriptives are given in Table 8, while the tests of homogeneity of variance and
ANOVA test results of hypotheses are shown in Tables 9 and 10, respectively.
The posthoc tests for the hypothesis of H1 and H5 further reveal the nature of these
differences. Specifically, regarding the “impact on the team,” there is a clear distinction
between agile and traditional approaches. A more agile-oriented approach produces a
significantly more significant positive impact on the team. This assumption is strongly
endorsed, given that the difference is evident in all posthoc tests (Tukey HSD, LSD, and
Bonferroni; p < 0.05; Hair et al., 2009). Similarly, in the case of “preparing for the future,” the
agile approach, opposed to hybrid and traditional ones, also have a distinctively significant
greater impact (Tukey HSD, LSD, and Bonferroni; p < 0.05; Hair et al., 2009). However, given
the inconsistent results of p-values of the Bonferroni test (p > 0.05; Hair et al., 2009), a similar
assumption is not met regarding the differences between hybrid and traditional approaches.

5.4 Inclusion of the moderating variables

To test the research hypothesis, H2a to H5a moderating variables were included, and the
ANOVA results were further analyzed. H2a and H5a were analyzed because only in these two
dimensions (impact on the team, preparing for the future) there is a statistical difference
among hybrid, agile, and traditional project management approaches.
The regression analysis was used to test the impact of moderating variables across three
clusters of project management approach – agile, hybrid and traditional. Model fit statistics
are given in Table 11, while regression analyses are to be found in Table 12. The model fit
statistics show that the agile approach is statistically significant in both dependent variables.
In contrast, the hybrid approach is only acceptable in the case of an impact on the team.
Impact on the customer/ Std. Std. Lower Upper
Project
client N Mean dev error bond* bond* management
approach
Hybrid 111 0.099 0.946 0.09 0.277 0.08
Agile 67 0.203 0.947 0.116 0.029 0.434
Traditional 49 0.054 0.984 0.141 0.336 0.23
Impact on the team
Hybrid 111 0.027 0.883 0.084 0.193 0.14
Agile 67 0.227 0.985 0.121 0.014 0.467
Traditional 49 0.25 1.034 0.148 0.546 0.048
Business and direct organizational success
Hybrid 111 0.013 0.875 0.084 0.152 0.178
Agile 67 0.065 1.083 0.133 0.2 0.329
Traditional 49 0.117 0.888 0.127 0.372 0.139
Preparing for the future
Hybrid 111 0.073 0.865 0.083 0.235 0.091
Agile 67 0.431 0.864 0.106 0.22 0.641
Traditional 49 0.426 0.835 0.12 0.666 0.186
Project efficiency
Hybrid 111 0.038 0.868 0.083 0.201 0.127
Agile 67 0.162 0.977 0.12 0.077 0.4
Traditional 49 0.137 0.999 0.143 0.424 0.151 Table 8.
Note(s): *95% Confidence Interval for Mean ANOVA descriptives

Levene statistic df1 df2 Sig. (p)

Impact on the customer/client 0.123 2 224 0.885

Impact on the team 0.437 2 224 0.646
Business and direct organizational success 2.183 2 224 0.115 Table 9.
Preparing for the future 0.801 2 224 0.450 Test of homogeneity of
Project efficiency 1.717 2 224 0.182 variances

Hypothesis Dimension F Sig. (p) H supported?

H1 Project efficiency 1.631 0.198 NO

H2 Impact on the team 3.652 0.027** YES
H3 Impact on the customer/client 2.175 0.116 NO Table 10.
H4 Business and direct organizational success 0.541 0.583 NO Organizational
H5 Preparing for the future 14.837 0.000* YES ANOVA test results of
Note(s): *Significant at < 0.01, **Significant at < 0.05 hypotheses

It was not the case for the traditional approach. Thus, only regression analyses for hybrid and
agile approaches, concerning their impact on dependent variables, were considered
meaningful and further analyzed.
In the case of project success dimension impact on the team, four moderating variables (i.e.
organizational industry, project type, project novelty, and project complexity) have a
statistically significant moderating effect that differentiates impact on the team concerning
IJMPB the project management approach applied. In the case of project success dimension preparing
for the future, two moderating variables (i.e. project complexity and project technology
uncertainty) have a statistically significant moderating effect. It could be concluded that H2a
and H5a are partly accepted.

6. Discussion
The results have shown that projects that are managed in a more agile way had a greater
positive impact concerning the two out of five individual project success dimensions over the
traditional one: impact on the team, which represents teamwork effectiveness and
satisfaction, and preparation for the future, which addresses the contribution of the project
to building capacities in technological and organizational infrastructure and improving
business success for the future.
We could say that it is not surprising that a more agile approach produces a significantly
greater positive impact on the team because an agile approach gives preference to people and
their interactions (Vinekar et al., 2006). Agile values and principles stress the importance of
energizing, empowering team members and their interactions to build the project around
motivated individuals (Beck et al., 2001; Augustine, 2005). As opposed to the traditional
approach, much more emphasis is placed on collaboration and communication among team
members and stakeholders (Gemino et al., 2020). When the project team is strengthened and
trusted to get the job done, it motivates them and increases their responsibility (Hendriksen
and Pedersen, 2017). It could be argued that the empowered and motivated team could also
reduce the time needed to complete different features and tasks.

Hybrid Agile Traditional

Dep. var R R2 F Sig R R2 F Sig R R2 F Sig
Table 11.
Organizational model Impact on the 0.46 0.21 2.32 0.014* 0.55 0.31 2.11 0.035* 0.58 0.34 1.67 0.122
summary statistics and team
ANOVA tests for Prep. for future 0.37 0.13 1.37 0.201 0.54 0.29 1.96 0.05** 0.41 0.17 0.65 0.772
regression models Note(s): * Significant ≤ 0.05; **Significant at 0.05

Hybrid Agile Traditional

Variable Stan. β t Sig Stan. β t Sig Stan. β t Sig

Dependent variable – Impact on the team

Org. industry 0.243 2.373 0.020* 0.322 2.579 0.013* 0.067 0.365 0.717
Project type 0.250 2.494 0.014* 0.118 0.896 0.375 0.390 2.454 0.019*
Project complexity 0.245 2.472 0.015* 0.068 0.528 0.600 0.006 0.032 0.975
Project novelty 0.077 0.789 0.432 0.334 2.293 0.026* 0.092 0.539 0.593
Tech. uncertainty 0.204 1.879 0.063 0.219 1.615 0.112 0.327 1.795 0.081
Project pace 0.010 0.103 0.918 0.116 0.870 0.388 0.174 1.067 0.293
Dependent variable – Preparing for the future
Org. industry 0.066 0.614 0.540 0.246 1.946 0.057 0.078 0.379 0.707
Project type 0.072 0.686 0.494 0.105 0.788 0.434 0.078 0.439 0.663
Project complexity 0.113 1.091 0.278 0.274 2.091 0.041* 0.095 0.477 0.636
Table 12. Project novelty 0.061 0.600 0.550 0.128 0.873 0.387 0.050 0.261 0.796
Organizational Tech. uncertainty 0.249 2.196 0.030* 0.171 1.243 0.220 0.051 0.250 0.804
Regression results for Project pace 0.100 0.954 0.342 0.140 1.033 0.306 0.133 0.727 0.472
all three clusters Note(s): * Significant ≤ 0.05
 The results of this research offer limited support for research done by Serrador and Pinto Project
(2015). They examined the effect of applying an agile approach in organizations in relation to management
organizational goals, taking into account two dimensions of project success: efficiency and
overall stakeholder satisfaction. The research results showed that the level of agility used in
approach
the project has a statistically significant impact on both dimensions of project success,
judging by stakeholders’ efficiency and satisfaction (including team satisfaction). The same
was evidenced by Gemino et al. (2020), that agile and hybrid outperformed traditional
approaches impact on stakeholder success measures. According to Pacagnella et al. (2019),
projects in which the team is considered integrated have a 2.898 greater chance of achieving
project success than otherwise. According to those authors, this result indicates that the
team’s ability to share tacit knowledge increases the project’s agility, especially in
troubleshooting, tending to bring it closer to its goals concerning deadlines and costs.
Team satisfaction and effectiveness are considered an important component of project
success in many other studies (e.g. Bryde, 2008; El-Saboni et al., 2009; M€ uller and Turner,
2007; M€ uller and Jugdev, 2012; Westerveld, 2003).
Preparing for the future success dimension includes questions that assess how an
organization prepares for future opportunities through a particular project. When analyzing
the significantly greater impact of the agile approach on preparing for the future, we did not
identify any research that we could use to approve or disapprove or compare this result in
previous literature. Dvir et al. (2003a, b) identified, in their research, the managerial factors
contributing to success dimension preparing for the future as follows: “prior identification of
all critical stages in the project and assigning them as control milestones, the timing of the
design freeze (the later this occurs, the greater the project’s contribution to future potential),
number of design cycles (the greater the number of design cycles, the greater the contribution
to future potential), organizational structure (flexible), written reports (a negative effect).”
Though, with big reserve, we could indicate from these variables that they are more agile in
terms of our research. To some extent, this finding could support our result, and we could
argue that a more agile approach in managing projects could give a higher possibility and
chance to build organizational, personnel, and infrastructural capacity for the future.
Surprisingly, no statistically significant difference exists in the customer’s impact. A more
agile approach highlights the value and importance of collaboration with the customer to deliver
the desired value while facing the project’s unpredictability (Augustine, 2005). This could be
explained by the fact that different project types require different customer involvement levels.
When using the agile approach, customers’ involvement is intensive during the whole project,
with constant feedback. In our sample, we had different kind of projects, where this kind of
interaction would not be necessary. Though at the end customer would be satisfied. Projects
guided by a more traditional approach do not necessarily require customer support and ongoing
customers’ involvement, once the specifications are clearly defined. That could be the reason
why neither one approach has a significantly higher impact on this dimension.
The interesting finding, which complements the research results presented by Gemino
et al. (2020), is that the data did not show statistically important differences among traditional,
agile and hybrid approaches concerning their impact on the efficiency project success
dimension (meeting schedule, budget goal).
If we return back to the Proposition 1: Project management approaches differentiate
concerning their impact on individual project success dimensions, we could say that this
proposition is relevant for the two out of five dimensions.
We further found evidence that the organizational industry (grouped in IT and non-IT),
project type, project novelty and project complexity level can act as significant moderators in
favor of agile and hybrid approach. In detailed, these correlations are positive, meaning that,
positive impact on the team has shown to be higher when the agile approach is used in
projects from IT industries, which have a higher level of novelty.
IJMPB Project novelty is determined by the project’s product – how new the product is to the
market, the customers, the potential users. It affects the accuracy of market data, time, and a
number of iterations it takes to finalize and freeze the product’s requirements. Clearly, agile
approach is more suitable for project team and it is not surprising that it increases team
efficiency and satisfaction. As the novelty of the product increase, the team extend their
experience from quick product modifications, in derivate projects, to gaining extensive
experience in new markets (inspired by Shenhar and Dvir, 2007).
The team’s positive impact has shown to be higher when the hybrid approach is used in
software development projects in IT industries, which are characterized by a higher
complexity level. Build upon their research, Shenhar and Dvir (2007) indicated the need to
resort to more formal procedures when project complexity increases. Increased project
complexity implies a more complex organization, an increased interaction among its parts,
and increased formality in managing the project. A hybrid approach to more complex
projects includes a higher level of formality, which could be more suitable for these projects. It
must be taken into account that different managerial variables were under analysis in these
two studies. As opposed to this, Serrador and Pinto (2015) found that project complexity does
not act as a moderating variable between the agile approach and project success, taking into
account two dimensions: efficiency and overall stakeholder satisfaction (including team
satisfaction).
Concerning the difference in the level of impact that an agile, hybrid, or traditional project
management approach has on project success dimensions preparing for the future, project
complexity and technology uncertainty act as significant moderators. Projects with a higher
complexity level managed in a more agile way, and projects with a higher level of technology
uncertainty managed in a more hybrid way, have higher success when considering the
dimension preparing for the future. The more complex projects are and the higher level of
technological uncertainty they have, if managed appropriate, they will bring from additional
organizational capabilities, over new product lines and markets, to leadership positions and
new core technologies. It is reasonable to get these two moderators as significant when we
analyze the impact on preparing for the future, because through derivate and low-tech project
we can get almost none advancement when talking about preparing organization capabilities
and technologies for the future. It should be taken into account that projects with higher level
of technological uncertainty, may cause increased budgets and longer projects (Shenhar and
Dvir, 2007) and require more formal approach indicating the need for better planning and
control. This could support our finding that hybrid approach distinguished in this case.
If we return back to the Proposition 2: Project characteristics could moderate the
differences among project management approaches and their impact Project management
approaches differentiate concerning their impact on individual project success dimensions,
we could say that this proposition is relevant for the two out of five dimensions.

7. Conclusion
Built upon the literature, we developed and tested the research framework that explores new
research ground. Up to our knowledge, this is one of the few studies examining the efficiency
of agile as opposed to the traditional approach for project success in and beyond the software
domain, taking into account different project success dimensions. Although various
parameters identified in the literature differentiate agile from the traditional approach, when
clustered, they exhibited statistically significant differences in just two out of five project
success dimensions analyzed in this study.
Different project types require different management approaches. However, it can be
acknowledged that agile and traditional should be combined in project management practice
to benefit from both approaches. Approach selection and the combination should be handled
with care, considering both the project’s characteristics, the desired impact in the short and Project
long term, and other contextual factors. However, correctly choosing a project management management
approach does not necessarily lead to project success, depending on the implementations’
efforts and efficiency. Perceiving this as exploratory research, we do not intend to offer final
approach
and conclusive solutions to existing problems but better understand this thematic, which was
not subject to previous research in the same or a similar manner.

7.1 Limitation and future research

According to relevant scientific literature sources, only variables that were theoretically
grounded and academically validated in previous studies were used to develop the research
instrument. However, the differentiation between an agile and a traditional approach, based
on the literature’s findings, cannot be regarded as absolute and conclusive.
Biases from the previous research findings and literature were potentially embedded in
the research instruments. The impact of such biases on the interpretations of the results we
presented must be acknowledged.
Agile and traditional approaches may differ in other parameters, which were not included
in this research. Improving the research instrument in the future would increase the validity
of the research findings. Furthermore, a project’s success is a complex concept seen in this
research as multidimensional, dynamic, and relative, making it difficult to compare the effects
that different management approaches can have on a project, which must be taken into
account. The research was limited to five project success dimensions, following the model
proposed by Shenar and Dvir (2007). Future research could include other success measures to
deepen understanding.
The research also explored whether there were differences in the impact on the individual
project success dimensions. In contrast, overall success was not observed. It would be
valuable to capture this in future research. Some of the expected differences in this research
have not been confirmed. Future research is needed to delve deeper into the analysis of the
difference in the agile approach’s impact compared to traditional ones in and beyond the
software industry. It is essential to emphasize that observation and the conclusion given in
this paper are “perceptions-based” and not “facts-based.” Data collected through
experimental research or observation of many case studies would increase the validity of
the research results in the future.
The distribution process through the PMI network could have some influence on the
responses obtained. If the respondents had belonged to another community as IPMA or
SCRUM association, there is a possibility that the results would be different. For example, it
would be expected for the SCRUM association that respondents are majorly from the IT
industry and experienced in software development. We did not want to have the one-
dimensional perception of respondents. Future research could be based on a random sample
method of project managers globally to increase the universality of results.
Another challenge is to define more clearly and empirically establish a hybrid project
management approach. Future research would also be necessary to identify essential project
characteristics for deciding whether to implement a particular management approach, and
the problems that agile, hybrid, and traditional approaches may cause, taking into account
the different project characteristics. Finally, an objective comparison between variables
identified in different studies indicating which were proven significant and which one are not
could provide new insights for future research.

References
Abrahamsson, P., Conboy, K. and Wang, X. (2009), “‘Lots done, more to do’: the current state of agile
systems development research”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 281-284.
IJMPB Adkins, L. (2015), Coaching Agile Teams: A Companion for Scrum Masters, Agile Coaches, and Project
Managers in Transition, Addison-Wesly Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
Ahimbisibwe, A., Cavana, R. and Daellenbach, U. (2015), “A contigency fit model of critical success
factors for software development projects: a comparasion of agile and traditional plan-based
methodologies”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 7-33.
Albert, M., Balve, P. and Spang, K. (2017), “Evaluation of project success: a structured
literature review”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 796-821.
Atkinson, R. (1999), “Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 337-342.
Augustine, S. (2005), Managing Agile Projects, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Badewi, A. (2016), “The impact of project management (PM) and benefits management (BM) practices
on project success: towards developing a project benefits governance framework”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 761-778.
Barlow, J.B., Scot, J., Keith, M.J., Wilson, D.W., Schuetzler, R.M., Lowry, P.B. and Vance, A. (2011),
“Overview and guidance on agile development in large organizations”, Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., et al. (2001),
“Manifesto for agile software development”, available at: http://agilemanifesto.org/ (accessed 01
June 2017).
Bergmann, T. and Karwowski, W. (2019), “Agile project management and project success: a literature
review”, in Kantola, J.I., Nazir, S. and Barath, T. (Eds), Advances in Human Factors, Business
Management and Society, AHFE 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,
Springer, Cham, Vol. 783, pp. 405-414.
Berinato, S. (2001), “The secret to software success CIO”, available at: https://www.cio.com/article/
2441472/the-secret-to-software-success.html (accessed 09 June 2018).
Boehm, B. (2002), “Get ready for agile methods, with care”, Computer, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 64-69.
Boehm, B. and Turner, R. (2005), “Management challenges to implementing agile processes in
traditional development organizations”, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 30-39.
Boehm, B., Port, D. and Brown, A.W. (2002), “Balancing plan-driven and agile methods in software
engineering project courses”, Computer Science Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 187-195.
Bourne, M., Mills, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A. and Platts, K. (2000), “Designing, implementing and
updating performance measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 754-771, doi: 10.1108/01443570010330739.
Brown, A. and Adams, J. (2000), “Measuring the effect of project management on construction outputs:
a new approach”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 327-335.
Bryde, D.J. (2005), “Methods for managing different perspectives of project success”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 119-131.
Bryde, D. (2008), “Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 800-809.
Butler, C.W., Vijayasarathy, L.R. and Roberts, N. (2020), “Managing software development projects for
success: aligning plan- and agility-based approaches to project complexity and project
dynamism”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 262-277.
Carvalho, M.M. De, Patah, L.A. and de Souza Bido, D. (2015), “Project management and its effects on
project success: cross-country and cross-industry comparisons”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1509-1522.
Carvalho, M.M., Rosa, P.F., dos Santos Soares, M., da Cunha, M.A.T. and Buiatte, L.C. (2012), “A
comparative analysis of the agile and traditional software development processes
 productivity”, 30th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, pp. 74-82, Project
doi: 10.1109/SCCC.2011.11.
management
Chen, Q., Reichard, G. and Beliveau, Y. (2007), “Interface management-a facilitator of lean construction
and agile project management”, 15th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
approach
Construction IGLC, Vol. 15, pp. 57-66.
Chin, G. (2004), Agile Project Management: How to Succeed in the Face of Changing Project
Requirements, AMACOM, New York.
Chow, T. and Cao, D. (2008), “A survey of critical success factors in agile software projects”, Journal of
Systems and Software, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 961-971.
Ciric, D., Lalic, B. and Gracanin, D. (2016), Managing Innovation: Are Project Management Methods
Enemies or Allies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Cobb, C.G. (2011), Making Sense of Agile Project Management: Balancing Control and Agility, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Cobb, C.G. (2015), The Project Management Guide to Mastering Agile-Principles and Practices for an
Adaptive Approach, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Cockburn, A. and Highsmith, J. (2001), “Agile software development: the people factor”, Computer,
Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 131-133.
Collyer, S., Warren, C.M.J. and Stevens, C. (2010), “Aim, fire, aim - project planning styles in dynamic
environments”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 108-121, doi: 10.1002/pmj.20199.
Conforto, E.C. and Amaral, D. (2015), “Agile project management and stage-gate model - a hybrid
framework for technology-based companies”, Journal of Engineering and Technology
Management, Vol. 40, pp. 1-14.
Conforto, E.C., Rebentisch, E. and Amaral, D.C. (2014), The Building Blocks of Agility as a Team’s
Competence, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyjConsortium for Engineering Program
Excellence (CEPE), Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Cooper, R.G. (2016), “Agile-Stage-Gate hybrids”, Research Technology Management, Vol. 59 No. 1,
pp. 21-29.
Cooper, R. G. and Sommer, A. F. (2016), “Agile-stage-gate: new idea-to-launch method for
manufactured new products is faster, more responsive”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 59, pp. 167-180.
Crawford, L. (2006), “Developing organizational project management capability: theory and practice”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 74-86.
Crowder, J.A. and Friess, S. (2015), Agile Project Management: Managing for Success, Springer
International Publishing.
DeCarlo, D. (2004), eXtreme Project Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Demir, S.T. and Theis, P. (2016), “Projects, Agile design management -The application of scrum in the
design phase of construction”, 24th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction, Boston, Unites States, pp. 13-22.
Denning, S. (2013), “Why Agile can be a game changer for managing continuous innovation in many
industries”, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 5-11.
Dillman, D.A. and Smyth, J.D. (2008), Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: the Tailored Design
Method, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Dvir, D., Lipotevsky, S., Shenhar, A. and Tishler, A. (2003), “What is really important for project
success? A refined, multivariate, comprehensive analysis”, International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 382-404, doi: 10.1504/IJMDM.2003.004001.
Dvir, D., Raz, T. and Shenhar, A.J. (2003b), “An empirical analysis of the relationship between project
planning and project success”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 89-95.
IJMPB a, T. and Dingsøyr, T. (2004), “Empirical studies of software development. A systematic review”,
Dyb
Information and Software Technology, Vol. 50, pp. 833-859.
El-Saboni, M., Aouad, G. and Sabouni, A. (2009), “Electronic communication systems effects on the
success of construction projects in United Arab Emirates”, Advanced Engineering Informatics,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 130-138.
Fernandez, D.J. and Fernandez, J.D. (2008), “Agile project management - agilism versus traditional
approaches”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 49, pp. 10-17.
Freeman, M. and Beale, P. (1992), “Measuring project success”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 8-17.
Gemino, A., Reich, B.H. and Serrador, P.M. (2020), “Agile, traditional, and hybrid approaches to project
success: is hybrid a poor second choice”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 161-175.
Gemuenden, H. and Lechler, T. (1997), “Success factors of project management: the critical few: and
empirical investigation”, Portlland International Conference on Management of Engineering and
Technology, pp. 375-377.
Goodpasture, J.C. (2010), Project Management the Agile Way: Making it Work in the Enterprise, J. Ross
Pub, FLFt. Lauderdale.
Hair, J., William, C.B., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hass, K. (2007), “The blending of traditional and agile project management”, PM World Today, Vol. IX
No. V, pp. 1-6.
Hendriksen, A. and Pedersen, S.A.R. (2017), “Agile practices and project success”, Journal of Modern
Project Management, May/August, pp. 62-73.
Highsmith, J. (2004), Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products, Addison-Wesley, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Highsmith, J. (2010), Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products, 2nd ed., Addison-
Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Huang, S. and Han, W. (2008), “Exploring the relationship between software project duration and risk
exposure : a cluster analysis”, Information and Management, Vol. 45, pp. 175-182.
Imreh, R. and Raisinghani, M. (2011), “Impact of agile sofware development on quality within
information technology organisations”, Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and
Information Science, Vol. 10 No. 10, pp. 460-475.
Inayat, I., Salim, S.S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M. and Shamshirband, S. (2014), “A systematic literature
review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Elsevier, Vol. 51 Part B, pp. 915-929.
Joslin, R. (2017), “The impact of project methodologies on project success in different project
environments”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 364-388.
Joslin, R. and M€ uller, R. (2014), “The impact of project methodologies on project success in different
contexts”, Paper Presented at Project Management Institute Research and Education Conference,
Project Management Institute, Phoenix, AZ. Newtown Square: PA.
Judgev, K., Thomas, J. and Delisle, C.L. (2001), “Rethinking project management: old truths and new
insights”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 36-43.
Khan, K.A., Turner, J.R. and Maqsood, T. (2013), “Factors that influence the success of public sector
projects in Pakistan”, Proceedings of IRNOP 2013 Conference, June 17-19, 2013, pp. 1-25.
Kloppenborg, T.J. and Opfer, W.A. (2002), “The current state of project management research: trends,
interpretations, and predictions”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 5-18.
Kolltveit, B.J., Karlsen, J.T. and Grønhaug, K. (2007), “Perspectives on project management”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 3-9.
Lappi, T., Karvonen, T., Lwakatare, L.E. and Kuvaja, P. (2018), “Toward an improved understanding Project
of agile project governance: a systematic literature review”, Project Management Journal, Vol.
49 No. 6, pp. 39-63, doi: 10.1177/8756972818803482. management
Larman, C. (2004), Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager’s Guide, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
approach
Lehnen, J. (2016), “Bringing agile project management into lead user projects”, International Journal of
Product Management, Vol. 21, pp. 212-232.
Lindstrom, L. and Jeffries, R. (2004), “Extreme programming and agile software development
methodologies”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 41-52.
Lisher, I. and Shtub, A. (2019), “Measuring the Success of Lean and Agile Projects: are cost, time,
scope and quality equally important?”, Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 7, May/
August, pp. 138-145.
Mir, F.A. and Pinnington, A.H. (2014), “Exploring the value of project management: linking project
management performance and project success”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 202-217.
Misra, S.C., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2009), “Identifying some important success factors in adopting
agile software development practices”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 82 No. 11,
pp. 1869-1890.
Mohagheghi, P. and Jørgensen, M. (2017), “What contributes to the success of IT projects? Success
factors, challenges and lessons learned from an empirical study of software projects in the
Norwegian public sector”, 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th IEEE International Conference on Software
Engineering Companion, Buenos Aires, Argentina, pp. 371-373.
Mohanarajah, S. (2015), “An improved adaptive and dynamic hybrid agile methodology to enhance
software project”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, Vol. 75 No. 3,
pp. 301-325.
uller, R. and Jugdev, K. (2012), “Critical success factors in projects: pinto, Slevin, and Prescott – the
M€
elucidation of project success”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 757-775.
uller, R. and Turner, R. (2007), “The influence of project managers on project success criteria and
M€
project success by type of project”, European Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 298-309.

Pinto, J.S. and Novaski, O. (2015), “Success factors in project management”, Business
Nara, E.,
Management Dynamics, Vol. 4 No. 9, pp. 19-34.
Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R. and Mangalaraj, G. (2005), “Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 72-78.
Niederman, F., Lechler, T. and Petit, Y. (2018), “A research agenda for extending agile practices in
software development and additional task domains”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 49
No. 6, pp. 3-17, doi: 10.1177/8756972818802713.
Nowotarski, P. and Paslawski, J. (2015), “Barriers in running construction SME – case study on
introduction of agile methodology to electrical subcontractor”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 122,
Orsdce, pp. 47-56, Elsevier B.V., doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.006.
Nunnaly, J. and Bernstein, H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Olsson, N.O.E., Sørensen, A.Ø. and Leikvam, G. (2015), “On the need for iterative real estate project
models – applying agile methods in real estate developments”, Procedia Economics and
Finance, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 21 No. 2212, pp. 524-531, doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00208-7.
Owen, R., Koskela, L.J., Henrich, G. and Codinhoto, R. (2006), “Is agile project management applicable
to construction?”, Salford Centre for Research and Innovation, pp. 51-66, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9302.2008.00617.x.
Pacagnella, A.C., Da Silva, S.L., Pacifico, O., De Arruda Ignacio, P.S. and da Silva, A.L. (2019), “Critical
success factors for project manufacturing environments”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 50
No. 2, pp. 243-258, doi: 10.1177/8756972819827670.
IJMPB Pinto, J. and Slevin, D. (1988), “Critical success factors across the project life cycle”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 67-75.
Reyck, B.D., Grushka-Cockaynea, Y., Lockett, M., Calderinia, S.R., Mouraa, M. and Sloperb, A. (2005),
“The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 524-537, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.02.003.
Rolstadas, A., Tommelein, I., Schiefloe, P.M. and Ballard, G. (2019), “Understanding project success
through analysis of project management approach”, International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business Article Information, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 638-660, doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-09-2013-0048.
Serrador, P. and Pinto, J.K. (2015), “Does Agile work? - A quantitative analysis of agile project
success”, International Journal of Project Management, Elsevier APM and IPMA., Vol. 33 No. 5,
pp. 1040-1051, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006.
Sheffield, J. and Lem
etayer, J. (2013), “Factors associated with the software development agility
of successful projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 459-472.
Shenhar, A.J. (2001), “One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains”,
Management Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 394-414.
Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (2007), Reinventing Project Management: the Diamond Approach to
Successful Growth and Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. and Maltz, A.C. (2001), “Project success : a multidimensional strategic
concept”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34, pp. 699-725.
Shenhar, A., Levy, O. and Dvir, D. (1997), “Mapping the dimensions of project success”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 5-13.
Sommer, A.F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I. and Steger-Jensen, K. (2015), “Improved product
development performance through agile/stage-gate hybrids”, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-44, doi: 10.5437/08956308X5801236.

Spundak, M. (2014), “Mixed agile/traditional project management methodology – reality or illusion?”,
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 119, pp. 939-948, doi: 10.1016/j.
sbspro.2014.03.105.
Svejvig, P. and Andersen, P. (2015), “Rethinking project management: a structured literature review
with a critical look at the brave new world”, International Journal of Project Management,
Elsevier, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 278-290, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.004.
Sweetman, R. and Conboy, K. (2018), “Portfolios of agile projects: a complex adaptive systems’ agent
perspective”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 18-38, doi: 10.1177/
8756972818802712.
Thompshon, B. (2004), Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and
Applications, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Tomek, R. and Kalinichuk, S. (2015), “Agile PM and BIM: a hybrid scheduling approach for a
technological construction project”, Procedia Engineering, Elsevier B.V., Vol. 123, pp. 557-564,
doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.108.
VersionOne (2014), “9th annual state of agile development survey”, available at: http://stateofagile.
versionone.com.
Vinekar, V., Slinkman, C.W. and Nerur, S. (2006), “Can agile and traditional systems development
approaches coexist? An ambidextrous view”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 31-42, doi: 10.1201/1078.10580530/46108.23.3.20060601/93705.4.
Walton, E.J. and Dawson, S. (2001), “Managers’ perceptions of criteria of organizational effectiveness”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 173-200, doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00233.
Westerveld, E. (2003), “The Project Excellence Model®: linking success criteria and critical success
factors”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 411-418, doi: 10.1016/
S0263-7863(02)00112-6.
Williams, T. (2005), “Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in Project
the light of project overruns”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 52 No. 4,
pp. 497-508, doi: 10.1109/TEM.2005.856572. management
Wysocki, R.K. (2009), Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme, Wiley Pub,
approach
Indianapolis, IN.
Yang, L., Huang, C. and Wu, K. (2011), “The association among project manager’s leadership style ,
teamwork and project success”, Journal Of Pakistan Medical Association, Elsevier and IPMA,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 258-267, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.006.
Yetton, P., Martin, A., Sharma, R. and Johnston, K. (2000), “A model of information systems
development project performance”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 263-289, doi:
10.1046/j.1365-2575.2000.00088.x.
Young, L., Ganguly, A. and Farr, J.V. (2012), “Project management processes in agile project
environment”, 33rd Annual International Conference of the American Society for Engineering
Management 2012, ASEM 2012 - Agile Management: Embracing Change and Uncertainty in
Engineering Management, Virginia Beach, VA; United States, pp. 9-19.

Appendix

Cluster 1 – Cluster 2 – Cluster 3 –

Hybrid Agile Trad
No % No % No %

Organizational size
1–50 Employees (Micro) 21 18.9 13 19.4 9 18.4
51–200 Employees (Small) 10 9.0 10 14.9 10 20.4
201–500 Employees (Medium) 16 14.4 2 3.0 3 6.1
501–1,000 Employees (Large) 12 10.8 7 10.4 8 16.3
Over 1,000 Employees (Very Large) 52 46.8 35 52.2 19 38.8
Total 111 100.0 67 100.0 49 100.0
Industrial sector
Advertising and Marketing 1 0.9 1 1.5 4 8.2
Airlines and Aerospace (including Defense) 2 1.8 2 3.0 2 4.1
Automotive 3 2.7 9 13.4 4 8.2
Business Support and Logistics 7 6.3 2 3.0 2 4.1
Construction, Machinery and Homes 8 7.2 12 17.9 3 6.1
Education 11 9.9 1 1.5 6 12.2
Finance and Financial Services 3 2.7 1 1.5 11 22.4
Food and Beverages 10 9.0 5 7.5 1 2.0
Government 4 3.6 15 22.4 2 4.1
Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals 31 27.9 2 3.0 2 4.1
Information Technologies 4 3.6 6 9.0 8 16.3
Insurance 3 2.7 5 7.5 3 6.1
Manufacturing 2 1.8 1 1.5 4 8.2
Non-profit 6 5.4 3 4.5 2 4.1
Real Estate 3 2.7 1 1.5 4 8.2
Telecommunications 11 9.9 2 3.0 2 4.1
Transportation and Delivery 1 0.9 9 13.4 3 6.1
Utilities, Energy and Extraction 2 1.8 2 3.0 6 12.2 Table A1.
Non-specified 2 1.8 2 3.0 1 2.0 Cluster
Total 111 100.0 67 100.0 49 100.0 descriptive data
IJMPB About the authors
Danijela Ciric Lalic has a PhD degree in Industrial engineering/management. Currently, she works as a
teaching assistant at the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management. Danijela was a scholar and a visiting researcher at the
Faculty of Economics, University of Split, Croatia, and at the Faculty of Electrical Engineering,
University of Technology and Economics in Budapest, Hungary. She was granted with highly
prestigious PhD Thesis Research Grant from Project Management Institute (PMI), for the proposed
research, as one of the three in the world for 2018. She has participated in more than 20 national and
international scientific and capacity building projects. She has also been keeping the position of the
portfolio manager at the United Nations Development Programme and an external expert for monitoring
and evaluation of the project Novi Sad–European Capital of Culture 2021). Danijela has published more
than 30 research papers published in scientific journals and conferences.
Bojan Lalic has a PhD degree in Industrial engineering / Management, and currently, he is a Full
Professor at the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Technical Sciences.
His expertise and extensive experience in scientific research cover the following areas: Project
Management, Industry 4.0, Digital industrialization, Innovation, Intelligent systems, Distance learning.
He coordinated numerous national and international projects. Professor Lali
c published more than 20
papers in the best scientific journals listed on ISI Thomson Reuters, more than 100 papers presented at
scientific and professional conferences. Bojan Lali
c is a Visiting professor at four universities: Donghua
University, Shanghai, The People’s Republic of China, Technical University Graz, Austria, Technical
University Wien, Austria, and University of Maribor, Slovenia.
Milan Deli
c has a PhD degree in Industrial engineering/management from the University of Novi
Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia. He is currently an Associate Professor at the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of
Technical Sciences, Department of Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Serbia. He is
the author or co-author of several papers in the field of quality management and IS management. He took
part in several projects of implementing ISO 9001, ISO/IEC 17025, and ISO/IEC 27001 standard
requirements in Serbia. Milan Deli
c is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Danijela Gracanin has a PhD degree in Industrial engineering / Management, and currently, he is an
Associate Professor at the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Technical
Sciences. She has extended research experience in the area of simulation modeling, production planning,
and control, project management, and technological and market trends. She has participated in
numerous international scientific and capacity building projects as an expert, consultant, researcher,
project manager. She has broad practical experience working as a consultant for business plan
development and business process reengineering. She published more than 60 papers in scientific
journals and conferences.
Darko Stefanovic has a PhD in Industrial and Engineering Management and works as an Associate
Professor at the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Industrial
Engineering and Engineering Management. Also, he is head of the Chair of Information and
Communication Systems at the University of Novi Sad. His research interest includes ERP systems,
e-learning systems and eGovernment systems. Darko Stefanovic has published in several international
information systems journals.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]