How Project Management Approach Impacts Project Success
Summary
The challenges of deciding what the best strategy is for project success are the main
points of this article. This article shows the intricate details of project management and what
allows it to become successful. Project success is hard to define since some people see it as a
one-dimensional concept based on technical requirements, budget, and time, and others see it as
a complex construct that includes other elements like stakeholder satisfaction and long-term
organizational influence ( Carvalho 3 et al. , 2015 ).
This article shows the drawbacks of traditional project management approaches. These
approaches are typically rigid and fail to adapt to the constantly changing needs of the business’
environment in today’s age. Especially in software development, this has caused a shift towards
more flexible approaches like the Agile method. Agile project management focuses on iterative
and adaptable development in contrast to the more structured, straightforward nature of
traditional methods (Young 3 et al. , 2012 ).
Although Agile is growing in popularity within the software industry, not much research
has been done on its applicability to non-software projects (3Lappi 3 et al. , 2018 ). According to
Nowotarski and PaslawskI from Procedia Engineering, Agile might improve project success by
enhancing stakeholder satisfaction and flexibility, while in contrast, the traditional methods
might work best for projects that require more detailed planning and control (Nowotarski and
Paslawski, 2015).
This article also highlights the need for more empirical studies so it can be better
understood how various project management methods affect project success across different
industries and project types. In addition, it also calls for a more in-depth exploration of hybrid
approaches that incorporate the methods of both Agile and traditional. More research needs to be
done to address the drawbacks and limitations of the current information that has been already
gathered, such as sample sizes and biases in data collection (Gemino 3 et al. 3 (2020) .
Results
1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) validated project success dimensions by using a five-
factor solution. This included project efficiency, impact on the team, impact on the customer,
business and organizational success, and preparation for the future. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin measure of sampling adequacy) yielded a value of 0.877 and Bartlett's test of sphericity
was statistically significant (p3<30.01, df = 210) (Thompshon, 2004). The five-factor solution,
which explained the 68% of cumulative variance, was validated by a scree plot and eigenvalues.
Out of the 23 items, two items with low factor loadings were omitted which resulted in 21 items
forming the final solution. This is supported by Cronbachs’s alpha (a ≥ 0.7) for reliability
(Nunnaly and Bernstein, 1994).
2. Cluster Analysis of Project Management Approach
By utilizing the K-means clustering method, respondents were grouped together into three
different project management approaches—agile, hybrid, and traditional. After six different
iterations, three clusters had emerged. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) displayed substantial
differences between the final cluster mean values-- F3=3468.567,3p3<30.01 (Hair 3 et al. , 2009 ).
Cluster 1 displayed as hybrid, while clusters 2 and 3 aligned with the agile and traditional
approaches.
3. Testing Research Hypothesis
ANOVA tests looked at the differences in project success techniques across project management
approaches. The results of this indicated significant differences for “impact on the team” and
“preparing for the future”. Posthoc tests showed that agile approaches produced the highest
impact on both dimensions, with a bit of inconsistency between the hybrid and traditional
approaches (Hair 3 et al. , 2009 ).
4. Inclusion of Moderating Variables
Moderating variables were tested across approaches from using regression analysis. Industry,
project type, novelty, and complexity had significant effects for the “impact on the team”. For
“preparing for the future,” project complexity and technology uncertainty were important
moderators. While hybrid approaches had an impact on team outcomes only, agile approaches
displayed consistent significance (Lalic et al., 2022).
Discussion
The article shows that agile project management significantly improves the team
effectiveness and future performance in comparison to the traditional methods. Agile’s emphasis
on collaborating and teamwork increases motivation and reduces task completion times
(Hendriksen & Pedersen, 2017). In addition, agile tends to project better organizational growth
support through adjustable structures and iterative design cycles (Dvir et al., 2003).
The agile and hybrid approach outperform traditional methods; however, no significant
differences were observed regarding the impact of customers (Gemino et al., 2020). This is
probably due to the various levels of project types and customer involvement.
The results of the findings also highlight that industry, project type, and complexity
moderate the outcomes. While hybrid approaches show to be more effective for complex
software projects, Agile typically has better results in high-novelty IT projects (Shenhar & Dvir,
2007). However, both agile and hybrid methods benefit projects with complex and high
uncertainty in building organization capabilities for the future.
As a result, both agile and hybrid approaches excel in team and future dimensions,
however, they should be selected based on project characteristics for the most success.
References
Carvalho,3M.M. De,3Patah,3L.A.3and3de Souza Bido,3D.3(2015), “Project management
and its effects on project success: cross-country and cross-industry comparisons”,3International
Journal of Project Management, Vol.3333No.37, pp.31509-1522.
Dvir,3D.,3Lipotevsky,3S.,3Shenhar,3A.3and3Tishler,3A.3(2003), “What is really important
for project success? A refined, multivariate, comprehensive analysis”,3International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, Vol.343No.34, pp.3382-404,
doi:310.1504/IJMDM.2003.004001.
Gemino,3A.,3Reich,3B.H.3and3Serrador,3P.M.3(2020), “Agile, traditional, and hybrid
approaches to project success: is hybrid a poor second choice”,3Project Management Journal,
Vol.3523No.32, pp.3161-175.
Hair,3J.,3William,3C.B.,3Babin,3B.J.3and3Anderson,3R.E.3(2009),3Multivariate Data
Analysis,37th3ed.,3Prentice-Hall,3Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hendriksen,3A.3and3Pedersen,3S.A.R.3(2017), “Agile practices and project
success”,3Journal of Modern Project Management,3May/August, pp.362-73.
Lalic, D. C., Lalic, B., Delić, M., Gracanin, D., & Stefanovic, D. (2022). How Project
Management Approach Impact Project success? From3traditional to Agile.3International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business,315(3), 494–521. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-04-2021-0108
Lappi,3T.,3Karvonen,3T.,3Lwakatare,3L.E.3and3Kuvaja,3P.3(2018), “Toward an improved
understanding of agile project governance: a systematic literature review”,3Project Management
Journal, Vol.3493No.36, pp.339-63, doi:310.1177/8756972818803482.
Nowotarski,3P.3and3Paslawski,3J.3(2015), “Barriers in running construction SME – case
study on introduction of agile methodology to electrical subcontractor”,3Procedia Engineering,
Vol.3122,3Orsdce, pp.347-56,3Elsevier B.V., doi:310.1016/j.proeng.2015.10.006.
Nunnaly,3J.3and3Bernstein,3H.3(1994),3Psychometric Theory,3McGraw-Hill,3New York,
NY.
Shenhar,3A.J.3and3Dvir,3D.3(2007),3Reinventing Project Management: the Diamond
Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation,3Harvard Business School Press,3Boston,
Massachusetts.
Thompshon,3B.3(2004),3Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding
Concepts and Applications,3American Psychological Association,3Washington, DC.
Young,3L.,3Ganguly,3A.3and3Farr,3J.V.3(2012), “Project management processes in agile
project environment”,333rd Annual International Conference of the American Society for
Engineering Management 2012, ASEM 2012 - Agile Management: Embracing Change and
Uncertainty in Engineering Management,3Virginia Beach, VA; United States, pp.39-19.
