Project Management VII Research Paper

1University of São Paulo, São Paulo, PR, Brazil

Corresponding Author: Flávio Copola Azenha, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, PR, USA. Email: fcopola@ usp. br

Project Management Journal 2021, Vol. 52(1) 90–110

© 2021 Project Management Institute, Inc. Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub. com/ journals- permissions DOI: 10. 1177/ 8756 9728 20956884

journals. sagepub. com/ home/ pmx

The Role and Characteristics of Hybrid Approaches to Project Management in the Development of Technology- Based Products and Services

Flávio Copola Azenha1, Diane Aparecida Reis1, and André Leme Fleury1

Abstract There is a trend of combining agile and traditional project management practices for technology- based product and service development in the search for more agility. Although there are, in the literature, hybrid models that propose combinations of traditional and agile approaches, there are no studies that discuss the impact of the adoption of this approach in organizations in practice. Consequently, guidance on the selection of the most appropriate project management approach has remained largely theoretical, rather than based on companies’ experiences. The objective of this research is to analyze how organizations that develop technology- based products and services apply hybrid approaches to project management, their characteristics, advan- tages, and disadvantages, conducting a literature review and multiple case studies as research methods. Results reveal that hybrid approaches to project management are currently fundamental for companies in order to deal with distinct organizational cul- tures, specific processes, customer contractual requirements, and project specificities. This study also led to a consolidated list of the characteristics of hybrid approaches to project management.

Keywords hybrid approaches to project management, agile approaches to project managementx, traditional project management, project management approaches

Article

Introduction Problems concerning the adoption of project management approaches in the context of software development have been debated by practitioners and researchers since the 1980s (Boehm, 1984, 1988; Brooks, 1987; Heninger, 1980; Royce, 1970 An et al., 2019). The search for solutions has resulted in the creation of development process models for the software industry (Software Engineering Institute, 2010), as well as the wide dis- semination of management guides, such as A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) – Sixth Edition (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017) and Prince2 (OCG, 2009) for this industry. The purpose of these guides was to improve current development process and ensure control and some degree of predictability about projects.

- ware development activities and the rapid changes that have taken place in organizations since the 1990s (Cooper & Sommer, 2016) have led to scenarios where projects are con- stantly altering in scope. These, then, result in large reworks and potentially high risks and costs, which may, further, lead to

and reputation damages (Beck & Andres, 2004; Boehm, 2000, 2002; Highsmith & Cockburn, 2001).

At the end of the 1990s, the search for solutions to these problems led to the emergence of practices that became known as agile (Agile Manifesto, 2001). This set of practices proposes the elimination of the management bureaucracy of software development projects in order to promote “agility” to deal with contemporary challenges. Agile approaches are well known in the context of the software development industry, especially in their project management approaches, referenced in the litera- ture as agile approaches to project management (Baskerville et al., 2011; Dikert et al., 2016; Serrador & Pinto, 2015).

Today, innovative projects require greater agility in the design and development phases to respond to the demands of

Copola Azenha et al. 91

the market (Ardito et al., 2014; Baskerville et al., 2011; Conforto et al., 2014; Schön et al., 2015), and agile manage- ment approaches are broadly used in developing products and services projects because these approaches could improve speed in product development and, therefore, are recommended for radical innovation development projects (Ardito et al., 2014; Baskerville et al., 2011; Conforto et al., 2014; Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Schön et al., 2015).

characteristics of their environments and their projects with the need for greater agility to respond to the demands of innovation. Therefore, some organizations choose to combine elements of traditional and agile approaches to project management to create a method capable of addressing their needs (Robins, 2016).

The combination of both approaches is referenced in the liter- ature as hybrid approaches to project management (Amaral et al., 2011; Conforto & Amaral, 2016; Hayata & Han, 2011; Robins, 2016). The combination of traditional and agile approaches to management is considered by some authors as incompatible, because team structures and management styles follow opposite logics and principles (Cockburn, 2000; Galal- Edeen et al., 2007; Nerur et al., 2005; Vinekar et al., 2006). However, authors includ- ing Boehm and Turner (2005) argue that the combination of approaches is possible. Indeed, the practice is even recommended in certain situations, such as when there is a need to minimize unnecessary or low- value functions, or to obtain faster develop- ment. On the other hand, it is not recommended when organiza- tions need to obtain long- term goals or a higher degree of documentation and scope control.

In the literature, authors have presented hybrid management models that combine the techniques and processes of both approaches, traditional and agile (Amaral et al., 2011; ; Cohn, 2005; Conforto & Amaral, 2010, 2016; Hayata & Han, 2011). However, these are prescriptive theory- based models, and little has been done to answer how hybrid projects are truly more successful. Considering the existing literature, actual case studies should lead to a better understanding of hybrid management approaches, and, from the resulting information, it should be possi-

(Boehm & Turner, 2005). At the moment, a miscellany of tech-

hybrid approaches that are currently applied in practice. This is because project management theory does not provide tools and

project characteristics and practices (Sauser et al., 2009). In this context, managers from organizations face three main challenges in

- ness, and people. These are challenges for hybrid approaches to project management that can be overcome according to Boehm and Turner (2005).

However, how organizations adopt and explore hybrid approaches to project management in their contexts to overcome these barriers is still not clear. For this reason, it is relevant to ana- lyze the characteristics of hybrid approaches to project manage- ment in organizations that are developing innovative products and

services and to investigate how the approach is applied in practice.

The objectives of this study are to understand the adoption of hybrid approaches to project management in organizations, devel- oping a landscape framework involving organizations, actors, con- texts, activities, and practices, aiming to identify the advantages and disadvantages of this approach in Brazilian organizations. From this, the aim is to develop a list of the characteristics of hybrid approaches to project management.

To this end, two case studies were conducted in Brazilian com- panies and three case studies were conducted in multinationals operating in Brazil that develop technology- based products and ser- vices. Data were collected via semistructured interviews, documen- tation analysis, and face- to- face observation performed in the companies’ environments, aiming to answer the questions: What are the characteristics of hybrid approaches to project management? How are the organizations adopting hybrid approaches to project management? What are the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid approaches to project management adoption in Brazilian organizations?

describes the research context, importance, objectives, and method- ology. The second section details the main characteristics of hybrid approaches to project management from the literature and the theo- retical framework used to structure this study. The methodology is provided in the third section. In the fourth section, details of the

section presents the conclusions, with research contributions, lim- itations, and possible future studies.

Systematic Literature Review To identify the current state of the art concerning hybrid approaches to project management research, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted. An SLR explores the evolution of knowl- edge about a subject by analyzing, gathering, and synthesizing information (Dorn et al., 2016; Lappi et al., 2018); applying com- plementary methods such as bibliometric, networks, and content analysis; and allowing the analysis of the current literature and

Reis et al., 2019; Weissbrodt & Giauque, 2017). The analyzed articles were extracted from ISI—Web of Science (WoS) and from Scopus data- bases, as these include the largest number of articles that are peer reviewed before publication, in a wide variety of recognized aca-

- tion, analysis, and synthesis of evidence obtained from relevant studies of a research area (Irshad et al., 2018) and results in the con- struction of databases for future research (Dikici et al., 2018; Maier et al., 2014 most relevant models and approaches described in the specialized literature. Figure 1 illustrates the process adopted in the SLR.

Karlström and Runeson (2005), and there had been a continu- ous growth in the number of publications until 2019. The most

Project Management Journal 52(1)92

relevant period is between 2015 and 2019 and comprehends -

ies, 26 have been published in journals (37.14%), 43 of these works have been published in proceedings of conferences (61.43%), and only one work was published in the format of review. This fact shows that research concerning hybridity is relatively recent in the academic community.

Figure 2 presents the keyword network, built with VOSviewer software (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). It is possible to observe the predominance of software development keywords, evinced by the “software design” central nodes, indicating that hybrid approaches to project management are more often related to software devel- opment contexts. The lower right cluster indicates that some stud- ies relate hybrid management to innovation models, such as stage gate (Cooper, 2008). Thus, the analysis of the sample indicates two main perspectives of hybridism in the literature: studies with a focus on software development projects and studies with a focus on innovation projects.

Figure 3 highlights the keyword “hybrid” and its direct con- nections. It is possible to observe a direct relation with the key- words “requirements- engineering” and “biomedical- equipment,” illustrating the application of hybrid management models in spe-

critical systems and medical equipment. This evidence indicates

that can be resolved with hybrid approaches to project manage- ment (Dingsøyr et al., 2018; Drechsler & Breth, 2019; Niederman et al., 2018).

The titles and abstracts network presented in Figure 4 illus- trate the relationship between the keywords “hybrid model” and “large organizations,” indicating that hybridism can be an

organizations. Thus, hybridity is a way to resolve the issue of scalability of agile approaches to project management in cer- tain contexts, as advocated by Amaral et al. (2011). Moreover, Figure 4 also shows the combination among distinct project development perspectives, including stage gate, agile approaches to project management, and traditional project management approaches, reinforcing hybridity as a multifac-

Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of project manage-

hybrid approaches, with the aim of classifying and identifying

that there are several possibilities for hybrid approaches to project management, so Table 1 aims to synthetize some of the

concerning this theme. This procedure was inspired by Dezdar and Sulaiman (2009) and Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2007), who applied content analysis of the literature to propose a taxonomy to classify their main subjects of interest, evincing the rele- vance of this kind of approach for synthesizing knowledge

Considering the results obtained with the SLR, it was possi- ble to consolidate the fundamental characteristics of hybrid

Figure 1. Systematic literature review process.

Copola Azenha et al. 93

models in a single framework, as presented in Table 1. However, it is important to emphasize that the descriptions of the charac- teristics of hybrid management were compiled from the cor- relation of the characteristics of traditional and agile approaches shown in the literature. Thus, the framework was applied as a foundation to identify and to qualify methodologies and pro-

When observing the characteristics highlighted in Table 1, it is possible to note that in the various works found in the litera- ture, traditional and agile approaches are rarely adopted in a purist way; that is, all project management approaches end up undergoing changes and adaptations, according to the needs of the environment, even if, in the case of agile, some authors emphasize that the practices must be implemented without

- tions (Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Schwaber, 2004; Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016).

On the other hand, hybridity is a natural phenomenon when adopting some style of project management, because there is an intrinsic need to adapt to the needs of the environment, in which

the combination of practices and processes of the agile and tra-

between the need for agility and project control (Conforto & Amaral, 2010; ; Rong et al., 2010; Torrecilla- Salinas et al., 2015).

In this way, the hybrid approach to project management is based on the premise of adapting the approach to the context

rapid prototyping techniques (Boehm & Turner, 2005), such as Kanban, work breakdown structures (WBSs), roadmaps, for-

for the development of products and services. However, this is still an emerging research theme and not enough studies have been undertaken yet on the success factors of making adapta- tions or on teams’ abilities and skills in hybrid approaches to project management (Unterkalmsteiner et al., 2015), and so, as of yet, there is not enough information about the best ways to act and to achieve successful measures when making adapta- tions to project management. Success depends greatly on orga-

Figure 2. Cluster of keywords (VOSviewer).

Project Management Journal 52(1)94

harmonizing quantitative and qualitative requirements and stakeholders’ expectations. For these organizations, the empha- sis should be in learning fast what is relevant and real, what works, and for whom it works (Unterkalmsteiner et al., 2015).

Literature presents models and practices of hybrid approaches, such as the concept created by Cohn (2009), the “waterfall up front” and “waterfall at end,” which aims to inte- grate traditional and agile management. From this concept, Hayata and Han (2011) propose a management model that combines elements of traditional and agile approaches for soft- ware development projects. In this model, the traditional

where, according to the authors, there is greater need for plan- ning in this context. Then, the agile approach is applied to the development, implementation and testing phases, where the need for agility is greater, as shown in Figure 5.

Another relevant model, also based on Cohn’s concept (2009), is proposed by . In this model, traditional approaches,

as presented in Figure 6. The model proposed by also presents an

interesting management structure, in which management roles are divided into three: the project manager, based on the role described in traditional approaches; the scrum master; and the product owner, both of which are roles described in agile

framework. Here, there is only one project manager, who is primarily responsible for the project, as well as a single product owner for every project. On the other hand, there may be sev- eral scrum masters and also several development teams and delivery strategies, which will be organized based on the needs and complexities of the project in question. It is worth noting that each scrum master is responsible for the results and deliv- eries performed by the iterations and responds hierarchically to the project manager.

Another important hybrid model is proposed by Amaral et al. (2011). It is a model to scale agile management to large

Figure 3. Cluster of keywords (hybrid; SOSviewer).

Copola Azenha et al. 95

projects and is focused mainly on product development but it can be applied to any category of high complexity project. The model combines processes, techniques, and practices of tradi- tional and agile approaches, such as personas, product backlog, and the concept of iterative development, which are techniques widely disseminated by agile approaches, and the use of robust documentation and precise planning and control, which are common techniques of the traditional approach, for projects’

Figure 7). In this model, agile planning is as a microplanning of the

whole development. One advantage of this approach is that agile practices are more adaptive and allow a faster response when customers’ requirements change, being more vibrant,

Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Verburg et al., 2013). Its main disadvantage is that it is not robust enough to support the whole product development process (Cooper & Sommer, 2016).

to the fundamentals of hybrid approaches to project management. Network analysis illustrated the main contexts in which hybrid management is applied (e.g., innovative software projects for the development of complex systems, such as medical equipment in large organizations, in which the management of system require-

stakeholders, but cost and time constraints must be maintained). The main research themes concerning hybrid management are planning horizon, that is, time perspectives involved in the

traditional and in the agile phases; project planning, including techniques and methods that are applied in each phase; activity details, that is, how project objectives are deployed into sequences of activities; project scope, considering how objectives are formu- lated in each development iteration; scope conformance, that is, how the adherence between the results obtained in each iteration

including artifacts that are generated to evince the evolution of the

manager acts to ensure that the project occurs according to scope, on time, and considering the available budget. Finally, the analy- sis of the hybrid models from the literature allowed the visualiza- tion of the connections between traditional activities and agile

greater focus on improving productivity considering the available

the whole project and, thus, strengthening the position of the proj- ect manager in relation to the achievement of overall project results.

Method The purpose of this research is to reveal the characteristics of hybrid approaches to project management from a literature

Figure 4. Cluster of terms: Titles and abstracts (SOSviewer).

Project Management Journal 52(1)96

Table 1. Characteristics of Project Management Approaches

Characteristics Agile Traditional Hybrid

Planning Horizon Short- term planning focused on iteration objectives (Boehm & Turner, 2003, 2005; Cockburn & Highsmith, 2001; Highsmith, 2004; Schwaber, 2004; Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016; Tereso et al., 2019).

Long- term planning focused on the entire project life cycle (Boehm & Turner, 2003, 2005; IMPA, 2006; OCG, 2009; Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Tereso et al., 2019)

Long- term planning focused on the entire project life cycle, and short- term planning focused on iterations (Amaral et al., 2011; Binfire, 2016; Brandl et al., 2018; Carvalho et al., 2012; Fernandes et al., 2018; Hayata & Han, 2011; Rong et al., 2010; Torrecilla- Salinas et al., 2015).

Project Planning Lean planning for the cycle of iterations with constant re- evaluations and refinements (Boehm & Turner, 2003; Brandl et al., 2018; Butler et al., 2019; Cockburn & Highsmith, 2001; Highsmith, 2004; Tereso et al., 2019).

Sophisticated planning for the entire project life cycle (Boehm & Turner, 2003, 2005; Brandl et al., 2018; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Tamanini et al., 2015; Tereso et al., 2019).

Sophisticated initial planning with constant re- evaluations and refinements (Amaral et al., 2011; Binfire, 2016; Carvalho et al., 2012; Conforto & Amaral, 2010; Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Fernandes et al., 2018; Hayata & Han, 2011; McCaffery et al., 2008; McHugh et al., 2014; Monteiro Cavalieri Barbosa & Pego Saisse, 2019; Rong et al., 2010; Sommer et al., 2015; Torrecilla- Salinas et al., 2015).

Activities Details Unpredictable, nonlinear, and unmeasurable detailing with incremental and constant deliveries, as well as lean and informal documentation (Boehm & Turner, 2003; Butler et al., 2019; Cockburn & Highsmith, 2001; Highsmith, 2004; Nerur et al., 2005; Schwaber, 2004; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Tereso et al., 2019)

Predictable, linear, and measurable detailing with integral or phased deliveries and sophisticated, formal documentation (Boehm & Turner, 2003; Cockburn & Highsmith, 2001; Highsmith, 2004; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Tereso et al., 2019).

Predictable, nonlinear, and measurable detailing for the complete cycle; unpredictable and immeasurable for iterations. Both incremental and phased deliveries, with balanced and formal documentation (Amaral et al., 2011; Binfire, 2016; Conforto & Amaral, 2010; Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Fernandes et al., 2018; Hayata & Han, 2011; McCaffery et al., 2008; McHugh et al., 2014; Monteiro Cavalieri Barbosa & Pego Saisse, 2019; Rong et al., 2010; Sommer et al., 2015; Torrecilla- Salinas et al., 2015).

Project Scope Based on the vision of what must be built. Comprehensive and metaphorical representation of objectives and expected outcomes in an ambiguous and challenging way (Boehm & Turner, 2003, 2005; Butler et al., 2019; Highsmith, 2004; Sliger & Broderick, 2008; Tereso et al., 2019).

Based on the detailed specification of what will be built. A robust and formal description of the objectives and expected results from contractual documents (Boehm & Turner, 2003, 2005; IMPA, 2006; OCG, 2009; Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Tamanini et al., 2015; Tereso et al., 2019).

Composed of a long- term specification with formal descriptions of the objectives and expected results for the project as a whole, and a short- term view for iterations, based on metaphorical and abstract representations of each iteration objective (Amaral et al., 2011; Binfire, 2016; Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Fernandes et al., 2018; Hayata & Han, 2011; McCaffery et al., 2008; McHugh et al., 2014; Monteiro Cavalieri Barbosa & Pego Saisse, 2019; Sommer et al., 2015).

Scope Conformance

Changes are identified and planning is adjusted for each interaction (Boehm & Turner, 2005; Brandl et al., 2018; Butler et al., 2019; Cockburn & Highsmith, 2001; Highsmith, 2004; Schwaber, 2004; Tereso et al., 2019).

Deviations are identified and activities adjusted to maintain planning (Brandl et al., 2018; IMPA, 2006; OCG, 2009; Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Sliger & Broderick, 2008; Tereso et al., 2019).

Changes are identified and short- term planning is adjusted for each interaction, avoiding deviations in long- term planning (Binfire, 2016; Brandl et al., 2018; Carvalho et al., 2012; Conforto & Amaral, 2010; Cooper & Sommer, 2016; McCaffery et al., 2008; McHugh et al., 2014).

Control and Monitoring

Made from physical and/or virtual visual artifacts and devices, such as posters, murals and pictures, with short and frequent team meetings (Boehm, 2002; Boehm & Turner, 2005; Brandl et al., 2018; Butler et al., 2019; Cohn & Ford, 2003; Highsmith, 2004; Schwaber, 2004; Tereso et al., 2019).

Carried out via performance indicators, time lines, formal documentation, performance reviews, and audits, with extensive and infrequent team meetings (Boehm & Turner, 2005, Brandl et al., 2018; IMPA, 2006; OCG, 2009; Project Management Institute [PMI], 2017; Tamanini et al., 2015; Tereso et al., 2019).

Incorporates traditional control and monitoring practices from a long- term perspective (project life cycle) and agile from a short- term perspective, project iterations (Brandl et al., 2018; Conforto & Amaral, 2010; Fernandes et al., 2018; McCaffery et al., 2008; Monteiro Cavalieri Barbosa & Pego Saisse, 2019; Rong et al., 2010; Torrecilla- Salinas et al., 2015).

(Continued)

Copola Azenha et al. 97

review and to analyze project management practices using case studies. From investigating how organizations apply this type

disadvantages are discerned. This kind of study requires the observation of the phenomenon in its context, in real- life rou- tines (Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss et al., 2002; Yan & Yin, 2006).

Considering that theory- building research usually combines multiple data collection methods (Eisenhardt, 1989), this arti- cle combines multiple case studies in an exploratory way. This method is applied in exploratory research (Dingsøyr et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019; Midler et al., 2019; Momeni & Martinsuo, 2019), starting with the formulation of the research question related to the emerging phenomenon in order to build knowl- edge capable of contributing to the academic discourse (Müller & Klein, 2019). Cooper and Sommer (2016) investigated pub- lications that described cases of agile applications and high- lighted studies with multiple case studies, a relevant method because multiple case studies allow cross- case analyses and the triangulation of obtained evidence, making it possible to look beyond impressions and to obtain evidence considering

multiple perspectives, improving the levels of analysis, provid- ing substantial foundations for hypotheses and constructs, and

Eisenhardt, 1989). Since the application of hybrid approaches to project man-

agement is recent from the academic point of view, the study conducted exploratory multiple case studies in an attempt to

studies that were advocated by McEvoy et al. (2019). The research was exploratory and the multiple case studies contrib- uted to analyze how organizations that develop technology- based products and services apply hybrid approaches to project management, a phenomenon that lacks academic research (Boehm & Turner, 2005).

- sented in Figure 8.

theoretical background. According to Eisenhardt (1989), Voss et al. (2002), and Yan and Yin (2006), the development of a good theoretical framework is essential for mapping the

Characteristics Agile Traditional Hybrid

Management Style Flexible, variable, and adaptive. Without the presence of the figure of a project manager. Multidisciplinary teams, self- managed and with low hierarchy (Butler et al., 2019; Collyer, 2016; Hoda et al., 2013; Lee & Xia, 2010; Moe et al., 2010; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; So ta- Dr czkowska & Mro ewski, 2020).

Mechanic, formal, and bureaucratic. Strong presence of the project manager. Highly specialized, working with specialized teams (Collyer, 2016; Hoda et al., 2013; Lee & Xia, 2010; Moe et al., 2010; Nerur et al., 2005; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; So ta- Dr czkowska & Mro ewski, 2020).

Adaptive and formal. Presence of the figure of a project manager. Multidisciplinary teams with medium hierarchy (Amaral et al., 2011; Binfire, 2016; Carvalho et al., 2012; Hayata & Han, 2011; So ta- Dr czkowska & Mro ewski, 2020; Torrecilla- Salinas et al., 2015).

Table 1. Continued

Figure 5. Hybrid model for software project management (adapted from Hayata & Han, 2011).

Project Management Journal 52(1)98

literature and allows the construction of a robust and reliable research instrument. In the second phase, the research method was chosen and the research instrument was developed based on the most relevant theoretical references. According to Bryman (1998), and Creswell (1994), choosing the most appro- priate method to answer the questions and to achieve the objec- tives of a study is fundamental to the research process.

of the study have descriptive and exploratory characteristics, which are ideal for the application of the exploratory case study method (Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss et al., 2002

most appropriate research method for the study, the construc- tion of the research instrument was conducted, taking into account the most relevant characteristics of each project man-

as recommended by Eisenhardt (1989) and Yan and Yin (2006). The construction of the instrument resulted in the research pro-

presented in the Appendix.

pilot test. According to Eisenhardt (1989) and Forza (2002), the objective of the pilot test is to verify the quality of the

Figure 6. Hybrid approaches to project management (adapted from Binfire, 2016).

Figure 7. Model of hybrid approaches to project management for large and complex projects (adapted from Amaral et al., 2011).

Copola Azenha et al. 99

instrument and its ability to answer the proposed questions and to lead to a set of results, in accordance with the objectives initially proposed for the research. The pilot test was conducted through interviews with two project managers using a script developed for the purpose. Both interviews had an average duration of approximately one hour. The information was recorded using notes and an audio recording, with the appropri- ate authorization of the interviewees. From the results of the pilot test, it was possible to make adjustments in the protocol

- teria for the companies to participate in the case studies, as sug- gested by Eisenhardt (1989) and Yan and Yin (2006). The

services. This was to be able to observe the practices of hybrid

Case studies provide a better understanding of the real world from the analysis of events that cannot be manipulated (McCutcheon & Meredith, 1993), and since the study was con- ducted in Brazil, case studies included Brazilian and multina- tional companies acting in the Brazilian market. To make sure the selected cases are representative and observable, the sample

in a representative combination of cases. Therefore, selected case studies are relevant for the purpose of the study since they

that apply hybrid management approaches to solve their daily project management problems, allowing the analysis of the applicability and impacts of these approaches in the real world.

initiative. In this stage, data were collected using semistructured interviews, document analysis, and in- person observation in each company using the research protocol and the interview script devel- oped in the previous phase. Following the recommendations from Eisenhardt (1989) and Yan and Yin (2006), the interviews and visits

The conversations were recorded with the authorization of the inter- viewees and notes were also taken. Documentation was made

available by the interviewees and was subsequently analyzed and

and organized to develop the narrative of the cases. The transcripts were sent for validation with the interviewees, as suggested by Eisenhardt (1989). Thus, data were collected from primary sources and also from secondary sources (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yan & Yin, 2006). The primary sources include data collected through inter- views and in- person observation. The secondary sources include data collected from the analysis of the documentation made avail- able by the interviewees, information from the companies’ web- sites, emails, and from informal conversations. The purpose of using multiple data sources is to gain a triangulation of the data col-

the case study (Eisenhardt, 1989). After the triangulation of the information, the results obtained in

- work developed for the research. However, it is important to note

- lel; that is, while conducting the data collection in one company, data already collected in another company were organized and

To guarantee the validity of the obtained results, four main aspects were observed (Farrington, 2003; Lee et al., 2010; Tüzün et al., 2015; Yin, 2008). The construct validity, which refers to the development of a logic capable of showing how the measurements

which were registered, transcribed, and connected throughout the analysis process (triangulation); in addition, obtained reports were reviewed by interviewees. The internal validity, which aims to ensure the consistency between the observed variables and the obtained results, was obtained with the development of research tools based on the outcomes from the SLR and the conduction of multiple case studies that led to consistent results. The external

beyond the initial context, was obtained with the development of multiple case studies, the results of which were validated by two

Figure 8. Research workflow.

Project Management Journal 52(1)100

project management experts in a formal review process. Finally, regarding reliability, that is, ensuring that the study can be replicated

domains, this article presents all research instruments and protocols.

Case Studies This section presents the case study companies and gives their most relevant characteristics in Table 2. Additionally, Table 3

Results and Discussion This section presents and discusses the main results from cross- analyzing the information collected from the case studies and the literature review. The analysis was based on the topics pre- sented in Table 1 (planning horizon, project planning, activities details, project scope, scope conformance, control and monitor- ing, and management style). The most relevant concepts identi-

- tively apply hybrid management, totally or partially in their

Table 2. Descriptions of Case Study Companies

Case Size Field Sector (Private

or Public) Segment Country of

Origin Age

Company A Large Financial Private Financial, with wide experience in the sectors of retail, exchange, investments, and credit.

Spain More than a century old

Company B Large Technological Private Technology, developing business technology- based products and services. In Brazil, the subsidiaries sell, customize, deploy, and provide technical support for products and services.

USA More than a decade old

Company C Large Technological Private Technology organization that is part of a multinational financial group. Focused on the development, implementation, and governance of software solutions.

Spain More than a decade old

Company D Medium Technological Private Technology organization, focused on the development of automation solutions for logistics processes in the agribusiness sector.

Brazil More than a decade old

Company E Small Technological Private Technology organization, focused on developing solutions for mobile devices.

Brazil More than a decade old

Table 3. Case Studies Presentation

Case Interviewee Role Governance Model Analyzed Projects Project Management

Approaches

Company A A product manager, a project manager, and a superintendent

Traditional and conservative

Development of products and services, operation of business systems, and development of new technologies.

Agile, traditional, and hybrid

Company B A product manager and two project managers

Innovative and bold Development of products and services, consulting and marketing solutions, and sustainability of products and services.

Agile, traditional, and hybrid

Company C A product manager and two superintendents

Traditional and conservative

Development and implementation of new technologies and support and maintenance of platforms and services.

Agile, traditional, and hybrid

Company D Two project managers Traditional and conservative

Development of new technological solutions, marketing and deployment of solutions, and maintenance and customization of products and services.

Traditional and hybrid

Company E Two development managers

Innovative and bold Development and implementation of solutions, and maintenance and support of developed solutions.

Agile and hybrid

Copola Azenha et al. 101

projects are also described and discussed.

Planning Horizon The estimated duration of the project life cycle, time from the

- larly among companies: small (1 to 4 months), medium (5 to 12 months), and large (more than 12 months). Moreover, all stud- ied companies had two horizons of planning for their projects under development (i.e., a long- term and a short- term horizon). The long- term horizon encompasses the overall project plan- ning. It follows the traditional project management model, which is more detailed and covers the entire project life cycle. The short- term horizon covers the planning carried out for the iterations of the project. It has a lower level of detail and fol- lows agile approaches to project management, according to the words of one of the interviewees:

Long- term planning allows you to see the project as a whole and short- term planning to make adjustments to the strategy by running and reviewing sprints.

In analyzing the documentation for the projects in compa- nies B and D, it could be seen that the long- term horizon received more attention. The characteristics of the projects and the market sector in which these two organizations operate mean there is a greater need for the formalization of plans, according to one of the interviewees of company B:

We emphasize long- term planning due to the characteristic of the company and the market, which needs better formalization of the project plan.

However, in companies A, C, and E, the rigor of the long- term planning varied according to project size and product

- nies maintained a simple planning process for each iteration, taking into account their objectives for the projects, according to one of the interviewees of company A:

The focus on project planning varies with the size of the project and the type of product to be developed, however, short plan- ning for sprints is carried out regardless of the type of project.

Having two planning perspectives can also be observed as characteristics in the models proposed by Amaral et al. (2011) and . Therefore, both the case studies and the models in the literature show that organizations use a long- term and a short- term horizon when using hybrid approaches to proj- ect management. Indeed, the horizon of planning in hybrid approaches to project management can be understood from these two perspectives, which are mutually complementary and, for projects in particular contexts, the two perspectives work together to bring about a successful outcome.

Project Planning As discussed above, all the case study companies had both long- term and short- term planning horizons for their projects in development. In practice, having these two horizons meant there were several project plans in place for the same project. This was apparent from analyzing the organizations’ documentation.

The long- term plan in the case study companies contained a short explanation of the project scope, descriptions of the objectives and expectations, and the estimated number of itera- tions necessary for achieving the planned results for the project. Companies A, B, and D often used techniques such as road- maps and work breakdown structures for their long- term plan- ning. The use of these practices is also recommended for long- term planning in hybrid approaches to project manage-

Amaral et al., 2011; ; Hayata & Han, 2011).

On the other hand, in all the studied companies, the short- term plan had only a metaphorical and visual description of the objectives and of the expected results of each iteration, as reported by one of company A’s interviewees:

For long- term planning, we use techniques like activity road- maps and work breakdown structures, while for short- term planning, we use simple techniques like Kanban with brief post- its descriptions.

These characteristics are similar to the practices found in the agile literature on project management (Highsmith, 2004; Schwaber, 2004; Schwaber & Sutherland, 2016). In particular, in companies A, C, and E, the short- term planning of each iter- ation was carried out directly by the project development team, and in companies B and D, directly by the project manager.

It is interesting to note that both the planning horizons and project plans followed a long- term and a short- term vision in all the analyzed companies. These characteristics are also iden-

found in the literature (Amaral et al., 2011; ). Therefore, the models in the literature and the practices of the case study companies tally in their use of hybrid project plan- ning practice.

Activities Details The detailing of the activities also followed the idea of a long- term and a short- term horizon in the projects of the studied

is guided by long- term and short- term perspectives, just like in the project plan. In this way, the detailing of the activities is carried out from two distinct views: a general, long- term view

short- term perspective, that covers only the life cycle of an iter- ation, according to the words of one of the interviewees:

Project Management Journal 52(1)102

The activities are detailed according to the planning perspec- tive, that is, long and short term.

In companies A, B, and D, the detailing of the long- term activities is fundamental for their projects because of the char- acteristics of the market sectors in which they operate. This detailing is accomplished with the use of the WBS technique,

amount of iterations necessary for the project execution. In this context, iterations can be considered as subprojects, since they have planning and detailing of distinct activities, and, some- times, even an entirely dedicated team, as reported by one of company D’s interviewees:

We detail activities through the use of the WBS, taking into account the number of sprints estimated to achieve the project goal. So, each sprint turns out to be a subproject ...

For companies C and D, the detailing of long- term activities

in the case study companies are also seen in the hybrid approaches to project management models found in the litera- ture (Amaral et al., 2011; ).

In the case studies, short- term activities were detailed for each planned iteration. However, it was possible to observe dif-

companies A, B, and D, this detailing is performed by project managers, during the project planning phase. In companies C and E, activities are detailed by the development team, based on the objectives determined for each iteration by the project manager, during the overall project planning. However, in all the case study organizations, activities at the iteration level were visually represented using panels, such as Kanban, either

the purpose. An important fact concerning the practices of detailing the

activities in the case study companies is that the long- term and short- term structures allow projects to be scaled, which aligns with the work of Robins (2016), who argues that with the deployment of the overall WBS, it is possible to generate sev-

development teams. It is possible, therefore, to have several

demonstrating the potential of hybrid approaches to project management to be used for large and complex projects.

Project Scope In the case study companies, the scopes of the projects were always structured in formal documents. However, the content and rigor of the documents varied according to the type of proj- ect, the culture of the company, the nature of its activities, and its market. In companies A, B, and D, the construction of the project scope was generally more robust and formal, with details of the objectives and expected results, as well as

again varied according to the complexity of the project’s prod- uct, according to the words of one of the interviewees of com- pany D:

We often use detailed descriptions of the project requirements, but this level of detail varies with the complexity of the product that will be developed.

In companies A, B, and D, the scope document was prepared and distributed by the project manager, who was also responsi- ble for updating it throughout the project’s life cycle. In compa- nies C and E, the scope document for the analyzed projects tended to be leaner and less descriptive. As with the other com- panies (A, B, and D), the document content often varied accord- ing to the complexity of the project. However, the development of the scope document was not only the responsibility of the project manager but also of the entire team, which acted as a co- author, as reported by one of the interviewees:

Scoping is not only the responsibility of the project manager, but the entire team, including the developers and key users.

It is interesting to note that, in all the analyzed companies, the idea of a short- term and a long- term horizon was also pres- ent in the project scope. The formal scope document was devel- oped taking the perspective of long- term planning, which was

or even for an individual iteration. Consequently, there were two perspectives in the project’s scope: a long- term perspec- tive, based on a formal document covering the project as a whole, and a more informal perspective, which was represented

match those presented in the hybrid approaches to project man- agement models in the literature (Amaral et al., 2011; 2016; Hayata & Han, 2011). The idea aligns with Boehm’s argument (Boehm, 2002), which considers the complexity of the project’s product as a determinant factor for selecting the approach for developing the scope. Boehm states that it is pref- erable to opt for a more or less formal planning approach, tak- ing into account the complexities of the product to be developed. Therefore, aligned with Robins’ (2016) argument, hybrid approaches to project management can help in the case study companies to guarantee this balance.

Scope Conformance In the case study companies, conformity with the scope was

evaluating the results at the end of each phase planned for the proj-

deliveries (i.e., what was delivered is as described in the scope).

Copola Azenha et al. 103

committees, as reported by one of the interviewees:

We check at the end of each phase or sprint whether the objec- tives have been met, that is, whether the project product meets expectations.

However, while all companies evaluated compliance with the scope from a long- term perspective, the periodicity and format of the meetings were determined by the nature of the project and by the organizational culture, as reported by one of the interviewees:

The ritualistic changes according to the type of project. For smaller projects, the meetings are more informal, resembling Scrum’s daily meeting.

Regarding the short- term perspective, compliance with the

companies, compliance with the scope in the short term was -

tinuous process. What was being developed, the planned objec- tives, and the expected results were continuously checked in an ongoing interaction.

In the case study organizations all the companies had both short- term and long- term perspectives in their scope confor- mity; this suggests that the scope must develop incrementally throughout the project life cycle. This idea aligns with another: that, for projects involving high risk and uncertainty, project management must be guided by a “vision” of what should be developed rather than an initially pre- established scope (Highsmith, 2004; Highsmith & Cockburn, 2001; Sliger & Broderick, 2008). However, in certain contexts, the characteris-

scope. Therefore, hybrid management practices contribute to balance these models and favor incremental developments, even in contexts in which these practices are not common.

Control and Monitoring As the development of the scope and planning were guided by long- term and short- term horizons in the case study companies, project control and monitoring also followed the same model. Control and monitoring took the long- term perspective and fol- lowed the characteristics of traditional project management frameworks, with the presence of schedules, performance indi- cators, analytical panels, and reports. Long- term control and monitoring were performed directly by the project manager, who was responsible for detecting changes and deviations from the scope and planning throughout the project life cycle, according to the words of one of the interviewees:

Long- term control and monitoring processes generally follow traditional management techniques, but for the short- term per- spective, agile techniques are more widely used.

On the other hand, in the short- term perspective, control and monitoring was performed during each iteration and basically followed the practices presented by project management frame- works using agile. In this type of control and monitoring tech- nique, visual panels in the form of Kanban, which can be physical or digital, were used to control and monitor the activ- ities and obtained results during the execution of the iterations.

In companies A, B, and D, short- term control and monitor- ing was done by the project manager and the development team together, as reported by one of company B’s interviewees:

Short- term controls are carried out by both the project manager and the development team. It’s a shared responsibility.

However, in companies C and E, iteration control and mon- itoring were done only by the development team, which was responsible for ensuring the expected results and reporting them to the project manager.

The characteristics of the control and monitoring of projects in the case study companies show similarities with those found in hybrid management models in the literature (Amaral et al., 2011; ). This form of project control and monitor- ing seemed to assist the case study companies to deal with changes in a gradual manner, as in agile management, but with- out losing the robustness provided by traditional management in the long term. In this way, the evidence indicates that hybrid

change against the rigor and control required for complex, large- scale projects.

Management Style The management style used in the case studies varied accord- ing to the organizational environment and also with the eco- nomic sector of the companies. However, in all the case studies,

- agement centralization and decision- making activities.

Since companies A, B, and D operated in more traditional and formal organizational environments, the project manager role tended to be more centralized. However, in all of the analyzed

- ager, as reported by one of company D’s interviewees:

Product owners report directly to the project manager, but have some degree of autonomy for strategic decisions and planning.

This leader was responsible for the indirect management of the team and had autonomy to make decisions and to conduct the internal planning of the iteration. However, these activities were always conducted together with the team, because this leader was not hierarchically above the other members. This was because the structure of these teams was entirely horizontal and is equivalent to that presented by Scrum (Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Hoda et al.,

Project Management Journal 52(1)104

2012, 2013). This style of management is very similar to that found in the hybrid approaches to project management model proposed by , in which there are two leaderships

project manager was less centralized and focused more on stra- tegic issues and decisions related to the projects. Unlike the

and reported directly to the project manager, according to the words of one of the interviewees:

Teams have a high degree of autonomy and report directly to the project manager, whose primary role is to strategically di- rect the project in the company, that is, the manager will not make the technical decisions of the project.

However, in the same way as in the other companies, the team had autonomy for decision making and the internal plan- ning of the iterations, and it was their responsibility to ensure that the results generated were in accordance with the objec- tives and expectations of each project iteration.

to scale the agile management model, especially with the exten- sion of the role of the product owner (Bass, 2015). In this sce- nario, hybrid approaches to project management seem to be an

especially for projects of great complexity and size in companies and economic sectors that demand greater control and predictability.

Discussion The analysis of the case study companies about the similarities

management considering the seven main research themes iden- -

vantages in the adoption of this approach in technological development projects in complex contexts. Table 4 highlights

- marized in Table 5.

case study companies hybrid approaches to project management were used for large projects, which involved several consultants, specialists, and partner companies, such as professional service projects (Chih et al., 2019). According to observations made during the research period, hybrid management was used for proj- ects with complex scopes and great technical challenges, deliver- ing risk and feasibility analyses but not limiting project scope, making possible the accommodation of the necessary changes demanded by the market, with appropriate response time. The approach was not generally used for small projects with low com- plexity scopes, since interviewees considered its inherent com- plexity to be a disadvantage of using hybrid approaches to project management in the everyday life of their companies. For exam- ple, in companies A and B, some respondents reported that attempts to apply hybrid management approaches to small and simple projects was costlier than the development of the product itself. This corroborates with Amaral et al.’s model (2011), which is targeted toward complex projects. It is relevant to note that other models in the literature do not make a distinction between the complexity and size of the projects for using hybrid manage- ment approaches. Therefore, evidence from the case studies rein- forces the literature and makes clear that this type of management is recommended more for large and complex projects, corroborat- ing with Boehm and Turner (2003). These authors argue that large- scale and complex projects require a management approach with a greater focus on project planning and control.

Table 4. Similarities and Differences Among Studied Companies

Company Similarities Differences

Planning horizon Time perspective (short, medium, long terms); adoption of traditional approach for long term and agile approach for short term; simple plans for short term in agile interactions

Degree of formalization for long- term planning

Project planning Several concurrent project plans; similar tools for short- term planning

Different tools for long- term planning; distinct roles for short- term planning

Activities details Refinement of long- term perspective considering the complete project life cycle and of short- term perspectives considering the next iteration

Specific procedures for long- term detailing and for short- term detailing

Project scope Use of formal documents; development of long- term and short- term scopes

Content and rigor of documentation; responsibility for documenting

Scope conformance Consider both long- term and short- term perspectives; degree of formalization varies according with project characteristics

Rigor varies according with project specificities

Control and monitoring

Follows long- term (traditional) methods; aims to deal with changes in a gradual manner

Distinct roles for short- term monitoring

Management style Project manager leads the team based on the competences developed in previous experiences

Degree of centralization of the project manager

Copola Azenha et al. 105

Hybrid approaches to project management have also proved to

in the development phases but also need to maintain greater rigor -

istics of the project and its environment, allowing projects to absorb changes considering the pace of market innovation, with-

the projects ( ). In the cases of companies B and D, owing to the characteristics of their activities and the sectors in which they operate, the usual way of contracting projects requires that the planning, scope, and delivery of the projects are formal- ized. These companies use hybrid management to balance the need for more rigorous initial planning with agile development processes. This evidence resembles the models presented by Cohn (2005), and Hayata and Han (2011), who apply the tradi-

the agile approach to the development phase. In addition, hybrid management is also used to scale agile management in large proj- ects. This strategy meets the objectives of the models proposed by Amaral et al. (2011) and .

On the other hand, in all the analyzed companies, the suc- cessful application of hybrid approaches to project manage- ment is directly associated with the experience of the project manager, a characteristic that is currently being explored in the specialized literature (Akkermans et al., 2020; Lo Presti & Elia, 2020). Some interviewees reported that, because of the wide possibility of combinations among methods, techniques, and processes of both approaches, the choice of the most appropri- ate arrangement for each project context is the responsibility of the project manager, allowing the integration of agile manage- ment practices for the development of innovative solutions

- opment formalized in governance models. The application and use of hybrid approaches to project management relies on the project manager’s experience, and in the case study companies, the absence of competent managers was a limiting factor for the use of this type of approach. Hybrid approaches to project management processes lack standardization and there is no

each project, dynamically customized and applied by the proj- ect manager.

Furthermore, in the case study companies, large or complex projects usually had several development teams, in the same way as the models proposed by Amaral et al. (2011) and (2016). This enables the creation of team structures similar to “development production lines,” also known as “squads,”

portfolio projects in a concurrent manner, favoring a systematic and rational allocation of resources (Hobbs & Petit, 2017). This particularity allows the scalability of development activities, since several teams can strategically execute backlogs, either in an interdependent or parallel manner, favoring the application of the concept of agility in large projects or with highly com- plex scopes. Moreover, hybrid management makes it possible to geographically distribute the execution of the project in

goals, which together make up the objectives established for the project. However, according to some interviewees, the teams involved in such projects were sometimes resistant to new techniques and processes, in accordance with Boehm and Turner (2005). This is a disadvantage in the use of hybrid approaches to project management, since complex team struc-

higher complexity of resource management, requiring the adaption of the project portfolio considering this paradigm, so

fullness. On the other hand, all the analyzed companies indicated that

hybrid management is ideal for innovative projects, those involv- ing a high amount of uncertainty and that cannot be undertaken without some level of planning because of the constraints of the organizational environment or the business sectors (Martinsuo, 2019; Midler et al., 2019). In alignment with the results presented in SLR, suitable projects for adopting hybrid management include research and development of new technologies with innovative character and involving high levels of complexity, risks, and uncertainties. However, case studies also showed other categories of projects that are suitable for hybrid management: development and implementation of products and services, with less innova- tion and fewer risks and uncertainties, but with a moderate degree of complexity and technical challenges; as well as projects focused on operational needs, such as maintaining services,

Table 5. Advantages and Disadvantages of Hybrid Approaches to Project Management

Company Advantages Disadvantages

Project scale Suitable for large projects involving several consultants and partner companies

Unsuitable for small projects with simple and predictable scopes

Project characteristics Suitable for projects that require speed and flexibility but cannot disregard planning

Success in the application varies according to the experience of the project manager

Team characteristics Teams present good tolerance for alterations and deal with frequent changes of scope, so are more appropriate for the development of innovations

Teams may experience difficulties adapting consolidated techniques and processes

Applications Suitable for innovative projects involving risks and uncertainties

Complex to apply because of the numerous possibilities of combining approaches

Project Management Journal 52(1)106

platforms, and applications in operation, with low risk and little complexity, but critical to sustaining business. Moreover, compa- nies apply hybrid management for projects in order to create new business models, ensuring that the scope remains open, but avoid-

attended due to several changes throughout the project life cycle. Hybrid approaches to project management adapt to business pro-

failures in project communication processes, as well as favoring the synergy between the project management approach and the organizational culture of companies. In company D, which works on projects for the public sector, it is not possible to start a project without the minimum formalization of planning and scope, mainly due to the bidding and contracting processes of the proj- ects. Hybrid approaches to project management can be used in such instances to balance the risks and uncertainties of projects. Likewise, hybrid approaches to project management has also proved to be suitable for projects where tolerance to changes of scope is mandatory. In companies B, C, and E, the vast majority of projects are subject to constant changes of scope. However, these companies apply long- term and short- term planning, which allows them to deal with changes during iterations in a similar way to . The ability to deal with risks, uncertain-

application of hybrid approaches to project management in the case study companies.

As previously presented, the estimated duration of the proj- ect life cycle was similar among companies. Hybrid manage- ment is adopted for projects with long deadlines, because it is

well as maintaining stricter project planning and control. As a consequence, considering the innovative essence of products and services developed in these projects, there is the need to

the life cycle of the project, driven mainly by changes in strat- egy and market trends (Kosztyán & Szalkai, 2018).

Conclusions In complex environments, project management requires the

(Saynisch, 2010), which can be adjusted according to the par- ticularities and the evolution of each project. In turn, these

natural path to this end, reinforcing the relevance of the project - -

texts, each project manager has their own set of techniques, methods, and tools, which can be combined, experimented

Buchanan (1992) as the orderly and systematic application of techniques and tools in creative processes, is an analogy for the current context of hybrid approaches to project management. The application of a

placement provides direction and guidance for a creative pro-

a new perception about the original process, and therefore, new possibilities to be experienced. Thus, in addition to direction and guidance, placements are sources of innovative ideas and

As demonstrated in this research, hybrid approaches to project

large projects with a focus on the development of innovative applications. In this way, the placement of the project manager is applied to maximize the value delivered while considering

teams. This enhances the importance of hybrid approaches to

complex contexts. The results of the research also evinced the practical charac-

teristics of hybrid approaches to project management, which

- vant advantages and disadvantages. With regard to practical managerial contributions, the study illustrated the trend of the hybridization of project management in complex projects, with the combination of agile and traditional techniques and tools in two distinct moments and aligned with the previous models

Amaral et al., 2011; ; Hayata & Han, 2011). However, case studies also showed the relevance of the project manager and their ability to customize techniques and tools in order to obtain the best productivity from distinct development teams. In the case study companies, hybrid approaches to project management resulted in funda- mental practices that supported development processes, dis-

and service development, contractual requirements, large proj-

organizations that are experimenting with hybrid approaches to project management.

Results from the case studies are convergent and contribute to the design of future research. In particular, future case studies can replicate research protocols in other contexts to corroborate with results presented here and to identify other sets of relevant hybrid approaches to project management characteristics. In addition, a

to analyze the characteristics observed in this study (initial hypothesis) and to identify other advantages and disadvantages

hybrid management can be used in new studies to explore criteria for the selection of project management approaches, evolving toward a model for selection of the most appropriate project man-

- nies operate in the Brazilian market. Therefore, although results can be contextually generalized, they cannot be extrapolated to

- ent. Second, the use of case studies as the research method cap-

Copola Azenha et al. 107

to verify if assumptions and outcomes remain true. Moreover, the

order to guarantee consistency among the obtained results.

Appendix

I. Introduction Before each interview began, the research objectives were pre- sented to the interviewee. Permission to record the conversa-

the information collected.

II. Information from the interviewees

1. How old are you? 2. What is your background? (Level of education: under-

graduate, master’s, doctorate, or other) 3. How many years have you worked in project manage-

ment? 4.

5.

III. Description of the project management methodology

1. What project management methodologies are present in the company?

2. What are the most commonly used methodologies for managing the company’s projects?

3.

IV. Characteristics of the project management methodology In this section, the interviewee is asked about the characteris- tics of the project management approaches used in the com- pany. The objective is to determine if the practices described by the interviewee really matches the characteristics found in the models presented in the literature, in addition to identifying possible new characteristics.

Planning Horizon 1. What planning horizon(s) have you established in your company?

Project Planning 2. How is project planning achieved?

Activities Detail 3. How is the activity detail related to the project plan?

Project Scope 4. How is the project scope constructed?

Scope Conformance -

oped by the project?

Control and Monitoring 6. How is project control and monitoring done?

Management Style 7. What is the management style and hierarchical structure of the project team(s)?

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

and/or publication of this article.

References

Agile Manifesto. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. http:// agilemanifesto. org/

Akkermans, J., Keegan, A., Huemann, M., & Ringhofer, C. (2020).

careers and project management. Project Management Journal, 51(2), 135–153.

Amaral, D. C., Conforto, E. D., Benassi, J., & Araujo, C. (2011). Gerenciamento ágil de projetos: Aplicações em projetos de produtos inovadores. Saraiva.

An, N., Qiang, M., Wen, Q., Jiang, H., & Xia, B. (2019). Contribution of project managers’ capability to project ending performance under stressful conditions. European Management Journal, 37(2), 198–209.

Ardito, C., Buono, P., Caivano, D., Costabile, M. F., & Lanzilotti, R. (2014). Investigating and promoting UX practice in industry: An experimental study. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 72(6), 542–551.

Baskerville, R., Pries- Heje, J., & Madsen, S. (2011). Post- agility: What follows a decade of agility? Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 543–555.

Bass, J. M. (2015). How product owner teams scale agile methods to large distributed enterprises. Empirical Software Engineering, 20(6), 1525–1557.

Boehm, B. W. (1984). Verifying and validating software IEEE Software, 1(1),

75–88. Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and

enhancement. Computer, 21(5), 61–72. Beck, K., & Andres, C. (2004). Extreme programming explained:

Embrace change (2nd ed.). Addison- Wesley Professional. Hybrid project management manifesto. https://www.

Boehm, B. (2000). Requirements that handle IKIWISI, cots, and rapid change. Computer, 33(7), 99–102.

Project Management Journal 52(1)108

Boehm, B. (2002). Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer, 35(1), 64–69.

Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2003). Using risk to balance agile and plan- driven methods. Computer, 36(6), 57–66.

Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 22(5), 30–39.

Brandl, F. J., Kagerer, M., & Reinhart, G. (2018). A hybrid innovation management framework for manufacturing— Enablers for more agility in plants. Procedia CIRP, 72, 1154– 1159.

Brooks. (1987). No silver bullet essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer, 20(4), 10–19.

Bryman, A. (1998). Research methods and organizations studies. Unwin Hyman.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

Butler, C. W., Vijayasarathy, L. R., & Roberts, N. (2019). Managing software development projects for success: Aligning plan- and agility- based approaches to project complexity and project dynamism. Project Management Journal, 51(3), 262–277.

Carvalho, W. C. D. S., Rosa, P. F., Soares, M. D. S., Cunha Jr., M. A. T. D., Buiatte, L. C., & Da Cunha, M. A. T. (2012). A comparative analysis of the agile and traditional software development processes productivity [Conference session]. Proceedings - International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, SCCC, 74–82.

Chih, Y.-Y., Zwikael, O., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2019). Enhancing value co- creation in professional service projects: The roles of professionals,

International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 599–615.

Cockburn, A. (2000). Selecting a project’s methodology. IEEE Software, 17(4), 64–71.

Cockburn, A., & Highsmith, J. (2001). Agile software development, the people factor. Computer, 34(11), 131–133.

Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall PTR. Cohn, M. (2009). Succeeding with agile: Software development using

Scrum. Addison- Wesley Professional. Cohn, M., & Ford, D. (2003). Introducing an agile process to an

organization. Computer, 36(6), 74–78. Collyer, S. (2016). Culture, communication, and leadership for

projects in dynamic environments. Project Management Journal, 47(6), 111–125.

Conforto, E. C., & Amaral, D. C. (2010). Evaluating an agile method for planning and controlling innovative projects. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 73–80.

Conforto, E. C., & Amaral, D. C. (2016). Agile project management and stage- gate model—A hybrid framework for technology- based companies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 40, 1–14.

Conforto, E. C., Salum, F., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., & de Almeida, L. F. M. (2014). Can agile project management be adopted by industries other than software development? Project Management Journal, 45(3), 21–34.

Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage- Gate® idea- to- launch process—Update, what’s new, and nexgen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213–232.

Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016). The agile–stage- gate hybrid model: A promising new approach and a new research opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 513–526.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage.

Dezdar, S., & Sulaiman, A. (2009). Successful enterprise resource planning implementation: Taxonomy of critical factors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(8), 1037–1052.

Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2016). Challenges and success factors for large- scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 119, 87–108.

the understandability of process models: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 93, 112–129.

Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N. B., & Seim, E. A. (2018). Coordinating knowledge work in multiteam programs: Findings from a large- scale agile development program. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 64–77.

Dorn, S., Schweiger, B., & Albers, S. (2016). Levels, phases and themes of coopetition: A systematic literature review and research agenda. European Management Journal, 34(5), 484– 500.

Drechsler, A., & Breth, S. (2019). How to go global: A transformative process model for the transition towards globally distributed software development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 37(8), 941–955.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case- study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

Farrington, D. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 49–68.

Fernandes, G., Moreira, S., Araújo, M., Pinto, E. B., & Machado, R. J. (2018). Project management practices for collaborative university- industry R&D: A hybrid approach. Procedia Computer Science, 138, 805–814.

Forza, C. (2002). Survey research in operations management: A International Journal of Operations

& Production Management, 22(2), 152–194. Galal- Edeen, G. H., Riad, A. M., & Seyam, M. S. (2007). Agility

versus discipline: Is reconciliation possible? International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems, 331–337.

Hayata, T., & Han, J. (2011). A hybrid model for IT project with Scrum [Conference session]. In Proceedings of 2011 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations, Logistics and Informatics, SOLI, 285–290.

Heninger, K. L. (1980). Specifying software requirements for complex systems: New techniques and their application. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 6(1), 2–13.

Highsmith, J. (2004). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Addison- Wesley.

Copola Azenha et al. 109

Highsmith, J., & Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile software development: The business of innovation. Computer, 34(9), 120–127.

Hobbs, B., & Petit, Y. (2017). Agile methods on large projects in large organizations. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 3–19.

Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2012). Developing a grounded theory to explain the practices of self- organizing agile teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 17(6), 609–639.

Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2013). Self- organizing roles on agile software development teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(3), 422–444.

IMPA. (2006). ICB—IPMA competence baseline (3rd ed.). International Project Management Association. http://www. ipma. world/ assets/ ICB3. pdf.

Irshad, M., Petersen, K., & Poulding, S. (2018). A systematic literature review of software requirements reuse approaches. Information and Software Technology, 93, 223–245.

Karlström, D., & Runeson, P. (2005). Combining agile methods with stage- gate project management. IEEE Software, 22(3), 43–49.

Kosztyán, Z. T., & Szalkai, I. (2018). Hybrid time- quality- cost trade- Operations Research Perspectives, 5, 306–318.

Lee, E., Mishna, F., & Brennenstuhl, S. (2010). How to critically evaluate case studies in social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(6), 682–689.

Lappi, T., Karvonen, T., Lwakatare, L. E., Aaltonen, K., & Kuvaja, P. (2018). Toward an improved understanding of agile project governance: A systematic literature review. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 39–63.

Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward agile: An integrated analysis of

agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87–114. Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative

data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557–584.

Liu, Y., van Marrewijk, A., Houwing, E.-J., & Hertogh, M. (2019). The co- creation of values- in- use at the front end of infrastructure development programs. International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 684–695.

Lo Presti, A., & Elia, A. (2020). Is the project manager’s road to success paved only with clear career paths? A dominance analysis of the additive contributions of career attitudes and employability factors. Project Management Journal, 51(2), 199– 213.

organizations becoming business- like: A systematic review. , 45(1), 64–86.

Martinsuo, M. (2019). Strategic value at the front end of a radical innovation program. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 431– 446.

AHAA- agile, hybrid assessment method for automotive, safety critical SMEs [Conference session]. Proceedings—International Conference on Software Engineering, 551–560.

McCutcheon, D. M., & Meredith, J. R. (1993). Conducting case study research in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 11(3), 239–256.

McEvoy, S., van de Ven, F. H. M., Santander, A. G., & Slinger, J. H.

planning support systems in workshops: An exploratory case study of climate adaptation planning in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 77, 101353.

implementation within a medical device software organization. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 477, 190–201.

Midler, C., Maniak, R., & de Campigneulles, T. (2019). Ambidextrous program management: The case of autonomous mobility. Project Management Journal, 50(5), 571–586.

Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480–491.

Momeni, K., & Martinsuo, M. (2019). Integrating services into

International Journal of Project Management, 37(8), 956–967. Monteiro Cavalieri Barbosa, A., & Pego Saisse, M. C. (2019). Hybrid

project management for sociotechnical digital transformation context. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(2), 316–332.

Müller, R., & Klein, G. (2019). Qualitative research submissions to Project Management Journal. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 3–5.

Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 72–78.

Niederman, F., Lechler, T., & Petit, Y. (2018). A research agenda for extending agile practices in software development and additional task domains. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 3–17.

OCG. (2009). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. Axelos. Project Management Institute (PMI). (2017). A guide to the project

management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide)– Sixth edition. Author.

Reis, D. A., Fleury, A. L., & Carvalho, M. M. (2019). Contemporary trends in engineering entrepreneurship education. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(3), 824–841.

Robins, D. (2016). Is the hybrid methodology the future of project management? https://www. projectmanagement. com/ articles/ 356356/ Is- the- Hybrid- Methodology- the- Future- of- Project- Management-? regComplete= 1&

Rong, G., Shao, D., & Zhang, H. (2010). SCRUM- PSP: Embracing process agility and discipline [Conference session]. In

APSEC, 316–325. Royce, W. (1970). Managing the development of large software

systems [Conference session]. IEEE WESCON. Reprinted in Proceedings Ninth International Conference on Software Engineering, 328–339.

Sauser, B. J., Reilly, R. R., & Shenhar, A. J. (2009). Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights—A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 665–679.

Project Management Journal 52(1)110

Saynisch, M. (2010). Beyond frontiers of traditional project management: An approach to evolutionary, self- organizational principles and the complexity theory—Results of the research program. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 21–37.

Schwaber, K. (2004). Agile project management with SCRUM. Microsoft Press.

Schön, E. M., Escalona, M., & Thomaschewski, J. (2015). Agile values and their implementation in practice. International

, 3(5), 61–66.

Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2016). The Scrum guide—t guide to Scrum: The rules of the game. http://www. scrumguides. org/ docs/ scrumguide/ v2016/ 2016- Scrum- Guide- US. pdf

Serrador, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2015). Does agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040–1051.

Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business School Press.

Sliger, M., & Broderick, S. (2008). The software project manager’s bridge to agility. Addison- Wesley Professional.

Software Engineering Institute. (2010). CMMI for development. Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska- Popovska, I., & Steger-

Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product development performance through agile/stage- gate hybrids: The next- generation stage- gate process? Research- Technology Management, 58(1), 34–45.

of project management in product development of new Project Management Journal, 51(3),

294–311. Tamanini, I., Pinheiro, P. R., Machado, T. C. S., & Albuquerque, A. B.

(2015). Hybrid approaches of verbal decision analysis in the selection of project management approaches. Procedia Computer Science, 55(Itqm), 1183–1192.

Tereso, A., Ribeiro, P., Fernandes, G., Loureiro, I., & Ferreira, M. (2019). Project management practices in private organizations. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 6–22.

Torrecilla- Salinas, C. J., Sedeño, J., Escalona, M. J., & Mejías, M. (2015). Estimating, planning and managing agile web development projects under a value- based perspective. Information and Software Technology, 61, 124–144.

Tüzün, E., Tekinerdogan, B., Kalender, M. E., & Bilgen, S. (2015). Empirical evaluation of a decision support model for adopting software product line engineering. Information and Software Technology, 60, 77–101.

Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Feldt, R., & Klotins, E. (2015). Assessing requirements engineering and software test alignment—Five case studies. Journal of Systems and Software, 109, 62–77.

Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.

Verburg, R. M., Bosch- Sijtsema, P., & Vartiainen, M. (2013). Getting it done: Critical success factors for project managers in virtual

work settings. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 68–79.

Vinekar, V., Slinkman, C. W., & Nerur, S. (2006). Can agile and traditional systems development approaches coexist? An ambidextrous view. Information Systems Management, 23(3), 31–42.

Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195–219.

Weissbrodt, R., & Giauque, D. (2017). Labour inspections and the prevention of psychosocial risks at work: A realist synthesis. Safety Science, 100, 110–124.

Yan, L., & Yin, Y. (2006). Management performance improvement of agent system for government invested construction projects. Tumu Gongcheng Xuebao/China Civil Engineering Journal, 39(11), 120–126.

Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Author Biographies

Flávio Copola Azenha is a PhD student in production engi- neering in the Polytechnic School of the University of São Paulo; he holds a master’s degree in production engineering from the Polytechnic School of the University of São Paulo and a bachelor’s degree in computer science from the University of Guarulhos (UNG), with a specialization in IT project manage- ment from the University of São Paulo. Professor Azenha has experience in project management, software development, business analysis, and IT management. He can be contacted at fcopola@ usp. br

Diane Aparecida Reis is a PhD student in production engi- neering from the Polytechnic School of the University of São Paulo. She has a master’s degree in production engineering from the Polytechnic School of the University of São Paulo, with a specialty in services administration from the University of São Paulo; she is also a graduate in administration from Mackenzie University. Aparecida Reis has experience in the

has worked in organizations such as NEC do Brasil, Banco Santander, C&A Modas, B2W Digital, and everis consulting. She can be contacted at diane. reis@ hotmail. com

André Leme Fleury is a Professor at the University of São Paulo, working in production engineering and design courses. He is coordinator of Cosmos, InovaUSP coworking. His research areas include entrepreneurship education, design man- agement, and health management. Leme Fleury holds a bache- lor’s degree in production mechanical engineering from the University of São Paulo, a master’s degree in production engi- neering from the Federal University of Santa Catarina, and a PhD in production engineering from the University of São Paulo. In 2004–2005, he was a visiting researcher at the Centre for Technology Management of the University of Cambridge.

Copyright of Project Management Journal is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.