Abstract
Purpose
Project managers face decisions every day and those decisions result in an “either or” situation. This is also true when it comes to the choice of a project management approach, i.e. predictive versus iterative. A case is made in this article that project managers should be ambidextrous and apply practices that are beneficial to the project, irrespective of the origin of the practices.
Design/methodology/approach
This study is based on a questionnaire focussing on six themes. The results of 290 projects were analysed using ANOVA and boxplots to test for skewness and variances.
Findings
Based on the analysis of 117 practices, most of these projects could be classified as either hybrid or iterative projects. The results indicate that irrespective of the classification of the projects or the industry, projects are managed using a hybrid approach, with a tendency to incorporate more iterative practices than predictive practices.
Originality/value
This article contributes to the current debate on which approach is the best given certain circumstances.
Keywords
Citation
Marnewick, C. and Marnewick, A.L. (2023), "Project managers' ability to explore and exploit predictive and iterative best practices", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 126-151. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2023-0013
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Carl Marnewick and Annlizé L. Marnewick
License
Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Capitalism versus Communism. East versus West. Predictive project management versus iterative project management. The world is full of examples where the choice is between two supposedly opposing alternatives. When it comes to project management, the choice is between predictive project management (e.g. waterfall) or iterative project management (e.g. agile). But do we need to make a choice? The focus of this article is the practices that practitioners are incorporating both from a predictive and a hybrid approach.
Practitioners as well as academia are realising that both approaches do have good qualities. Practitioners from a more traditional environment, such as construction and engineering, perceive iterative approaches as being applicable only to IT with no relevance to traditional environments. On the other hand, practitioners from an IT or software environment perceive agile as “sexy” and maintain that it should be the way to manage all projects. Each project is unique, and the project approach needs to use the existing capabilities as best as possible, but project managers need to explore what can be done in that project to suit the specific context as best as possible.
Traditional project management approaches follow a fixed sequence of initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and closure to manage projects. The emphasis is on linear processes, documentation, upfront planning and prioritisation. Traditional project management approaches utilise practices such as long-term planning and risk management during project implementations (Laufer et al., 2015). These practices have changed over the last couple of years through the incorporation of agile practices that provide flexibility to respond to change when required (Laufer et al., 2015; Worley et al., 2016). The combination of traditional and agile project management practices has resulted in various hybrid approaches (Cooper and Sommer, 2016; Gemino et al., 2020; Riesener et al., 2018). The jury is still out on whether future project management approaches will be more agile or a combination of traditional and agile approaches, resulting in a hybrid approach.
What is evident is that project management practices are fluctuating between predictive and iterative approaches. To support this fluctuation, changes in the following project management areas are suggested: (1) project management practices (Svejvig et al., 2019), (2) project team collaboration (López-Alcarria et al., 2019; Hoda and Noble, 2017), (3) project team practices (Aga et al., 2016), (4) leadership styles (Marnewick and Marnewick, 2020a; Zidane et al., 2018) as well as (5) team reflection and learning (Hoda and Noble, 2017; Laufer et al., 2015). To deal with this fluctuation, project managers need to be ambidextrous. Ambidexterity is about exploiting existing capabilities as best as possible with the ability to also explore new capabilities (Turner et al., 2016). The following research problem is posed: project members do not know the extent of ambidexterity required to follow a hybrid project management approach. Given this problem, three research questions are derived:
What is a hybrid project management approach?
What level of ambidexterity is required to explore and exploit best practices associated with a hybrid project management approach?
What practices are associated with a hybrid project management approach?
This article addresses this research problem, identifying potential practices that can be implemented either in a predictive or an iterative way. This is quantitatively validated by 290 practitioners placing 117 practices across five themes.
The results indicate that irrespective of the classification of the projects or the industry, projects are managed using a hybrid approach, with a tendency to incorporate more iterative practices than predictive project management practices. This indicates a level of ambidexterity. This article contributes to the current debate on which approach is the best given certain circumstances. It also provides guidelines to project managers and teams on the practices that should be employed to assist with the fluctuation between traditional and agile project management. Managing projects is still rooted in predictive project management, but iterative practices are being incorporated to ensure the success of projects.
This paper is organised as follows: In section 2 the hybrid approach to project management is viewed through the lens of ambidexterity. Section 3 details the research methodology, including the derivation of the data collection instrument from literature. Section 4 is a discussion of the data collection. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results.
2. Literature review
The first research question focusses on what constitutes a hybrid project management approach. This is answered in the next section where a hybrid approach is contextualised in relation to predictive and iterative approaches.
2.1 Hybrid approach to project management
Predictive and iterative approaches to implement a project are the two most popular approaches. Predictive approaches are the typical “waterfall’ approach, and the iterative approach is based on the Agile Manifesto. Predictive approaches follow a fixed sequence of initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and closure to manage projects. The emphasis is on linear processes, documentation, upfront planning and prioritisation. Predictive approaches utilise practices such as long-term planning and risk management during project implementations (Laufer et al., 2015). Within the iterative (agile) approach, the process is transparent and promotes regular inspection and adaptation in small and iterative intervals (Jamous et al., 2021).
Predictive approaches have changed over the last couple of years through the incorporation of agile practices that provide flexibility to respond to change when required (Laufer et al., 2015; Worley et al., 2016). This combination of predictive and iterative project management approaches has resulted in various hybrid approaches (Cooper and Sommer, 2016; Gemino et al., 2020; Riesener et al., 2018). One of these approaches is the Agile-Stage-Gate hybrid model (Cooper and Sommer, 2016) where manufacturers are integrating agile elements of development processes into their existing gating systems. Barbosa and Saisse (2019) are of the opinion that this model is not suitable for innovation projects despite its advantages. This is attributed to the model being too linear and rigid. The model does not allow for proactive changes during the development phases.
Gemino et al. (2020) distinguish between an approach, a methodology and a practice. A project management approach is the highest level of abstraction used when describing how a project will be designed and governed, for example, predictive or iterative approaches. A methodology is more prescriptive and granular than an approach and provides project managers with detailed operational guidance on how to manage a project. A project management practice can then be defined as a technique or procedure used to manage an aspect of a methodology within a project. In essence, the hybrid approach then combines methodologies and practices from more than one project management approach (Jamous et al., 2021; Papadakis and Tsironis, 2022). The rationale of combining multiple approaches is to reap the benefits of each approach. Therefore, a hybrid approach is based on the unique strengths of both predictive and iterative approaches, as well as eliminating their weaknesses (Papadakis and Tsironis, 2022).
There is a prevalence of hybrid project management approaches and this is an emerging topic for research (Gemino et al., 2020). One such topic is the impact of a hybrid approach on the performance of the project itself.
The second research question focusses on the level of ambidexterity required to explore and exploit best practices associated with a hybrid project management approach. Dealing with a hybrid project management approach requires insights from the project manager and project teams involved. Project managers need to be equipped to deal with the tensions between predictive and iterative approaches and can look at the issue through the lens of ambidexterity.
2.2 Ambidexterity and project management
Ambidextrous people can use their right and left hands equally well. Within the context of business, ambidexterity implies that supposedly opposing processes or views can be implemented equally well to the benefit of the organisation. The concept of ambidexterity within organisations was first introduced by the seminal work of March (1991). Two opposing concepts (exploitation and exploration) are necessary for the survival of the organisation. Exploitation focusses on the ability to exploit “current capabilities and assets in a profitable way,” whereas exploration focusses on “new technologies, markets, and customers to capture existing as well as new opportunities” (March, 1991). Various attributes have been assigned to exploration and exploitation. March (1991) originally defined exploration as “search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation,” whereas exploitation includes terms such as “refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution.” The results of exploitation are more certain, closer in time and close to the locus of action. This is in opposition to the results of exploration, which are less certain, further away in time and more distant from the locus of time (Pellegrinelli et al., 2015; Lavie et al., 2010; March, 1991).
Just as a person requires both hands to function optimally, organisations need to harmonise and reconcile these two opposing concepts (Awojide et al., 2018). Pellegrinelli et al. (2015) highlight that academia has wrestled with the challenge to balance the concepts of exploitation and exploration. Turner et al. (2016) support this view, mentioning that the detailed processes of achieving ambidexterity are far from clear. Pellegrinelli et al. (2015) suggest that exploitation and exploration should be investigated “how they might vary within and between contexts or co-exist within an organisational setting.”
Organisations need to adopt ambidexterity as it is a prerequisite for performance and longevity (Pellegrinelli et al., 2015). Although the benefits of organisational ambidexterity have been highlighted, little is known on how to achieve it in practice (Turner et al., 2014).
The activities associated with exploration and exploitation are distinctly different and compete for finite organisational resources (March, 1991; Turner et al., 2016). This creates a challenge as to where and when to allocate resources, as both exploration and exploitation are essential for any organisation. Exploration and exploitation can be perceived as conflicting modes and should be reconciled through various modes (Awojide et al., 2018). For this specific reason, various modes of ambidexterity are defined (Aubry and Lièvre, 2010; Awojide et al., 2018; Lavie et al., 2010; Sailer, 2019; Turkulainen and Ruuska, 2022; Turner et al., 2016):
Structural ambidexterity is characterised by the concurrent exploitation and exploration undertaken by different business units or departments. This is achieved through the separation of exploitation and exploration into different departments or groups.
Contextual ambidexterity resolves the tension between exploration and exploitation by suggesting that these activities are maintained simultaneously at any given organisational level.
Temporal or sequential ambidexterity balances exploitation and exploration actions by pursuing them successively. They co-exist in the same department but at different points in time and the department switches between exploration and exploitation.
Lavie et al. (2010) have a different perspective and are of the opinion that exploration and exploitation are on a continuum and not a choice between two discrete options. This perspective is in line with Sailer (2019) stating that true ambidexterity is only achieved through balancing exploration and exploitation actions. The conclusion is that exploration and exploitation are interrelated and can enable each other. Organisations need to engage with both exploration and exploitation to achieve their objectives (Lavie et al., 2010).
Binci et al. (2023) explain that a predictive approach such as waterfall to implement projects leans towards exploitation due its stability and known processes. On the other hand, iterative approaches are explorative due to the dynamic and unpredictable requirements. This supports the view of Verganti (1999) who suggests that project approaches should be divided into the traditional approach (predictive) and the flexible approach (iterative). Verganti (1999) did not purport that one approach is better than the other, but that a flexible approach should be sought. Sailer (2019) provides evidence that a project using Scrum as a methodology alternated between explorative and exploitative practices. In light of this, Binci et al. (2023) suggest that contextual ambidexterity should be deployed at project level as it “highlights the simultaneous pursuit of the opposite tensions of exploration and exploitation within and across units of analysis.”
Changes in the following project management areas are required to support the fluctuation between exploitation and exploration.
To accelerate project delivery, predictive project management approaches need to incorporate iterative practices to support the required changes in organisations (Worley et al., 2016; Laufer et al., 2015; Svejvig et al., 2019; Conforto et al., 2016). This implies that organisations should embrace contextual ambidexterity. As noted by Conforto et al. (2016), “agility is the project team's ability to quickly change the project plan as a response to customer or stakeholder needs, market or technology demands in order to achieve better project and product performance in an innovative and dynamic project environment.” The definition by Conforto et al. (2016) of agility includes two factors: (1) the capacity to respond to change the project plan (delivery frequency) and (2) the involvement of customers during the project process. To achieve agility, management processes need to align resources with the business needs and adjust the cycle times of delivery to support the need (Worley et al., 2016). Compared to predictive project management approaches (exploitation) that utilise long-term delivery planning, the focus is on short and flexible planning (exploration) (Laufer et al., 2015). For project management practices and environment to become explorative, a project planning approach must support change and shorter delivery times. An environment conducive to responding to change over following a plan needs to be cultivated. This is achieved if the team members are collocated (Chen et al., 2010). Additionally, customer and project team interaction changes from a static environment to a dynamic one. This is in line with the Agile Manifesto, which indicates that the focus should be on customer collaboration and not contract negotiation.
For the project team to respond to these changes, the development of team collaboration is essential (Laufer et al., 2015). Open and collaborative discussions are core activities within an iterative environment (López-Alcarria et al., 2019). The real-time informal collaboration removes communication barriers and empowers teams (Lappi et al., 2018). Collaborative problem-solving practices within project teams that also encourage team members to help each other are a major driving force to accelerate project delivery (Sting et al., 2015). As reported by Laufer et al. (2015), if there is no deliberate effort to create collaboration among team members, these team members could end up not communicating optimally with each other and the sharing of knowledge could be at risk.
When it comes to predictive project team practices, the project manager assigns various tasks to each individual team member. These tasks are interdependent, they are the organised activities that lead to achieving the project goal and are traditionally displayed in a schedule (Marnewick and Marnewick, 2020b; Hoda and Noble, 2017). This approach can prevent collaboration if it is not deliberately facilitated. In contrast to predictive approaches, iterative approaches allow for hierarchical project team practices to transition from manager driven to team member driven where the team members assign tasks themselves (Hoda and Noble, 2017; Hoda and Murugesan, 2016). This transition to the self-definition of roles and responsibilities results in an authorised team, which has a positive impact on performance delivery and enables team member collaboration (Liu et al., 2011a; b).
This shift from hierarchical team structures to self-organising teams impacts project leadership practices. In a hierarchical structure, there are rigid reporting lines (Lappi et al., 2018; López-Alcarria et al., 2019). These hierarchical reporting lines reduce team autonomy (López-Alcarria et al., 2019). Decision-making up and down the hierarchy is slow, which does not support fast responses – a requirement in a dynamic environment. A dynamic environment that embraces change must be flexible, and flexibility is achieved when a project team has the autonomy to make decisions (Zidane et al., 2018). With iterative approaches, much more autonomy is given to project teams with a dynamic structure which empowers teams (Hoda and Noble, 2017). The empowerment of project teams is highlighted as a practice that enables project acceleration (Svejvig et al., 2019). With the removal of a hierarchical structure within autonomous teams, communication can be open and inclusive among the team members and with the stakeholders (Hoda and Noble, 2017).
The removal of the hierarchical structure also implies that the traditional command-and-control leadership is transitioning to a servant–leadership facilitation (Marnewick and Marnewick, 2020a). This enables the project teams to be responsible for their own decisions, and there is no need to get approval from the hierarchical structures or management (Hoda and Noble, 2017). The decision-making time is reduced significantly but with an added responsibility on the team members (Conforto et al., 2016). With this added responsibility, the project team can only become a performing team if reflection is embedded in the team's daily work; this will enable growth (Hoda and Noble, 2017). The contribution to project success when learning-based project reviews are conducted is highlighted as one of the important roles leaders within the team should adopt (Laufer et al., 2015).
Both predictive and iterative project management approaches have practices that contribute to the successful management of a project. The decision is no longer an “either or” decision but rather which practices can be used to optimally manage the project. This leads to conflict within the project manager, as project managers are typically trained and experienced in one or the other approach to utilise a practice from the other approach borders on sacrilege. This is where the project manager and the team should illustrate contextual ambidexterity and apply practices that are best for the management of the project.
3. Research methodology
To answer the third research question (What practices are associated with a hybrid project management approach?), the literature was searched for differences between predictive and iterative approaches in terms of (1) project management practices, (2) project team collaboration, (3) project team practices, (4) leadership styles, and (5) team reflection and learning. The identified differences were converted into a questionnaire.
The questionnaire consisted of a biographical section and six themes. Theme 1 consisted of 11 questions and focussed on current project management practices and the environment itself. Theme 2 (team collaboration) consisted of 41 questions and covered aspects such as change and uncertainty management, the processes, the project manager and collaboration practices. Theme 3 focussed on the project team's practices and consisted of 23 questions. Theme 4 focussed on aspects of leadership such as structure and reporting lines, autonomy and decision-making, as well as changes to the scope of the deliverable. This theme consisted of 29 questions. Theme 5 focussed on how project teams reflect and learn and consisted of 13 questions. Each of the themes was measured using a Likert scale, with 1 indicating a more predictive project management approach and 5 indicating a more iterative approach.
Table 1 lists the various themes and associated identified literature used to construct the questionnaire.
A quantitative approach was adopted to scientifically determine the dominant project management approach within South African organisations. The unit of analysis was people involved in the management of projects within an organisation. Non-purposive sampling was used to select the respondents as they were part of the specific predefined group. A total of 290 valid responses were received. The purpose was to determine the position of each theme in relation to the predictive or iterative project management approach. Most of the respondents (61.2%) were team members (28.4%), project managers (19.1%) or project team leaders (13.7%).
The questionnaire was tested for reliability by means of Cronbach's alpha, as seen in Table 2. An overall alpha value of 0.956 resulted from the analysis and indicates that there was internal consistency. Theme 1's results should be interpreted with caution as the alpha value indicates poor internal validity.
4. Data analysis
The 290 respondents were spread across 12 industry sectors, with the majority (27.3%) in the financial services sector (Figure 1). The other three sectors that were well represented in this study were the building and construction (12.2%), ICT (12.9%) and public administration (16.2%) sectors.
Table 3 indicates the distribution of the approaches used to implement projects and provides some insight into the changing project landscape. Half of the organisations surveyed adopted a hybrid approach, with only 20.9% of the organisations using a predictive approach.
The public administration sector is the sector that still relies the most on a predictive approach to implement projects. The financial services and ICT sectors are the two sectors that have embraced agile the most; 65% of the respondents from the construction and engineering sector indicated that they also followed a hybrid approach.
4.1 Theme 1 (PM practices and environment)
Theme 1 focussed on the practices and the environment within which projects are implemented. Figure 2 and Table 4 provide a synopsis of this theme and some interesting observations can be made. Of the nine practices, only one (virtual work) is moderately skewed towards predictive practices. By implication, it means that within predictive and hybrid approaches, team members adopted virtual working, irrespective of the approach.
It can be concluded for this theme that the respondents chose practices that suited either a hybrid approach or an iterative approach. The fact that the results relate to a hybrid approach implies that contextual ambidexterity is the mode to deal with conflict.
Theme 2 focusses on the practices associated with project team collaboration.
4.2 Theme 2 (project team collaboration)
This theme constitutes four sections: (1) how team collaboration practices influence change and uncertainty, (2) how project management processes influence team collaboration, (3) the influence of the project manager on team collaboration and (4) the influence of the identified collaboration practices.
In contrast with theme 1, none of the items in theme 2 lean towards a predictive approach. The items in this theme suggest either a hybrid approach or an iterative approach. When it comes to the management of change and uncertainty, four items lean towards an iterative approach. Two of these items are counter-intuitive to an iterative approach as they focus on a fully defined project before the start of the project and the continuous tracking of the triple constraint. The other two items focus on quickly adapting to change and customer feedback, which relates to agile principles. The remainder of the items all suggest a hybrid approach as per Figure 3 and Table 5. The second section focusses on the effectiveness of the project management processes in use. One practice (alignment of resources with the business strategy) was classified as an iterative practice. The other items are either hybrid or iterative practices.
The third section focusses on the project manager or scrum master's role in choosing the appropriate practices. The respondents agreed that the project managers choose practices that are inclusive of hybrid/iterative approaches. Collaboration is essential if a team wants to respond to change (Laufer et al., 2015). The collaboration practices in section 4 all support a hybrid or iterative approach.
It is evident from the results that contextual ambidexterity is applied to deal with the conflict between the exploitative practices of predictive approaches and the explorative practices of iterative approaches. Project managers do see the value of incorporating practices from both approaches.
4.3 Theme 3 (project team practices)
The focus of this theme is on various team practices. These practices reflect both predictive and iterative practices. There are 23 practices within this theme and the distribution of each practice is displayed in Figure 4.
Table 6 provides a summary of the level of skewness of each practice. This theme shows 13 highly skewed practices (iterative); this is 56% of the practices. Five principles are moderately skewed towards iterative practices. Project managers are seeing the benefits of continuously involving team members and customers. This has resulted in the adoption of more iterative practices.
This theme can be summarised as a theme that is highly iterative in nature and the project teams adopted iterative principles to manage their activities.
4.4 Theme 4 (leadership)
The focus of this theme is the leadership style that is exhibited by project managers and managers in general. The leadership style influences the type of approach used in managing projects (López-Alcarria et al., 2019; Hoda and Noble, 2017; Conforto et al., 2016). This theme is divided into (1) the structure of the organisation and the associated reporting lines, (2) the project manager's influence over the team and (3) the level of autonomy and decision-making delegated to team members. Refer to Figure 5.
The negative skewness of the structure and reporting lines practices indicates a tendency towards a hybrid approach. This indicates that although the structure and reporting lines incorporate aspects such as self-organising teams and the continuous inclusion of the customer, there are still predictive practices such as a rigid hierarchy and the definition of tasks by the project manager. The second theme focus on team practices and negative skewness indicates a tendency towards an iterative approach.
Seventeen practices are part of autonomy and decision-making, and the practices can be classified as hybrid with a strong tendency towards an iterative approach. This implies a strong level of team autonomy, and decisions are made by the team. The skewness of each practice is indicated in Table 7.
4.5 Theme 5 (team reflection and learning)
The last theme focusses on the team's ability to reflect and learn. Teams should be able to reflect and learn from their mistakes if they want to become better. The boxplots in Figure 6 highlight that the practices are classified as either hybrid or hybrid with a strong iterative approach. The boxplots also indicate high levels of variance.
The analysis as presented in Table 8 indicates a level of maturity of the team. The teams incorporate aspects such as lessons learnt and are improving practices.
Figure 7 provides a summary overview of each theme or sub-theme. Theme 1 and sub-theme 4 (structure and reporting lines) have a wide variance, indicating practices from predictive as well as iterative approaches. The other themes and sub-themes are more centralised, indicating a more focussed hybrid approach.
In general, the results indicate a tendency towards a hybrid approach, with some practices skewing towards an iterative approach. Only one practice (working virtually) was moderately skewed towards a predictive approach. It can be concluded that project managers apply contextual ambidexterity to deal with the tension between predictive and iterative approaches. They apply the practices that are best suited to the situation.
Based on the results of Figure 7, it can be said that, due to the large number of respondents selecting either hybrid or iterative as their project classification, the results are biased towards a hybrid or iterative approach. For that reason, ANOVA was done.
4.6 ANOVA
Levene's test was done to test for the homogeneity of variances, and three practices had a significance level of less than 0.05, that is, collocation, online work and location meetings. Variances for these three were not equal, and they were excluded from the rest of the analysis. The following null hypothesis was formulated:
The practice level for each of the practices across the three approaches is equal.
For this article, only the practices where the F-scores have p-values (Sig.) less than 0.05 are displayed in Table 9. The ANOVA results show that the F-scores have p-values (Sig.) less than 0.05 for the following Theme 1 practices: agile, traditional and virtual work. This indicates that there is a significant difference between the practices of the various approaches. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected for the following practices: iterative, predictive and virtual work.
Regarding Theme 2, 8 of the 31 practices have F-scores with p-values (Sig.) less than 0.05. Four of these practices deal directly with change management. This implies that change is managed differently between predictive, hybrid and iterative approaches. The other four practices deal with alignment planning. The alignment of (1) resources with the strategy and (2) project management with other management processes is done differently between predictive, hybrid and iterative approaches. This is also applicable to how cycle times are adjusted and the development of stable short-term and flexible long-term plans by the project manager.
Theme 3 consists of 23 practices, only 5 of which have F-scores with p-values (Sig.) less than 0.05. These 5 practices all relate to the involvement of the team in decision-making and the direction of the project. The results highlight a more predictive approach to these practices where the project manager determines the project strategy, that is, a more command-and-control style (refer to Figure 4).
Theme 4 consists of 27 practices, 9 (33%) of which have F-scores with p-values (Sig.) less than 0.05. When it comes to the sub-theme of structure and reporting lines, 4 of the 7 practices show significant differences between the various approaches. These practices focus on the hierarchy of the project as well as the management and autonomy of the team. Some projects portray a more command-and-control structure (predictive approach), whereas other projects portray a more servant–leadership structure (iterative approach). All three practices from the Team sub-theme show significant differences between the various approaches. This correlates with the practices of the sub-theme Structure and reporting lines where teams are managed in command-and-control style (predictive approach) versus a more servant–leadership style (iterative approach). Only two practices from the autonomy and decision-making sub-theme show significant differences between the various approaches. These two practices are contradictory as one practice is that the team makes the decisions and the other that the project manager influences project decisions.
Theme 5 consists of 13 practices and 8 of these practices show significant differences between the various approaches. The essence is that an iterative approach is conducive to lessons learnt and reflection as highlighted by the 12 principles of the Agile Manifesto. Predictive approaches, on the other hand, encourage lessons learnt at the end of the project and little or no reflection takes place.
The ANOVA results in Table 9 show that the F-scores have p-values (Sig.) less than 0.05 for some of the practices. This indicates that there is a significant difference between the practices of the various approaches. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected for the practices listed in Table 9.
5. Discussion
The results paint a mixed picture where the practices range from predictive project management approaches to iterative project management approaches. This is illustrated in Figure 8. The upper and lower limits were calculated using the standard deviations for each theme. The first observation is that, irrespective of the approach, the application of practices is broad, indicating that organisations fluctuate between predictive and iterative practices. This results in contextual ambidexterity where decisions are made on what is best for the project. It also confirms Lavie et al. (2010) observation that exploration and exploitation is a continuum. A second observation is that organisations lean more towards a hybrid and/or iterative approach than a more predictive approach.
This answers the first research question. A hybrid approach explores and exploits practices from predictive and iterative approaches. The extent of this exploration and exploitation depends on the environment and the type of project. The results support the works of Cooper and Sommer (2016), Gemino et al. (2020) and Riesener et al. (2018) that a combination of predictive and iterative project management approaches resulted in a hybrid approach. The application of practices is on a continuum and project managers need to decide which practices is best at a specific point in time, thus the call for ambidexterity.
Theme 1 focusses on collaboration and the type of working environment. The results highlight that organisations followed very much a hybrid approach and that they did not see the value of practices such as collocation, the location of meetings and collaboration enforced by collocation. Organisations were also still experimenting with concepts such as online and virtual work where virtual work was leaning towards exploration. The ANOVA results also highlight that there is a difference in how the practice of virtual work was addressed.
Theme 2 consists of four sub-themes. Change and uncertainty are part and parcel of any project (Walker et al., 2017; Saunders et al., 2016) but are dealt differently in predictive and iterative approaches. The results highlight that organisations embraced change and uncertainty and dealt with these concepts in a more explorative way. Saying that, the ANOVA results do indicate that there is a difference between the approaches regarding harnessing change, the acceptance of uncertainty, the acceptance of change and the way forced changes by the customer are dealt with. These four practices are iterative and support the principle of embracing change but are not that easily executed in industries where a more predictive approach is required.
The results from Theme 3 indicate that teams were self-organising and allowed to make their own decisions. The teams were built to achieve a specific goal and were not just put together based on the people available.
The overall focus of Theme 4 is on the leadership of the project manager. Again, there is not much difference between the three project classifications. When it comes to structure and reporting lines, mixed results are portrayed. Two-thirds of the respondents indicated that rigid hierarchies were in place and that the project managers still defined the tasks. These practices do not allow for quick decision-making and negatively influence the transition to an agile project environment. Irrespective of a rigid hierarchy, the respondents indicated that the teams did experience high levels of autonomy and decision-making. Again, these conflicting results can be attributed to the fact that organisations were still in the transition phase.
Reflection and learning are important aspects of an iterative project management approach. The results indicate that teams were reflecting and learning, irrespective of the project classification. Lessons learnt is a specific process that is followed within traditional project management and forms part of the project integration management knowledge area (Project Management Institute, 2017). Various authors highlight the benefits of lessons learnt in construction projects (Carrillo et al., 2013) as well as in an iterative environment (Sutherland, 2004).
In response to the second research question, project managers need to exhibit a high level of ambidexterity. Thirty-three practices are unique to either the predictive or iterative approach. This resembles 28.2% of the 117 identified practices. The remainder of the practices (84 or 71.8%) requires ambidexterity.
Research question 3 posed the question which practices are applied in a hybrid approach. Tables 4–8 identified the 84 applicable practices. The level at which these practices are applied, is highly dependent on the level of exploration or exploitation, that is, ambidexterity.
6. Conclusion
“Either or” no longer applies to project management, and organisations need to adopt contextual ambidexterity. This approach is needed to incorporate the best of both worlds (predictive and iterative) into one project management approach, that is, hybrid. This study empirically investigated which approach is favoured. To achieve this, five themes were identified: (1) project management practices, (2) project team collaboration, (3) project team practices, (4) leadership styles, and (5) team reflection and learning.
Based on the analysis of 290 respondents, it can be concluded that most of the organisations followed a hybrid approach, thus applying contextual ambidexterity. This is irrespective of the industry sector or the organisation's own classification of the approach that it followed. All five themes apply practices that span predictive and iterative project management approaches. The direct result is that organisations adopted a hybrid approach where the best of two worlds was incorporated.
Organisations that indicated that they implemented iterative practices had practices that are associated with predictive project management approaches. The opposite is also true. The conclusion can be made that organisations will employ project management practices that are applicable to a specific scenario and project and that the pendulum will swing between predictive and iterative project management approaches. The impact on project managers is also enormous. They should be able to determine the best approach to implement a project and should therefore have adequate knowledge and skills to support their decisions. This indicates that project managers must be ambidextrous. It also has an impact on the training of project managers. All project managers should be trained in predictive as well as iterative project management approaches. This will broaden their horizons to be more ambidextrous and choose the practices that are applicable to a certain project in a certain environment.
This article's theoretical contribution supports the view of other researchers (Pellegrinelli et al., 2015; Turner et al., 2014) that ambidexterity is a requirement for managing projects. Contextual ambidexterity is the preferred mode to manage hybrid projects. This article also filled the gap identified by Turner et al. (2014) on how to achieve ambidexterity in practice.
From a practical perspective, project managers are provided with 84 practices that can be explored or exploited to achieve the purpose of the project. There is no prescription of which practices should be used and to what extent. It is up to the project managers to make this decision. Project managers also need to realise that a hybrid approach to managing projects is here to stay. This will impact their skills and competencies. The training and education of project managers should include hybrid project management irrespective of the discipline.
This research opens various avenues for future research. Research can be done on a simulation model that can be used to determine which approach and practices are the best, given a certain situation and/or scenario. Various attributes can be used as input for such a model and machine learning can be utilised in this instance. Research into the role of the organisation's culture and structures on the adoption of a project management approach should also be conducted. An approach is often forced into an organisation without considering the culture and structures in place. This creates challenges and the focus should be on how best to incorporate certain approaches given the organisation's environment.
Project managers should be ambidextrous and be able to strike a balance between the adoption of predictive and iterative practices.
Figures
Questionnaire themes and associated literature
Theme | Definition | Measure |
---|---|---|
Project management practices and environment | ||
Project approaches | The typical project approaches utilised in the practitioners' environment | Determine if the practitioners utilise more predictive project management or more iterative project management |
Team location | The extent to which the core team works in the same location | How the location of core team members affects responsiveness to change by facilitating communication, meetings, ability to overcome challenges, solve problems and make decisions (Chen et al., 2010) |
Project interaction | The extent of interaction between the team and customer | How often the team and customer interact to discuss project topics (Conforto et al., 2016) |
Delivery environment | Project environment is set up for shorter delivery cycles | How often the team can do incremental deliveries to reduce uncertainty (Conforto et al., 2016; Svejvig et al., 2019; Zidane et al., 2018) |
Project team collaboration | ||
Communication media preferences | Communication media preferences | Determine the communication media typically utilised |
Uncertainty management | The level of acceptance of uncertainty and response to change compared to following a predefined plan | The team's ability to accept change and uncertainty (López-Alcarria et al., 2019) |
Project process ability to respond to change | Management processes in place to enable change | Project management process designed to execute strategy, exercise capability and enable change when required (Worley et al., 2016) |
Project manager's ability to respond to change | Four roles a project manager needs to fulfil to respond to uncertainty | Ability to develop collaboration, integrate planning and enable learning, prevent disruptions and maintain momentum (Laufer et al., 2015) |
Collaboration practices | Collaborative problem- solving environment | Collaborative problem-solving (Sting et al., 2015) |
Project team practices | ||
Team practices | Manager-driven, manager-assisted, team-driven | Determine the team approach; manager- driven, manager-assisted, team-driven (Hoda and Noble, 2017) |
Team building | Deliberate effort to build the team | The team is deliberately built and not just put together (Aga et al., 2016) |
Leadership | ||
Team structure | Reporting lines of the project team | Questions are derived from team management (López-Alcarria et al., 2019) |
Team management | Project team communication and decision-making | Questions are derived from team management (López-Alcarria et al., 2019) |
Autonomy | Decision-making responsibility in project team | Questions are derived from team management (López-Alcarria et al., 2019) |
Management | Driving-adopting-empowering | Determine the management approach - driving-adopting-empowering (Hoda and Noble, 2017) |
Decision-making | Time taken to make decisions | Decision-making time (Conforto et al., 2016) |
Team reflection and learning | ||
Learning | Team learning process | The process through which the team gains or creates knowledge (Chen et al., 2010) |
Lessons learnt process | Lessons learnt integration in project phases | Access, update and use of lessons learnt integrated in project management process (Mcclory et al., 2017) |
Reflective practice | Learning integration in project team | Reflective practices, limited-focussed-embedded (Hoda and Noble, 2017) |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Cronbach's alpha results
Themes | Cronbach | No. of items | Internal consistency |
---|---|---|---|
Theme 1: Project management practices and environment | 0.578 | 9 | Poor |
Theme 2: Project team collaboration | 0.936 | 31 | Excellent |
Theme 3: Project team practices | 0.927 | 23 | Excellent |
Theme 4: Leadership | 0.890 | 27 | Good |
Theme 5: Team reflection and learning | 0.921 | 13 | Excellent |
Theme 6: Challenges | 0.849 | 19 | Good |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Cross-tabulation between project classification and industry
PM approach | |||
---|---|---|---|
Predictive | Iterative | Hybrid | |
Agriculture | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Energy | 0 | 3 | 6 |
Building and construction | 8 | 4 | 22 |
Healthcare | 1 | 3 | 7 |
Wholesale and retail | 4 | 3 | 13 |
Logistic services | 4 | 1 | 6 |
Financial services | 8 | 30 | 39 |
Legal services | 0 | 1 | 0 |
HR services | 2 | 1 | 1 |
ICT and communication services | 4 | 10 | 23 |
Consulting | 2 | 5 | 1 |
Public administration | 20 | 6 | 19 |
Education and training | 4 | 1 | 13 |
Percentage | 20.9% | 24.8% | 54.3% |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Skewness of Theme 1 practices
Practices | Skewness | Interpretation | Approach focus |
---|---|---|---|
Agile practices | −0.173 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Traditional practices | −0.311 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Collocation | −0.260 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Online work | −0.412 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Virtual work | 0.592 | Moderately skewed | Predictive <-> Hybrid |
Location F2F | −0.149 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Location meetings | −0.235 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Location collaborations | −0.299 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Partial results | −0.384 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Skewness of Theme 2 practices
Practices | Skewness | Interpretation | Approach focus |
---|---|---|---|
Changes harnessed | −0.093 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Project defined | −0.557 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Control parameters | −0.518 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Uncertainty acceptance | −0.045 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Change mechanisms | −0.514 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Incremental changes | −0.287 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Perfectly defined | −0.252 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Customer changes | 0.049 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Change acceptance | −0.277 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Learning from changes | −0.454 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Customer feedback | −0.865 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Process strategic alignment | −1.067 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Process continuous improvement | −0.601 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Process alignment | −0.679 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Process effectiveness | −0.455 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Process variety of inputs | −0.650 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Cycle time adjustment | −0.476 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Simplicity | −0.528 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Transparent processes | −0.666 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM selects right people | −0.744 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM instils trust | −0.627 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM short- and long-term plans | −0.432 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
PM learning-based reviews | −0.413 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
PM proactive problem management | −0.676 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM hands-on engagement | −0.631 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM F2F communication | −0.658 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM walk-the-floor | −0.363 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Communication barriers | −0.093 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Collaborative problem-solving | −0.557 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Visualisation | −0.518 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Safe zone | −0.045 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Skewness of Theme 3 practices
Practices | Skewness | Interpretation | Approach focus |
---|---|---|---|
Delegation of tasks | −0.958 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Volunteering | −0.182 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Team exclusion | −0.356 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Customer collaboration | −1.263 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Team implements tasks | −1.175 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Self-assignment of tasks | −0.072 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Practices are team driven | −0.673 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Project goals participation | −0.604 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Action planning involvement | −1.078 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Project goal clarification | −1.543 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Timely feedback | −1.161 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Encourage to meet | −1.072 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Frank discussions | −0.479 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Communication skills training | −0.640 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Sharing of feelings | −0.391 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Roles are clearly defined | −1.223 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Shared responsibilities | −1.283 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Familiarity of project goals | −1.152 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Team involvement with problem identification | −1.123 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Team involvement with idea generation | −1.082 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Team involvement with problem-solving | −1.091 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Team involvement with action plan implementation | −1.318 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Team involvement with action plan evaluation | −0.971 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Skewness of Theme 4 practices
Practices | Skewness | Interpretation | Approach focus |
---|---|---|---|
Rigid hierarchy | −0.360 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Tasks defined by PMs | −0.456 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Reduction of team autonomy | −0.111 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Customer exclusion | 0.297 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Flat hierarchy | 0.269 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Multi-disciplinary and self-organised team | −0.430 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Customer inclusion | −0.292 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
PM exercises flexibility | −0.559 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Regular meetings with project participants | −0.856 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Meetings facilitate communication and decision-making | −1.054 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
Assignees determine task execution | −0.910 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Effort considers time and complexity | −1.163 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
High-risk tasks require additional testing time | −0.971 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM drives customer collaboration | −0.932 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM is problem-solver | −0.539 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Management approach focusses on encouragement | −0.725 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM motivates team | −0.935 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM plays supporting role | −0.625 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM expects team autonomy | −0.675 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM is unseen force that guides team | −0.582 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM absence does not stall decision-making | −0.532 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM encourages team | −0.813 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM informs team about progress and changes | −0.770 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
PM practises subtle authority | −0.657 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Team-customer collaborations | −0.464 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Decisions are continuously adapted | −1.028 | Highly skewed | Iterative |
PM influences project decisions | −0.579 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Source(s): Authors own creation
Skewness of Theme 5 practices
Practices | Skewness | Interpretation | Approach focus |
---|---|---|---|
Teams incorporate lessons learnt | −0.747 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Teams receive outside information | −0.410 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Team experience and performance | −0.840 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Previous lessons learnt accessible | −0.714 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Logs created to capture lessons learnt | −0.548 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Processes facilitate lessons learnt | −0.481 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Incorporation of previous lessons learnt | −0.794 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Team members utilise learning opportunities | −0.776 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Review of improved practices | −0.724 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Reflection by team | −0.424 | Symmetrical | Hybrid |
Post-project reviews part of control | −0.654 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Audit trails | −0.588 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Information storage and retrieval supported by technology | −0.744 | Moderately skewed | Hybrid → Iterative |
Source(s): Authors own creation
ANOVA results
Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
THEME 1 (PM practices and environment) | ||||||
Agile practices | Between Groups | 131.764 | 2 | 65.882 | 65.881 | 0.000 |
Within Groups | 273.004 | 273 | 1.000 | |||
Total | 404.768 | 275 | ||||
Traditional practices | Between Groups | 26.208 | 2 | 13.104 | 9.770 | 0.000 |
Within Groups | 368.842 | 275 | 1.341 | |||
Total | 395.050 | 277 | ||||
Virtual work | Between Groups | 21.892 | 2 | 10.946 | 5.450 | 0.005 |
Within Groups | 546.289 | 272 | 2.008 | |||
Total | 568.182 | 274 | ||||
THEME 2 (Project team collaboration) | ||||||
Changes harnessed | Between Groups | 13.808 | 2 | 6.904 | 4.827 | 0.009 |
Within Groups | 393.371 | 275 | 1.430 | |||
Total | 407.180 | 277 | ||||
Uncertainty acceptance | Between Groups | 13.670 | 2 | 6.835 | 5.551 | 0.004 |
Within Groups | 338.603 | 275 | 1.231 | |||
Total | 352.273 | 277 | ||||
Customer changes | Between Groups | 9.077 | 2 | 4.538 | 3.547 | 0.030 |
Within Groups | 351.891 | 275 | 1.280 | |||
Total | 360.968 | 277 | ||||
Change acceptance | Between Groups | 6.538 | 2 | 3.269 | 3.266 | 0.040 |
Within Groups | 275.278 | 275 | 1.001 | |||
Total | 281.817 | 277 | ||||
Alignment of resources with strategy | Between Groups | 8.244 | 2 | 4.122 | 3.743 | 0.025 |
Within Groups | 302.835 | 275 | 1.101 | |||
Total | 311.079 | 277 | ||||
Alignment of PM and other management processes | Between Groups | 11.782 | 2 | 5.891 | 5.217 | 0.006 |
Within Groups | 310.548 | 275 | 1.129 | |||
Total | 322.331 | 277 | ||||
Cycle time adjustment to fit market rhythm | Between Groups | 9.136 | 2 | 4.568 | 3.186 | 0.043 |
Within Groups | 394.349 | 275 | 1.434 | |||
Total | 403.486 | 277 | ||||
PM develops stable short- and flexible long-term plans | Between Groups | 9.118 | 2 | 4.559 | 4.071 | 0.018 |
Within Groups | 307.976 | 275 | 1.120 | |||
Total | 317.094 | 277 | ||||
THEME 3 (Project team practices) | ||||||
Self-assignment of tasks | Between Groups | 14.531 | 2 | 7.265 | 5.564 | 0.004 |
Within Groups | 357.772 | 274 | 1.306 | |||
Total | 372.303 | 276 | ||||
Practices are team driven | Between Groups | 13.842 | 2 | 6.921 | 5.485 | 0.005 |
Within Groups | 345.739 | 274 | 1.262 | |||
Total | 359.581 | 276 | ||||
Project goals participation | Between Groups | 16.221 | 2 | 8.110 | 5.899 | 0.003 |
Within Groups | 376.704 | 274 | 1.375 | |||
Total | 392.924 | 276 | ||||
Total | 327.141 | 276 | ||||
Team involvement with problem identification | Between Groups | 9.564 | 2 | 4.782 | 5.591 | 0.004 |
Within Groups | 235.188 | 275 | 0.855 | |||
Total | 244.752 | 277 | ||||
Team involvement with action plan evaluation | Between Groups | 9.498 | 2 | 4.749 | 5.110 | 0.007 |
Within Groups | 255.538 | 275 | 0.929 | |||
Total | 265.036 | 277 | ||||
THEME 4 (Leadership) | ||||||
Reduction of team autonomy | Between Groups | 23.111 | 2 | 11.555 | 7.056 | 0.001 |
Within Groups | 450.371 | 275 | 1.638 | |||
Total | 473.482 | 277 | ||||
Customer exclusion | Between Groups | 12.367 | 2 | 6.183 | 4.027 | 0.019 |
Within Groups | 422.213 | 275 | 1.535 | |||
Total | 434.579 | 277 | ||||
Flat hierarchy | Between Groups | 24.940 | 2 | 12.470 | 7.283 | 0.001 |
Within Groups | 470.877 | 275 | 1.712 | |||
Total | 495.817 | 277 | ||||
Multi-disciplinary and self-organised team | Between Groups | 10.451 | 2 | 5.226 | 5.080 | 0.007 |
Within Groups | 282.872 | 275 | 1.029 | |||
Total | 293.324 | 277 | ||||
PM exercises flexibility | Between Groups | 16.053 | 2 | 8.026 | 6.315 | 0.002 |
Within Groups | 349.544 | 275 | 1.271 | |||
Total | 365.597 | 277 | ||||
Regular meetings with project participants to confirm target schedules | Between Groups | 6.646 | 2 | 3.323 | 3.435 | 0.034 |
Within Groups | 266.063 | 275 | 0.968 | |||
Total | 272.709 | 277 | ||||
Meetings facilitate communication and decision-making | Between Groups | 6.459 | 2 | 3.230 | 3.641 | 0.027 |
Within Groups | 243.933 | 275 | 0.887 | |||
Total | 250.392 | 277 | ||||
PM absence does not stall decision-making | Between Groups | 15.891 | 2 | 7.946 | 6.243 | 0.002 |
Within Groups | 350.022 | 275 | 1.273 | |||
Total | 365.914 | 277 | ||||
PM influences project decisions | Between Groups | 8.404 | 2 | 4.202 | 3.649 | 0.027 |
Within Groups | 316.690 | 275 | 1.152 | |||
Total | 325.094 | 277 | ||||
THEME 5 (Team reflection and learning) | ||||||
Teams incorporate lessons learnt | Between Groups | 12.181 | 2 | 6.090 | 5.895 | 0.003 |
Within Groups | 284.121 | 275 | 1.033 | |||
Total | 296.302 | 277 | ||||
Teams receive outside information | Between Groups | 12.311 | 2 | 6.155 | 5.482 | 0.005 |
Within Groups | 308.754 | 275 | 1.123 | |||
Total | 321.065 | 277 | ||||
Team experience and performance | Between Groups | 17.628 | 2 | 8.814 | 8.534 | 0.000 |
Within Groups | 284.016 | 275 | 1.033 | |||
Total | 301.644 | 277 | ||||
Previous lessons learnt accessible | Between Groups | 9.902 | 2 | 4.951 | 3.481 | 0.032 |
Within Groups | 391.191 | 275 | 1.423 | |||
Total | 401.094 | 277 | ||||
Logs created to capture lessons learnt | Between Groups | 11.382 | 2 | 5.691 | 4.459 | 0.012 |
Within Groups | 350.953 | 275 | 1.276 | |||
Total | 362.335 | 277 | ||||
Processes facilitate lessons learnt | Between Groups | 11.141 | 2 | 5.571 | 5.029 | 0.007 |
Within Groups | 304.618 | 275 | 1.108 | |||
Total | 315.759 | 277 | ||||
Reflection by team | Between Groups | 9.329 | 2 | 4.665 | 3.892 | 0.022 |
Within Groups | 329.549 | 275 | 1.198 | |||
Total | 338.878 | 277 | ||||
Audit trails | Between Groups | 9.606 | 2 | 4.803 | 4.280 | 0.015 |
Within Groups | 308.614 | 275 | 1.122 | |||
Total | 318.219 | 277 |
Source(s): Authors own creation
References
Aga, D.A., Noorderhaven, N. and Vallejo, B. (2016), “Transformational leadership and project success: the mediating role of team-building”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, pp. 806-818.
Aubry, M. and Lièvre, P. (2010), “Ambidexterity as a competence of project leaders: a case study from two polar expeditions”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 32-44.
Awojide, O., Hodgkinson, I.R. and Ravishankar, M.N. (2018), “Managerial ambidexterity and the cultural toolkit in project delivery”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36, pp. 1019-1033.
Barbosa, A.M.C. and Saisse, M.C.P. (2019), “Hybrid project management for sociotechnical digital transformation context”, Brazilian Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 16, pp. 316-332.
Chen, J., Damanpour, F. and Reilly, R.R. (2010), “Understanding antecedents of new product development speed: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28, pp. 17-33.
Conforto, E.C., Amaral, D.C., Da Silva, S.L., Di Felippo, A. and Kamikawachi, D.S.L. (2016), “The agility construct on project management theory”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, pp. 660-674.
Cooper, R.G. and Sommer, A.F. (2016), “The agile–stage-gate hybrid model: a promising new approach and a new research opportunity”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 33, pp. 513-526.
Binci, D., Cerruti, C., Masili, G. and Paternoster, C. (2023), “Ambidexterity and Agile project management: an empirical framework”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 1275-1309, doi: 10.1108/TQM-01-2022-0011.
Carrillo, P., Ruikar, K. and Fuller, P. (2013), “When will we learn? Improving lessons learned practice in construction”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31, pp. 567-578.
Gemino, A., Horner Reich, B. 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, doi: 10.1177/8756972820973082.
Hoda, R. and Murugesan, L.K. (2016), “Multi-level agile project management challenges: a self-organizing team perspective”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 117, pp. 245-257.
Hoda, R. and Noble, J. (2017), “Becoming agile: a grounded theory of agile transitions in practice”, 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Buenos Aires, 20-28 May 2017, IEEE, pp. 141-151.
Jamous, N., Garttan, G., Staegemann, D. and Volk, M. (2021), “Hybrid project management methods efficiency in IT projects”, in Chan, Y. and Boudreau, M. (Eds), AMCIS 2021 Proceedings, Association for Information Systems, Online.
Lappi, T., Karvonen, T., Lwakatare, L.E., Aaltonen, K. and Kuvaja, P. (2018), “Toward an improved understanding of agile project governance: a systematic literature review”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 39-63.
Laufer, A., Hoffman, E.J., Russell, J.S. and Cameron, W.S. (2015), “What successful project managers do”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 56, pp. 43-51.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U. and Tushman, M.L. (2010), “Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4, pp. 109-155.
López-Alcarria, A., Olivares-Vicente, A. and Poza-Vilches, F. (2019), “A systematic review of the use of agile methodologies in education to foster sustainability competencies”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 10, 2915, doi: 10.3390/su11102915.
Liu, D., Chen, S. and Chou, T. (2011a), “Resource fit in digital transformation: lessons learned from the CBC Bank global e‐banking project”, Management Decision, Vol. 49, pp. 1728-1742.
Liu, D.Y., Chen, S.W. and Chou, T.C. (2011b), “Resource fit in digital transformation: lessons learned from the CBC Bank global e‐banking project”, Management Decision, Vol. 49, pp. 1728-1742.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 2, pp. 71-87.
Marnewick, A.L. and Marnewick, C. (2020a), “The ability of project managers to implement industry 4.0-related projects”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 314-324.
Marnewick, C. and Marnewick, A.L. (2020b), “The demands of industry 4.0 on project teams”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 67, pp. 941-949.
Mcclory, S., Read, M. and Labib, A. (2017), “Conceptualising the lessons-learned process in project management: towards a triple-loop learning framework”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35, pp. 1322-1335.
Papadakis, E. and Tsironis, L. (2022), “Towards a hybrid project management framework: a systematic literature review on traditional, agile and hybrid techniques”, The Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 8, pp. 124-139.
Pellegrinelli, S., Murray-Webster, R. and Turner, N. (2015), “Facilitating organizational ambidexterity through the complementary use of projects and programs”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33, pp. 153-164.
Project Management Institute (2017), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Riesener, M., Dölle, C., Ays, J. and Ays, J.L., “Hybridization of development projects through process-related combination of agile and plan-driven approaches”, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 16-19 December 2018, pp. 602-606.
Sailer, P. (2019), “Project management methods as a way to ambidexterity”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 12, pp. 1061-1078.
Saunders, F.C., Gale, A.W. and Sherry, A.H. (2016), “Responding to project uncertainty: evidence for high reliability practices in large-scale safety–critical projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34, pp. 1252-1265.
Sting, F.J., Loch, C.H. and Stempfhuber, D. (2015), “Accelerating projects by encouraging help”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 56, pp. 33-41.
Sutherland, J. (2004), “Agile development: lessons learned from the first scrum”, Cutter Agile Project Management Advisory Service: Executive Update, Vol. 5, pp. 1-4.
Svejvig, P., Geraldi, J. and Grex, S. (2019), “Accelerating time to impact: deconstructing practices to achieve project value”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 37, pp. 784-801.
Turkulainen, V. and Ruuska, I. (2022), “Facilitating contextual ambidexterity in a global operations expansion program”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 67-83.
Turner, N., Maylor, H., Lee-Kelley, L., Brady, T., Kutsch, E. and Carver, S. (2014), “Ambidexterity and knowledge strategy in major projects: a framework and illustrative case study”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 44-55.
Turner, N., Kutsch, E. and Leybourne, S.A. (2016), “Rethinking project reliability using the ambidexterity and mindfulness perspectives”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 9, pp. 845-864.
Verganti, R. (1999), “Planned flexibility: linking anticipation and reaction in product development projects”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 16, pp. 363-376.
Walker, D.H.T., Davis, P.R. and Stevenson, A. (2017), “Coping with uncertainty and ambiguity through team collaboration in infrastructure projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35, pp. 180-190.
Worley, C.G., Williams, T. and Lawler, E.E. (2016), “Creating management processes built for change”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 58, pp. 77-82.
Zidane, Y.J.T., Klakegg, O.J., Andersen, B. and Hussein, B. (2018), “‘Superfast!’ managing the urgent: case study of telecommunications infrastructure project in Algeria”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11, pp. 507-526.