O czasopiśmie
O czasopiśmie
Kolegium Redakcyjne
Rada Naukowa
Recenzenci
Kodeks etyczny
Wydania Specjalne
Terminy czasopisma
RODO - informacje o przetwarzaniu danych osobowych
Indeksacja
Licencje i dostęp
Archiwum
Dla autorów
Zasady publikacji
Techniczna instrukcja dla autorów
Umowa o udzielenie nieodpłatnej licencji CC BY-SA
Oświadczenie autora o prawach autorskich
Procedura recenzowania
Procedura recenzowania
Formularz recenzji
Lista recenzentów
Kontakt
O czasopiśmie
O czasopiśmie
Kolegium Redakcyjne
Rada Naukowa
Recenzenci
Kodeks etyczny
Wydania Specjalne
Terminy czasopisma
RODO - informacje o przetwarzaniu danych osobowych
Indeksacja
Licencje i dostęp
The use of traditional and agile Project Management methodologies in ICT
1
Szkoła Główna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie
2
Polsko-Japońska Akademia Technik Komputerowych
Data nadesłania: 23-08-2022
Data ostatniej rewizji: 11-11-2022
Data akceptacji: 11-11-2022
Data publikacji: 29-11-2022
JoMS 2022;49(2):509-528
SŁOWA KLUCZOWE
efficiencyqualityproject managementICT sectortraditional project management methodologiesagile project management methodologies
DZIEDZINY
STRESZCZENIE
Objectives:
The main aim of this article was to present the use of traditional and agile project management methodologies in companies in the communication and information technology (ICT) industry.
Material and methods:
The following methods were used to obtain research material and present the obtained results: literature studies, diagnostic survey, descriptive, tabular and graphic.
Results:
The following results were obtained in the study: (1) most of the respondents had the opportunity to work with both traditional and agile project management methodologies; (2) PRINCE2® was the popular traditional methodology and Scrum was the most popular agile methodology among the respondents; (3) the respondents valued higher the agile methodologies included the study (Scrum, XP, FDD) than the traditional ones (PMBoK®, PRINCE2®) in terms of the quality and efficiency of work; (4) according to the respondents, the most important advantage of traditional methodologies is the use of a transparent structure, whereas the most important advantage of the agile methodologies is defining the project success as an ability to deliver business value to the end-user; (5) according to the respondents, the biggest disadvantage of traditional methodologies is late testing of the implemented solutions, and the biggest disadvantage of the agile methodologies is their lower predictability.
Conclusions:
The article succeeded in achieving the main objective and research tasks as well as verifying the research hypotheses. Due to its limitations, it constitutes a starting point for further analyses of the problem area undertaken.
The main aim of this article was to present the use of traditional and agile project management methodologies in companies in the communication and information technology (ICT) industry.
Material and methods:
The following methods were used to obtain research material and present the obtained results: literature studies, diagnostic survey, descriptive, tabular and graphic.
Results:
The following results were obtained in the study: (1) most of the respondents had the opportunity to work with both traditional and agile project management methodologies; (2) PRINCE2® was the popular traditional methodology and Scrum was the most popular agile methodology among the respondents; (3) the respondents valued higher the agile methodologies included the study (Scrum, XP, FDD) than the traditional ones (PMBoK®, PRINCE2®) in terms of the quality and efficiency of work; (4) according to the respondents, the most important advantage of traditional methodologies is the use of a transparent structure, whereas the most important advantage of the agile methodologies is defining the project success as an ability to deliver business value to the end-user; (5) according to the respondents, the biggest disadvantage of traditional methodologies is late testing of the implemented solutions, and the biggest disadvantage of the agile methodologies is their lower predictability.
Conclusions:
The article succeeded in achieving the main objective and research tasks as well as verifying the research hypotheses. Due to its limitations, it constitutes a starting point for further analyses of the problem area undertaken.
REFERENCJE (69)
1.
Albuquerque, F., Tones, A.S., Berssaneti, F.T. (2020). Lean product development and agile project management in the construction industry, 27(2), 135-151. Rege-Revista de Gestao.
2.
Alleman, G.B. (2005). Agile project management methods for IT projects. in: E.G. Carayannis, Y.H. Kwak, F.T. Anbari (eds.), The story of managing projects: An interdisciplinary approach, 324-334. Praeger.
3.
Anantatmula, V.S., Webb, J.B. (2014). Critical Chain Method in Traditional Project and Portfolio Management Situations, 5 (3), 67-83. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management.
4.
Antlova, K. (2014). Agile approach in the project management of the Czech companies, 16, 929-933. Procedia Technology.
5.
Barak, A., Sadovsky, Y. (2008). Internet use and personal empowerment of hearing-impaired adolescents, 24, 1802-1815. Computers in Human Behavior.
6.
Baran, J., Pietrzak, M., Pietrzak, P. (2015). Efektywność funkcjonowania publicznych szkół wyższych, 4 (76), 169-185. Optimum: studia ekonomiczne.
7.
Bhavsar, K., Shah, V., Gopalan, S. (2020). Scrumban: An Agile Integration of Scrum and Kanban in Software Engineering, 9 (4), 1626-1634. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering.
8.
Bunsiri, T., Kumprom, T. (2016). Benefits of Agile Project Management, 5 (1), 23-29. APHEIT International Journal.
9.
Carlbring, P., Gunnarsdóttir, M., Hedensjö, L., Ekselius, L., Furmark, T. (2007). Treatment of social phobia: Randomised trial of Internet-delivered cognitive–behavioural therapy with telephone support, 190, 123-128. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
10.
Cervone, H.F. (2011). Understanding agile project management methods using Scrum, 27 (1), 18-22. OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives.
11.
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., Hodgson, D. (2006). Rethinking project management: Researching the actuality of projects, 24, 675-686. International Journal of Project Management.
12.
Dima, A.M., Maassen, M.A. (2018). From Waterfall to Agile software: Development models in the IT sector, 2006 to 2018. Impacts on company management, 11 (2), 315-326. Journal of International Studies.
13.
Fernandez, D.J., Fernandez, J.D. (2008). Agile Project Management – Agilism versus Traditional Approaches, 49 (2), 10-17. Journal of Computer Information Systems.
14.
Fitsilis, P. (2008). Comparing PMBOK and agile project management software development processes. in: T. Sobh (eds.), Advances in computer and information sciences and engineering, 378–383. Springer.
15.
Flora, H.K., Chande, S.V. (2014). A Systematic Study on Agile Software Development Methodologies and Practices, 5 (3), 3626-3637. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies.
16.
Gemino, A., Reich, B.H., Serrador, P.M. (2021). Agile, Traditional, and Hybrid Approaches to Project Success: Is Hybrid a Poor Second Choice?, 52 (2), 161-175. Project Management Journal.
17.
Gjoystdal, S., Karunaratne, T. (2020). Effect of Inadequate Self-Organized Teams in Agile Project Management: A Case Study From the Oil and Gas Industry, 11 (3), 95-106. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management.
18.
Grundy, T., Brown, L. (2004). Strategic project management: Creating breakthrough organisations. Thomson Learning.
19.
Highsmith, J. (2004). Agile Project Management – Creating Innovative Products. Addison-Wesley.
20.
Inayat, I., Salim, S.S., Marczak, S., Daneva, M., Shamshirband, S. (2015). A systematic literature review on agile requirements engineering practices and challenges, 51, Part B, 915-929. Computers in Human Behavior.
21.
Jahr, M. (2014). A Hybrid Approach to Quantitative Software Project Scheduling Within Agile Frameworks, 45 (3), 35-45. Project Management Journal.
22.
Javed, S., Bamford, J., Abualqumboz, M. (2021). Helping Deluxe Beds to sleep easy: A case study of agile project management, 22 (2), 132-139. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
23.
Jiang, L.C., Bazarova, N.N., Hancock, J.T. (2013). From perception to behavior: Disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in computer-mediated communication, 40, 125-143. Communication Research.
24.
Jimenez, V., Afonso, P., Fernandes, G. (2020). Using Agile Project Management in the Design and Implementation of Activity-Based Costing Systems, 12 (24), 10352. Sustainability.
25.
Joinson, A.N., Paine, C.B. (2007). Self-disclosure, privacy and the Internet. in: A.N. Joinson, K.Y.A. McKenna, T. Postmes, U.D. Reips (eds.), Oxford handbook of Internet psychology, 237-252). Oxford University Press.
26.
Karaman, E., Kurt, M. (2015). Comparison of project management methodologies: Prince2 versus PMBOK for it projects, 4 (4), 572-579. International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering Research.
27.
Koch, J., Schermuly, C.C. (2021). Who is attracted and why? How agile project management influences employee’s attraction and commitment, 14 (3), 699-720. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.
28.
Koi-Akrofi, G.Y., Koi-Akrofi, J., Matey, H.A. (2019). Understanding the Characteristics, Benefits and Challenges of Agile IT Project Management: A Literature Based Perspective, 10 (5), 25-44. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications.
29.
Krysiak, M., Głownia, Sz. (2017). Metodyki zarządzania projektami IT i ich ryzykiem: przegląd i wykorzystanie, 340, 79-98. Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach.
30.
Kumar, R., Gupta, A., Singh, H. (2014). Agile Methodologies: Working Mechanism with Pros and Cons, 4 (2), 18-27. Gian Jyoti E-Journal.
31.
Liebert, F. (2017). Zarządzanie projektami w przedsiębiorstwach branży IT – studium literaturowe, 101, 271-284. Zeszyty Politechniki Śląskiej. Seria: Organizacja i Zarządzanie.
32.
López-Alcarria, A., Olivares-Vicente, A., Poza-Vilches, F. (2019). A Systematic Review of the Use of Agile Methodologies in Education to Foster Sustainability Competencies, 11, 2915. Sustainability.
33.
Mahalakshmi, M., Sundararajan, M. (2013). Traditional SDLC Vs Scrum Methodology – A Comparative Study, 3 (6), 192-196. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering.
34.
Manfreda, K.L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., Vehovar, V. (2008). Web Surveys versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates, 50 (1), 79-104. International Journal of Market Research.
35.
Marek-Kołodziej, K. (2019). Model doboru metodyki zarządzania projektami do planowania i realizacji jednostkowego zlecenia produkcyjno-usługowego. Studium przypadku, 3 (950), 42-50. Przegląd Organizacji.
36.
Matos, S., Lopes, E. (2013). Prince2 or PMBOK – a question of choice, 9, 787 – 794. Procedia Technology.
37.
McKenna, K.Y.A., Seidman, G. (2005). Social identity and the self: Getting connected online. in: W.R. Walker, D.J. Herrmann (eds.), Cognitive technology, 89-110. McFarland.
38.
McKnight, W. (2014). Information Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage with Data is about making smart decisions to make the most of company information. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
39.
Orchard, L.J., Fullwood, C. (2010). Current perspectives on personality and Internet use, 28, 155-169. Social Science Computer Review.
40.
Ozierańska, A., Skromna, A., Kuchta, D., Rola, P. (2016). The critical factors of Scrum implementation in IT project – the case study, 25 (3), 79-96. Journal of Economics and Management.
41.
Palmquist, S.M., Lapham, M.A., Miller, S., Chick, T., Ozkaya, I. (2013). Parallel Worlds: Agile and Waterfall Differences and Similarities. Carnegie Mellon University.
42.
Papke-Shields, K.E., Beise, C., Quan, J. (2010). Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success?, 28 (7), 650-662. International Journal of Project Management.
43.
Pichler, R., Schulze, S. (2005). Book Reviews: Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products by Jim Highsmith, and Agile Project Management with Scrum by Ken Schwaber, 22, 371-373. Journal of Product Innovation Management.
44.
Pietrzak, P., Pawlonka, T., Włosik, N. (2019). Ataki terrorystyczne a rynek usług turystycznych. Studium teoretyczno-empiryczne. Wydawnictwo Szkoły Głównej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego w Warszawie.
45.
Project Management Institute (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). 5th Edition. Project Management Institute.
46.
Raharjo, T., Purwandari, B. (2020). Agile Project Management Challenges and Mapping Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review, 123-129. ICSIM ‘20: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Engineering and Information Management.
47.
Rodríguez, M.J.G., Montequin, V.R., Baisera, J.M.V., Suarez, R. (2017). Comparing Agile and Traditional Methodologies of Project Management for Software Engineering, 2017, 64-75. Scientific Publications. University of Economics in Katowice.
48.
Rodríguez, P., Mäntylä, M., Oivo, M., Lwakatar, L.E., Seppänen, P., Kuvaja, P. (2019). Advances in Using Agile and Lean Processes for Software Development, 113, 135-224. Advances in Computers.
49.
Ruel, H.J.M., Bondarouk, T., Smink, S. (2010). The Waterfall Approach and Requirement Uncertainty: an In-Depth Case Study of an Enterprise Systems Implementation at a Major airline Company, 1 (2), 43-60. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management.
50.
Saunders, P.L., Chester, A. (2008). Shyness and the Internet: Social problem or panacea?, 24, 2649-2658. Computers in Human Behavior.
51.
Saynisch, A. (2010). Beyond Frontiers of Traditional Project Management: An Approach to Evolutionary, Self-Organizational Principles and the Complexity Theory-Results of the Research Program, 41 (2), 21-37. Project Management Journal.
52.
Shankarmani, R., Pawar, R., Mantha, S.S., Babu, V. (2012). Agile Methodology Adoption: Benefits and Constraints, 58 (15), 31-37. International Journal of Computer Applications.
53.
Sienkiewicz, Ł.D. (2012). Collaboration Between the Scrum and Third Party Services in the Network Organization, 1 (23), 59-66. Business Informatics.
54.
Sillence, E., Briggs, P. (2007). Please advise: Using the Internet for health and financial advice, 23, 727-748. Computers in Human Behavior.
55.
Siuda, P. (2016). Ankieta internetowa: zalety i wady – rekapitulacja. in: P. Siuda (ed.), Metody badań online, 8-81. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Katedra.
56.
Sobieraj, J., Metelski, D., Nowak, P. (2021). PMBoK vs. PRINCE2 in the context of Polish construction projects: Structural Equation Modelling approach, 67 (2), 551-579. Archives of Civil Engineering.
57.
Špundak, M. (2014). Mixed Agile/Traditional Project Management Methodology – Reality or Illusion?, 119, 939-948. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences.
58.
Soroka-Potrzebna, H. (2019). Zarządzanie projektami – podejście tradycyjne czy zwinne?, 1, 89-98. Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Humanitas. Zarządzanie.
59.
Stoudt, B.G., Ouellette, S.C. (2004). Making room for words: People who stutter on the Internet, 1, 175-194. Qualitative Research in Psychology.
60.
Sun, W., Schmidt, C. (2018). Control Mechanisms and Agile Methodology Use: Data from the Industry, 58 (3), 234-243. Journal of Computer Information Systems.
61.
Thesing, T., Feldmann, C., Burchardt, M. (2021). Agile versus Waterfall Project Management: Decision Model for Selecting the Appropriate Approach to a Project, 181, 746-756. Procedia Computer Science.
62.
Tripp, J.F., Armstrong, D.J. (2016). Agile Methodologies: Organizational Adoption Motives, Tailoring, and Performance, 58, 170-179. Journal of Computer Information Systems.
63.
Walczak, W., Kuchta, D. (2013). Risks characteristic to Agile project management methodologies and responses to them, 23(4), 75-95. Operations Research and Decisions.
64.
Walczak, W. (2015). Analiza krytyczna jako metoda poznawania prawdy w naukach o zarządzaniu, 1 (58), 22-32. E-mentor.
65.
Whitty, S.J., Maylor, H. (2009). And then came complex project management (revised), 27 (3), 304-310. International Journal of Project Management.
67.
Wolf H. (2014). Zwinne projekty w klasycznej organizacji: Scrum, Kanban, XP. Helion.
68.
Wyrozębski, P. (2011). Zwinne metodyki zarządzania projektami. in: M. Trocki (ed.), Metodyki zarządzania projektami, 189-196, Bizzare.
69.
Žužek, T., Gosar, Ž., Kušar, J., Berlec, T. (2020). Adopting Agile Project Management Practices in Non-Software SMEs: A Case Study of a Slovenian Medium-Sized Manufacturing Company, 12, 9245. Sustainability.
Udostępnij
ARTYKUŁ POWIĄZANY
| eISSN: | 2391-789X |
| ISSN: | 1734-2031 |
Przetwarzamy dane osobowe zbierane podczas odwiedzania serwisu. Realizacja funkcji pozyskiwania informacji o użytkownikach i ich zachowaniu odbywa się poprzez dobrowolnie wprowadzone w formularzach informacje oraz zapisywanie w urządzeniach końcowych plików cookies (tzw. ciasteczka). Dane, w tym pliki cookies, wykorzystywane są w celu realizacji usług, zapewnienia wygodnego korzystania ze strony oraz w celu monitorowania ruchu zgodnie z Polityką prywatności. Dane są także zbierane i przetwarzane przez narzędzie Google Analytics (więcej).
Możesz zmienić ustawienia cookies w swojej przeglądarce. Ograniczenie stosowania plików cookies w konfiguracji przeglądarki może wpłynąć na niektóre funkcjonalności dostępne na stronie.
Możesz zmienić ustawienia cookies w swojej przeglądarce. Ograniczenie stosowania plików cookies w konfiguracji przeglądarki może wpłynąć na niektóre funkcjonalności dostępne na stronie.
