a new hybrid approach for selecting a project management
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 1
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management Methodology
Yael Grushka-Cockayne, Darden School of Business, University of Virginia
Vered Holzmann, Recanati Business School, Tel Aviv University
Hamutal Weisz, PMzOne Ltd.
Daniel Zitter, PMzOne Ltd.
Abstract
We propose a multi-dimensional framework for project methods selection, extending the traditional
project management trinity of scope, budget, and time, to include multiple attributes on which a project
can be characterized. We show how the positioning of a project on the attributes suggests a preferred, and
most likely hybrid approach to project management. Through several industry case studies, we explore
the ways firms select their approach to project management. We suggest that in most cases, method
selection is determined at an organizational level. We hypothesize that firms that do apply a regular
process for method selection at a project level see an improved performance in their projects. We show
that components of traditional waterfall, theory of constraints, or agile approaches may be appropriate,
depending on the constraints a specific project faces. Our implementable tool provides firms with a
common framework on which to evaluate projects and select the appropriate method components, what
we refer to as an ―adaptive blend.‖
Introduction
The choice of project management methods, which determines how a project is planned and executed, is
of strategic importance to the firm. Ill-chosen management methodologies are often cited among top
reasons projects fail (Wells, 2012; White & Fortune, 2002). pundak (2014), inspired by the Project
Management Institute and others, defines project management methodology as ―the set of methods,
techniques, procedures, rules, templates and best practices to use on a project‖ (p. 940). While the
definition relates to a specific project, project management methodologies are often chosen at an
organization level, not considering the specifics of a project at hand (Charvat, 2003; Nelson, 2007).
Moreover, firms typically choose a single methodology as a complete end-to-end solution and rarely
consider a combination of elements from multiple methods ( pundak, 2014), although in practice, hybrids
might be utilized.
Among the pioneering methods, and perhaps still the most commonly used, is the traditional critical path
method (CPM), a key component of the waterfall methodology (Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, & Sutton,
2011). The program evaluation and review technique (PERT), developed around the same time as the
![Page 2: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 2
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
CPM, was suggested as better suited for dealing with uncertainty in projects, in particular as it effects
project durations. In 1997, Goldratt introduced an adaptation of his theory of constraints (TOC) for
project management (Goldratt, 1997). Goldratt‘s focus when proposing the adaptation of the TOC was the
resources associated with a project, in particular, although not limited to, human resources. The TOC and
its principles were especially tailored to address challenges that arise when faced with scarce resources in
a project, or resources that are shared across projects.
Shenhar and Dvir (2007), instead of focusing on a single dimension (e.g., uncertainty or resources)
propose four dimensions by which a project should be classified: complexity, novelty, technology, and
pace. They claim that mapping a project along these four dimensions can inform the way a project should
be managed. Loch, DeMeyer, and Pich (2006) argue that traditional methods in project management are
not suited for most new project development situations. They distinguish between sources of uncertainty
(variation, foreseeable event, and unknown unknowns) and complexity (few interactions of tasks and
resources versus many interactions), and provide guidance as to how a project should be managed given
the type of risk it entails and its complexity.
The agile approach, as documented in the Agile Manifesto (Agile Alliance, 2001), was proposed as a way
to address the needs of highly ambiguous projects, requiring much iteration and dealing with change. For
this reason, agile-inspired project management methods have been said to have revolutionized the way
software and information technology projects are planned and managed (Stettina, & Hörz 2015).
In the current study, we move beyond a one-size-fits-all solution forselecting project management
methods. We decompose the most common project management practices into their fundamental
elements, which we call approaches. We offer the multi-dimensional framework, in which we consider
fourteen parameters for evaluating a project. For each of these parameters, we identify three potential
levels, which may characterize a project. Based on the results of the assessment, a set of approaches are
proposed for the project manager. In this vein, our work is aligned with others who have suggested that
project management approaches should be adaptive and flexible—suited for specific projects with hybrid
options (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; pundak, 2014).
The contributions of our work are threefold. First, in unpacking the three main project management
approaches (waterfall, agile, and TOC) into modular approaches, we add flexibility and expand the way in
which these might be used. Second, the fourteen parameters we identify, along with a description of the
possible values they might obtain, add much to the discussion associated with characterizing projects.
Finally, the mapping between the parameters‘ settings and the choice of methods‘ modules provides a
practical and structured way for firms to pick and choose the project management method hybrids that
best fits their needs.
Project Attributes—Approaches Framework
Our multi-dimensional framework characterizes a project and allows a decision maker (project manager,
program manager, or otherwise) to identify the most appropriate mix of processes, hereafter referred to as
approaches, for a successful management of any specific project. The framework we offer includes
fourteen project attributes for characterization and twenty-three approaches derived from the well-
established project management approaches: waterfall, agile, and TOC.
Each of the fourteen project attributes represents a different aspect of the project. A three-level scale is
used to rate a project on each attribute. The attributes, and their associated scales, are described below and
in Exhibit 1. Note that the attributes are ordered alphabetically and not necessarily in order of importance.
![Page 3: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 3
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
Budget is the sum of funds authorized for project execution. It includes the direct and indirect costs, as
well as the project management reserves (Project Management Institute, 2013). Project budget is
developed within constraints, which can be more or less ―soft.‖ ―The budget constraints may be ‗soft,‘
in the sense that it is meaningful to adjust the budget depending on what benefits can be secured at
different levels of resource expenditure‖ (Liesiö, Mild & Salo, 2008, p. 679). Therefore, project budget
can be fixed, variable, or flexible.
Commitment is a feeling of duty that people, in teams and organizations, have to achieve the project
goals and objectives, and which is translated into actions that support project success (McDonough,
2000). Project overall commitment represents a high, medium, or low sense of duty by the project's
team members to focus on contributing to the overall project goals (Hoegl, Weinkauf, & Gemuenden,
2004).
Contract Type is defined within the project procurement management processes and it involves the
terms and conditions for administrating the business relations placed on the project team (Project
Management Institute, 2013). The contractual relationships can be fixed-price, cost plus, or a hybrid
type that integrates both (von Branconia & Loch, 2004).
Customer Type refers to the customer focus in the project planning and implementation, and to the
targeted product or service user (Pinto & Rouhiainen, 2002). The project customer can be a single
internal, a single external, or the commercial market, where many single end users will buy the
product.
Duration is defined by A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) –
Fifth Edition as ―the total number of work periods (not including holidays or other nonworking
periods) required to complete a schedule activity or work breakdown structure component‖ (Project
Management Institute, 2013, p. 537). Classifying project duration as long, medium, or short, is based
on a subjective evaluation, relative to the overall activities executed by the organization.
Goals are defined within the broader environment of the organization and refer to the desired
achievements, outputs, and outcomes (Project Management Institute, 2013). Based on the specific
business case analysis, the project goals and objectives can be well defined, estimated, or unclear.
Pace refers to the question: how critical is the time frame? While understanding the temporal nature of
projects with a definite start and end (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Project pace can be time critical when
the project duration impacts the achievement of competitive advantage and the need to get to market as
soon as possible. In such cases, missing the deadline would result in project failure. The pace can be
fast, when constraints on deadlines impose quicker than initially planned turnaround and it can be
regular when the project aims to achieve long-term goals and time is not critical to success.
Procedures and Regulations refer to the organizational or regulatory infrastructure within which the
project is operated. A consistent approach to project strategy and implementation, including planning,
executing, and reporting, can be required for specific types of projects (Payne & Turner, 1999). In
different organizations and programs, we can find different levels of standardized procedures and
regulations, ranging from none specific, through standard, to highly structured and specific
regulations for instance, in the case of drug development.
Resources, including human resources, equipment, commodities, and material, are required to carry
out the project activities. Project resources can be versatile (i.e., one resource can be easily replaced by
another); they can be standard (i.e., each resource has its specialty); or they identified as high expertise
and unique (i.e., scarce resources—specialized, qualified, certified, professionals—should be carefully
assigned to tasks) (Project Management Institute, 2013, p. 269).
Scope is defined by the PMBOK® Guide as ―the work performed to deliver a product, service, or result
with the specified features and functions‖ (Project Management Institute, 2013, p.554). A rigid project
scope implies an inflexible and none divisible set of features and functions. Multiple delivery units
implies that the scope is composed of several independent parts that are integrated into a unified
![Page 4: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 4
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
deliverable. A modular scope implies that the final product or service is composed of independent
segments, or parts, which can be delivered independently or as a unified product (Chen & Liu, 2005).
Team Availability refers to the degree to which the project team members are able to start a task when
it is called for, whether it is on a planned schedule or at an unexpected time. The number and
complexity of external project tasks that the team members are expected to execute usually impacts the
degree of the team's availability. The project team can be fully available, partially available, or very
limited.
Team Distribution is expressed in actual spatial and temporal distance, and many times represents
cultural difference (Hogan, 2006). The increasing geographical distribution of work is mainly relevant
for information technology projects, although in recent years, it is also evident in other fields (Hinds,
2002). Project teams can work in a single location, in multiple locations, or be distributed globally.
Team Size is usually studied with regard to productivity (for example, Pinto & Pinto, 1990; Gorla &
Lam, 2004; Rodriguez Sicilia, Garcia, & Harrison, 2012) and yields the understanding that bigger is
not always better. The number of team members determines the project team size, classified as small,
medium, or large, and is based on a subjective evaluation, relative to the overall activities executed by
the organization.
Uncertainty relates to situations where the established facts are questioned and the impact of strategic
planning on the project performance is raised (Loch et al., 2006; Perminova, Gustafsson, & Wikström,
2008). The degree of uncertainty in the project environment can range from ambiguous, through
predictable, to highly predictable.
Attribute Levels Budget flexible, variable, fixed
Commitment high, medium, low
Contract Type fixed-price, cost plus, or a hybrid
Customer Type Market, single external, single internal
Duration long, medium, short
Goals well defined, estimated, unclear
Pace time critical, fast, regular
Procedures & Regulations None, standard procedures, highly structured
Resources versatile, standard, unique expertise
Scope modular, multiple delivery units, rigid
Team Availability fully, partially, limited
Team Distribution single-location, multi-location, global
Team Size small, medium, large
Uncertainty ambiguous, predictable, highly predictable
Exhibit 1: Attributes in the attributes-approaches framework.
On the other side of the attributes-approaches framework, there are project methodologies. We follow
Charvat (2003) with his definition for methodology as ―a set of guidelines or principles that can be
tailored and applied to a specific situation. In a project environment, these guidelines might be a list of
things to do‖ (p. 3). Hence, we identified the main processes and techniques in three well-established
project management approaches: waterfall, agile, and TOC.
Exhibit 2 presents the main approaches identified in each. Related to the waterfall model, we identified
ten separate approaches. The ten approaches related to how waterfall projects get planned, scheduled,
![Page 5: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 5
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
monitored, communicated with the project team, and their organizational structure. With the agile
mindset, we choose common approaches (nine of them) that are common to most agile practices today,
whether Extreme Programming, Scrum, or Kanban. As for TOC, here we identify six approaches,
associated today with common TOC implementations.
Waterfall Agile Theory of Constraints 1. Critical Path Analysis 1. Sprint retrospective 1. Buffer management
2. Presenting the whole picture 2. Daily stand-up meetings 2. Throughput analysis
3. Focus on project stages 3. Working system from day
one
3. Focus on critical chain on
critical resources
4. Sequential Process
(e.g., progressing one stage at
a time, no overlap)
4. Co-management: Customer
and supplier cooperation
4. Don‘t start things without
finishing others
5. Emphasis on documentation 5. Multi-disciplinary teams 5. Progress—Control by buffer
consumption rate
6. Detailed requirements
specification 6. Self-organizing teams
7. Progress control by earned
value management
7. Progress control by burn
down chart
8. Hierarchical organizational
structure
8. Rapid and flexible response
to change
9. Formal communication 9. Informal communication
10. High-level planning
Exhibit 2: Approaches in the attributes-approaches framework.
Our proposal is to characterize a specific project on each one of the fourteen attributes by selecting the
most appropriate value on each dimension. This analysis yields a portrait of a project that requires a
specific hybrid of approaches for successful project implementation. Appendix A demonstrates the
mapping between project characteristics (across the fourteen parameters) and the approaches. In this next
subsection, we describe several case studies, which demonstrate how to use the attributes-approaches
framework by mapping different project management approaches to project attributes.
Case Studies
Next, we present four industry case studies, which the co-authoring team have been engaged in. Through
these case studies, we can see how projects are mapped onto the fourteen attributes, why and how a
hybrid of methods was necessary, and how it impacted the project outcome. Exhibit 3 summarizes the
mapping of all cases on all attributes. Exhibit 4 relates each case to the methodological components it
utilized. Once a project is mapped on to the fourteen attributes, we can utilize the matrix in the appendix
to recommend an ―adaptive blend.‖
![Page 6: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 6
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
Case 1
The organization: An Israeli logistics company delivers merchandise to approximately 300 customers
countrywide. Deliveries originate in a central logistic warehouse, following orders received through a
third-party company, linked to the company's enterprise resource planning system (ERP). Deliveries‘
frequency range from one to three times a week per customer on predetermined routes, ensuring
maximum efficiency. Itineraries and delivery notes are printed in advance.
The project: The project‘s primary goal was to replace the printed itineraries and delivery notes with a
mobile interface. In addition, the project would serve as a pilot for testing feasibility of ERP-based
solutions for mobile for future use in the company.
The project was divided into two stages: the scope of the first stage included the delivery process. The
second stage included the returns process. The first stage was scheduled to take place between January
and June, 2015. This stage included one major milestone: a pilot would be conducted in April, before
rollout, which was scheduled to take place during May and June. The second stage was scheduled from
July to October, 2015 and included another milestone for a second pilot, followed by a quick rollout to all
customers.
The project budget was estimated at US$41,000, which was determined based on the cost of the mobile
devices and cost of work: 550 hours, composed of two full-time programmers (260 hrs.), one full time
person (50 hrs.), and one ERP consultant (30 hrs.). This did not include the project manager, who also
worked as a system analyst and tester (150 hrs.).
Project summary: The project was (and still is) managed according to internal best practices. The first
stage rollout did not meet the plan, due to a technical problem and performance issues, causing a delay in
the entire project. Additional causes for delay were:
- Time to learn the new technology used in the project took almost twice the time estimated.
- Management decided to delay the rollout by more than three weeks in order to collect additional
data from the customers.
The project‘s second stage is estimated to be complete on time, but with a budget slip of approximately
20%.
Case 2
The organization: In the semiconductor production world, changes to clean rooms are frequent. Every
few years, a new and improved process for treating silicon wafers comes along, old machines are moved
out of the production floor, and new tools are moved in. The case related to a semiconductor company
involved in such clean room clean out.
The project: The project had a very clear objective: move out all old tools, electrical foundations, and
pipes from the fabrication clean room, and leave the production floor clear for a new set of tools to come
in, starting at a certain, predetermined, date. The company awarded the project to a contractor with whom
they had worked with in the past. They agreed on a fixed price project, with a well-defined scope of
clearing the clean room and having it ready by the target date.
Project summary: The customer and the subcontractor both appointed project managers from their
companies. The customer‘s project manager worked closely with the team, helping to solve issues as they
occurred. Removal of the tools did not happen in the sequence that was planned. Tools that were
![Page 7: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 7
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
scheduled for pull out, had to have a ―clear to move‖ sticker on them, which indicates that all electrical
and chemical lines to this tool have been cleared. The first three months of the project had a daily plan for
the tools that were to be pulled out, but the list kept changing due to the fact that the customer hadn‘t been
able to keep up with his commitments.
Following this troublesome start, every week, a two-hour meeting was held with all the contractor and
customer leads, and a revised plan for the following week was created. Tools that had no chemical pipes
were pulled out of the clean room instead of the bigger, more complex tools. The project management
office (PMO) team kept the big picture of the progress updated. Every week, updates were collected from
the field and presented at a weekly meeting. The plan for the next week was created based on this data
and the original baseline plan. The sequencing and coordination between the various sub-contractors was
also led by the PMO planning.
Daily stand-up meetings were held in the field, to ensure that all were clear on the day‘s objectives. These
meetings proved to be extremely beneficial in aligning the teams in the field to the plan, and resolving
issues as they became relevant. The working teams came from four different sub-contacting companies,
and each team worked on a different area of the clean room. They tried not to mix but to stay within their
own teams. The project managers coordinated the work in the clean room. At the end of each day,
additional walk-throughs were conducted to ensure the plan was set for the next day.
Buffer management, daily stand-up meetings, focusing on the entire picture, no multi-disciplinary teams,
and weekly rapid and flexible response to change, throughput analysis, and co-management were key in
managing this project. The project was extremely successful. It finished with an excellent safety record
(no one was hurt), a month ahead of schedule, and met all its objectives.
Case 3
The organization: Lumi Juice was founded in April, 2013 in Charlottesville, Virginia, by entrepreneur
Hillary Lewis. Lumi, which stands for ―Love U, Mean It,‖ was to be a new brand of 100% organic juice.
To preserve the juices‘ nutrients and flavor, Lumi juices would be produced using high-pressure
processing (HPP) instead of heat pasteurization (Grushka-Cockayne, 2015).
The project: The scope of the project was to build a fully-functioning manufacturing facility complete
with an HPP machine and to design and bring to market a new line of cold-pressed juices. The goal was
to put a product on the shelves of a major national retailer as soon as possible, using a limited initial
investment of US$500,000 and only two full-time employees. Lumi would also need to file for approval
from both the Virginia Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration to comply with
the regulation.
The market was extremely competitive. The market size of the super-premium juice category was
estimated at US$1.9 billion. The organic health food market represented a US$32 billion industry. While
the organic juice market consisted of well-known national brands such as Naked and Tropicana, these
brands were heat pasteurized. In the United States, Evolution Fresh, BluePrint, and Suja were newcomers
to the organic juice market. They all used HPP technology and were distributed wholesale. Starbucks
bought Evolution Fresh in 2011 and launched it in all stores in January 2014. Hain Celestial Group
acquired BluePrint for US$109 million in December, 2012. The San Diego-based Suja generated US$18
million in revenues in 2013 and was forecasting revenues of US$70–80 million by 2015. While all brands
were experiencing growth, a clear market leader had not yet been established.
![Page 8: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 8
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
Project summary: On June 28, 2013, Lewis scoped out her project using a traditional waterfall approach.
After laying out the dependencies and the expected durations of all the tasks, Lewis estimated that the
project would take a total of 49 days to implement, suggesting a launch date of September 4, 2013.
Unexpected events (such as delays to the shipment of the HPP machine and the need for an extremely
uncommon power supply unit) transpired, resulting in delays. Lewis, serving as the CEO and project
manager, and knowing which tasks were critical, was able to focus only on those and respond quickly to
changes. The first Lumi Juice was sold at Wholefoods on Oct 29, 2013.
Case 4
The organization: The organization is a worldwide humanitarian assistance organization established over
a decade ago, operating in more than 70 countries around the world. The organization‘s primary purpose
is to improve the well-being of vulnerable populations around the world. With over 1,000 employees, the
organization is working to alleviate hunger and hardship, rescue people in danger, and provide immediate
relief and long-term development support for victims of natural and man-made disasters.
The project: The immediate objective of the project was to transform the organization‘s human resources
to operate globally, in order to achieve consistency, efficiency, agility, transparency, and quality.
Additional objectives for this project were to:
- Establish one system of record for any human resources operational/transactional activity.
- Develop self-service capabilities to reduce human resources manual work.
- Provide accurate and available workforce data to all relevant stakeholders.
- Standardization and automation of processes and data.
Project summary: The project kicked-off after a cloud-based platform (SuccessFactors) was selected as
the primary solution supporting human resources strategy and the organizational vision. The project was
executed according to the proprietary implementation methodology of SuccessFactors, called BizXpress,
which describes what tasks need to be performed and when. This methodology includes a detailed
roadmap, as well as a number of tools and accelerators available to SuccessFactors, partners, and
customers.
The project was scheduled to start in November, 2013 and finish in June, 2014, with an estimated budget
of US$55,000 and US$80,000 annual license fee. The project team included an executive manager,
subject matter experts, a system administrator, a quality assurance team, and a project manager—all
belonging to the customer—and a project manager and technology experts from the supplier.
The project was delivered within budget and within the planned timeframe—with only a few weeks delay,
but not all of the objectives were achieved. The implementation suffered from inconsistency of data, due
to some technical/organizational unforeseen issues, thus, making the reporting not accurate. Overall, the
project is regarded as a success both for the customer and the supplier.
Attributes Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Budget Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed
Commitment High High High Medium
Contract Type Fixed Price Fixed Price N/A Fixed Price
Customer Type Single Internal Single Internal Market Single External
Duration Medium Medium Short Medium
Goals Well Defined Well Defined Well Defined Well Defined
![Page 9: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 9
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
Pace Fast Time Critical Time Critical Regular
Proc. and Reg. None Highly-structured Highly structured None Specific
Resources Unique Expertise Standard Standard Standard
Scope Multi. Deliv. Units Very Modular Rigid Modular
Team Availability Partially Fully Fully Partially
Team Distribution Single-location Single-location Single-location Global
Team Size Small Medium Small Small
Uncertainty Highly Predictable Highly Predictable Predictable Predictable
Exhibit 3: Mapping four case studies on each of the fourteen attributes.
Attributes Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Waterfall
Critical Path Analysis No No Yes No
Presenting the whole picture Yes Yes Yes Yes
Focus on project stages Yes No No Yes
Sequential process, e.g., progressing one
stage at a time (no overlap) No No No Yes
Emphasis on documentation Yes No No Yes
Detailed requirements specification Yes No No Yes
Progress control by earned value
management No No No No
Hierarchical organizational structure Yes No No Yes
Formal communication Yes Yes No Yes
High-level planning Yes Yes Yes Yes
Agile
Sprint Retrospective No No No No
Daily stand-up meetings No Yes No No
Working system from day one No No No No
Co-management: Customer and supplier
cooperation Yes Yes No Yes
Multi-disciplinary teams No Yes No No
Self-organizing teams No No No No
Progress control by burn down chart No Yes No No
Rapid and flexible response to change No Yes Yes No
Informal communication No No Yes No
Theory of Constraints
Buffer Management No Yes No No
Throughput analysis No Yes No No
Focus on critical chain on critical resources No Yes No No
Don‘t start things without finishing others No Yes No No
Sequential work - No multitasking No No No No
Progress control by buffer consumption rate No No No No
Exhibit 4: Mapping four case studies on management approaches.
Analysis of the above case studies reveals correlation between a project's attributes and management
approaches when examining the relationship between a project's attributes and the appropriate
methodological processes against the project's success.
![Page 10: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 10
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
Conclusions
We present the foundations of our attributes-approaches framework for identifying a hybrid project
management approach. Extending the framework trinity of scope, budget, and time, we propose
characterizing projects on fourteen attributes, which leads to a set of recommendations for methodological
approaches. We present four case studies, which demonstrate how projects map onto the attributes and
may suggest hybrid methodologies. Our next steps in this research program are to work with project
managers to operationalize our framework in multiple project settings.
![Page 11: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 11
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
APPENDIX A
Exhibit 5: Attributes-approaches framework mapping.
![Page 12: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 12
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
References
Agile Alliance. (2001). Agile manifesto. Retrieved from http://agilemanifesto.org/
Charvat, J. (2003). Project management methodologies: Selecting, implementing, and supporting
methodologies and processes for projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Chen, K. M., & Liu, R. J. (2005). Interface strategies in modular product innovation. Technovation, 25(7),
771–782.
Hinds, P. (2002). Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and
teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55.
Hogan, B. (2006, July). Lessons learned from an extremely distributed project. Agile Conference, 2006.
Minneapolis, MN: IEEE.
Gorla, N. & Lam, Y. W. (2004). Who should work with whom?: Building effective software project
teams. Communications of the ACM, 47(6), 79–82.
Goldratt, E. (1997). Critical chain. Great Barrington, MA: The North River Press.
Grushka-Cockayne, Y. (2015). Lumi juice: From concept to store. Charlottesville, VA: Darden Business
Publishing. UVA-QA-0835.
Loch, C. H., DeMeyer, A., & Pich, M. (2006). Managing the unknown: A new approach to managing
high uncertainty and risk in projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Liesiö, J., Mild, P., & Salo, A. (2008). Robust portfolio modeling with incomplete cost information and
project interdependencies. European Journal of Operational Research, 190(3), 679–695.
Mantel, S.J, Meredith, J.R., Shafer, S.M, & Sutton, M.M. (2011). Project management in practice. (4th
ed.).Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McDonough, E. F. (2000). Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross‐functional teams.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(3), 221–235.
Nelson, R. R. (2007). IT project management: Infamous failures, classic mistakes, and best practices. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 6(2), 67–78.
Payne, H. J., & Turner, R. J. (1999). Company-wide project management: The planning and control of
programmes of projects of different type. International Journal of Project Management, 17(1), 55–
59.
![Page 13: A New Hybrid Approach for Selecting a Project Management](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022042723/586cdeec1a28ab816d8bf5f5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
© 2015, Grushka-Cockayne, Holzmann, Weisz, and Zitter Page 13
Originally published as a part of the 2015 PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Orlando, Florida, USA
Perminova, O., Gustafsson, M., & Wikström, K. (2008). Defining uncertainty in projects—A new
perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 73–79.
Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. (1990). Project team communication and cross‐functional cooperation in new
program development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(3), 200–212.
Pinto, J. K., & Rouhiainen, P. (2002). Building customer-based project organizations.Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK®
guide) – Fifth edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Rodriguez, D., Sicilia, M. A., Garcia, E., & Harrison, R. (2012). Empirical findings on team size and
productivity in software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3), 562–570.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful
growth and innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
pundak, M. (2014). Mixed agile/traditional project management methodology—Reality or illusion?
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 939–948.
Stettina, C. J., & Hörz, J. (2015). Agile portfolio management: An empirical perspective on the practice in
use. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 140–152.
von Branconi, C., & Loch, C. H. (2004). Contracting for major projects: Eight business levers for top
management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(2), 119–130.
Wells, H. (2012). How effective are project management methodologies? An explorative evaluation of
their benefits in practice, Project Management Journal, 43(6), 43–58.
White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project management—An empirical study.
International Journal of Project Management, 20(1), 1–11.