Hybrid Projects’ Success Factors in Physical Product Development : An exploratory qualitative study from the project manager’s perspective

(1)

Hybrid Projects’ Success Factors

in Physical Product Development

MASTER THESIS WITHIN: Business Administration – Management NUMBER OF CREDITS: 30 ECTS

PROGRAMME OF STUDY:Civilekonomprogrammet AUTHORS: Carlsson, Simon & Kyrk, Erik

TUTOR: Hellerstedt, Karin JÖNKÖPING June 2021

An exploratory qualitative study from the project manager’s

perspective

(2)

Master Thesis within Business Administration

Title: Hybrid Projects’ Success Factors in Physical Product Development – An

exploratory qualitative study from the project manager’s perspective

Authors: Simon Carlsson & Erik Kyrk Tutor: Karin Hellerstedt

Date: 2021-06-04

Abstract

Background: During the last decades there has been a rapid increase in the desire of

being more flexible and responsive, which has paved the way for Agile Project Management – APM. As a consequence of implementing APM into environments previously defined as traditional, it has opened up a discussion of merging APM with Traditional Project Management – TPM. This combination of methodologies is referred to as Hybrid Project Management – HPM, whose aim is to leverage benefits from both APM and TPM.

Purpose: Prior research has failed to keep up with this trend. Those that have shed light

on this phenomenon have failed to realize the differences between IT and non-IT sectors. With this in mind, and the call for including managers’ perspective on HPM, this study has investigated project managers’ experiences and perceptions of factors that influence hybrid project success in physical product development. In order to address this purpose this study has also investigated how project managers perceive project success. This was done since one must first determine what constitutes project success in order to identify what factors that could bear a potential influence on it.

Method: From an interpretivist philosophical standpoint this, exploratory and inductive,

study has been carried out through semi-structured interviews with experienced project managers within HPM. Inspired by Grounded Theory, this study has employed purposive sampling and analyzed the data through a grounded analysis technique.

Conclusion: This research has successfully identified a range of various factors that

influence hybrid projects’ success. Based upon this, a model exhibiting the factors influencing hybrid projects in physical product development could be constructed, as well as a model depicting how project managers perceive hybrid project success. It was found that there is a constant tension between the TPM and APM when merging the two. Instead of identifying one way to optimize the hybrid project, it is more or less about managing this balance between APM and TPM practices. It was also found that project success is a dynamic and subjective concept, rather than the static and additive concept that is often illustrated by contemporary research.

(3)

Keywords

Project Management, Hybrid Project Management, Traditional Project Management, Agile Project Management, New Product Development, Physical Product Development, Agile, Project Success.

(4)

Acknowledgements

This thesis has been realized through the guidance and support from a group of people in which we would like to give our most sincere gratitude. First and foremost, we would like to thank our respondents who have been generous enough to take the time and effort to participate in this study. Without you, none of this would have been possible.

Additionally, we would like to give special thanks to both our tutor Karin Hellerstedt, as well as our seminar colleagues who have provided us with essential feedback and insights throughout the process, which have been greatly appreciated. Finally, we would like to thank and show appreciation towards our families and friends which have encouraged and supported us during this time.

Thank you,

(5)

1 Introduction

In this section, a brief introduction to the contemporary literature of project management will be provided. Furthermore, the reasoning and incentives behind this study will be presented and discussed. Lastly, the purpose of this study will be declared along with the research questions which serves as guidance throughout this thesis.

Background

Throughout history, projects of various forms and structures have been carried out, from the construction of the Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Giza to the modern development of vehicles. Thus, a need for project management has always existed even though it has taken various shapes. Project management as a research field, however, is something that have emerged during the last decades. It was not until the 1950s that standardized tools and techniques gave rise to an actual model of project management (Garel, 2013). Since then, multiple management approaches have been developed that have contributed to the development towards today’s perception of what project management is and entails.

The Project Management Body of Knowledge – PMBOK Guide (PMI 2017, p. 4) defines a project as, “a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result.”. This is a broad definition which incorporates two key characteristics for identifying a project, these are, a timeline with an ending and a goal to generate a unique outcome. In turn, this relatively broad definition includes a significant number of projects which could be very dissimilar, thus implying that projects could take various shapes within different sectors, ranging from minor software developments to large construction projects. Traditionally, projects have been viewed as a linear process, consisting of key stages that a project endures from initiation to closure. Several researchers have argued that the Traditional Project Management – TPM, has reached its full potential and fails to manage and cope with the everchanging environments of today’s complex and ambiguous projects (Zasa, Patrucco, & Pellizzoni, 2021; Bergmann & Karwowski, 2019; Spalek, 2016). As a consequence of certain technological advances within for example IT and software development, a need for new project principles and practices emerged. Eventually, this led to the creation of the “Agile Manifesto” which was published in the early 2001 by “The Agile Alliance” (Beck et al., 2001). From this date, the unravelling and development of agile approaches towards project management has advanced. Linear, static projects’ success has previously been evaluated through metrics such as time, cost, and quality (Maylor, 2010). In the modern organization these parameters have started to become replaced or complemented by new metrics, like for example customer satisfaction (Gemino, Horner Reich, & Serrador, 2020).

During the last two decades one has observed an increase in agile approaches (Conforto, Salum, Amaral, Da Silva, De Almeida, 2014). Even though Agile Project Management – APM, was originally designed for software development, organizations beyond the

(8)

IT-sector have started to realize the benefits of APM principles and practices. Since traditional projects often tend to fail in meeting the desired budget, time, and quality (Bergmann & Karwowski, 2019), TPM has on many occasions been replaced by APM, which has proven to provide a range of benefits. Examples of benefits are reduced resources consumed throughout product development, increased pace in terms of product innovation (Conforto et al., 2014), and higher accuracy in terms of customer satisfaction (Spalek, 2016). Nevertheless, Traditional Project Management is still utilized to a wide extent, especially in more traditional industries such as manufacturing and construction sectors (Conforto et al., 2014), where fixed contracts tend to pressure managers to work in linear traditional processes. Even though it has not received the degree of attention one had first expected, the trend of being agile has not gone unnoticed and firms working with TPM have begun to employ agile principles and practices (Salvato & Laplume, 2020). TPM approaches have been proven to work effectively and have turned out to fit especially well within companies that is of considerable size, focused on detailed planning and established in environments exposed to little change (Spalek, 2016). In the contemporary world of business, expectations and requirements of projects may change over time, or are at the very least not fully known from the beginning (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a, 2018). This makes it difficult for companies utilizing traditional methods since they are not especially effective in environments that are defined by continuous change and uncertainty (Bergmann & Karwowski, 2019). Studies have shown that agile methods are increasing in popularity, however, the APM has still not reached beyond the IT-industry to the extent that was expected by Spalek (2016). There are empirical evidence concerning the claimed benefits and effectiveness associated with APM strategies within the IT-industry, but nevertheless, the research on APM in non-IT sectors is still highly limited (Conforto et al., 2014). Moreover, the number of companies in non-IT sectors that are utilizing APM are few, even though they often operate in environments that are characterized as uncertain and volatile (Spalek, 2016). This is somewhat contradicting since these are characteristics of an environment that, in theory, should benefit from implementing agile principles.

There are situations where projects and organizations could benefit from agile methods, while still requiring a thorough planning phase. A typical example of this is contractors, especially those operating towards the public sector, who are bound to certain procurement and bidding processes (Copola Azenha, Aparecida Reis, & Leme Fleury, 2020). Without compromising the fundamentals of TPM, e.g., stages or phases, one solution could be to utilize both TPM and APM simultaneously. This concept is called Hybrid Project Management – HPM, and means that you combine TPM and APM practices and principles, with the goal to leverage aspects and benefits from both philosophies (Copola Azenha et al., 2020). Although there is no explicit definition of what HPM looks like, the term has started to gain attention in many scholarly forums (Auer & Rosenberger, 2018). According to previous research, physical product development i.e., new product development for physical products, is one sector that has

(9)

started to test these new hybrids and have primarily focused on combining the agile principles and practices with the more traditional stage-gate model, thus implementing what is called the agile-stage-gate model (Sommer, Hedegaard, Dukovska-Popovska, & Steger-Jensen, 2015; Cooper & Sommer, 2016a, 2016b). Further on, HPM has several potential application areas and can be used where and when there is a need of both focusing on the long-term as well as being flexible in terms of, for example, scope and handling control (Kosztyán & Szalkai, 2018). Studies have shown cases of the success and effectiveness of some hybrid models, like the ones focused on combining agile and stage-gate models (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a), which have proven to increase and improve, not only the performance of a project but also a project’s outcome (Conforto & Amaral, 2016).

Problem Statement

There is a high degree of ambiguity regarding HPM. Even though the idea of hybrid models seems promising with several application areas, the actual implementation of it is limited across the world (Gemino et al., 2020). Further issues arise since there are no clear definitions or any standardized frameworks to follow (Auer & Rosenberger, 2018). Several attempts and efforts have been carried out to construct an acknowledged hybrid model and perhaps the most recognized of them all is the so called agile-stage-gate model (Edwards, Cooper, Vedsmand, & Nardelli, 2019). Studies on the model are however few, and there are still gaps to be explored (Salvato & Laplume, 2020). The fact remains that the hybrid methodology still lacks a standard way of implementation and that the consequences along with limited theory has resulted in arguments of what HPM really is and how it could be leveraged (Gemino et al., 2020). Subsequently, how to measure the success of hybrid projects is unclear and widely discussed (Bergmann & Karwowski, 2019). Two researchers questioning and addressing the lack of standardized models are Conforto and Amaral (2016), who found that hybrid approaches may increase product development performance. They stress the importance of identifying factors, positive or negative, that influence the merge of agile practices into traditional environments. Conforto and Amaral (2016) further argue that their findings are based on a single case study and additional research needs to be done, in order to strengthen the legitimacy of their study. This means that future research should focus on identifying what underlying factors that breed hybrid projects’ success.

Coolman (2015) investigated five common pitfalls to why projects, in general, fail. Auer and Rosenberger (2018) further unraveled the possibility of these pitfalls being applicable for HPM as well. By interviewing 15 project managers from the IT-sector, they found support that these acknowledged pitfalls in fact apply for hybrids as well, thus providing an explanation to why hybrid projects fail. While these findings certainly contribute to the comprehension of how to optimize the utilization of HPM, the study does inherit a major shortcoming. As mentioned in Zasa et al. (2021) hybrids are useful for companies that look to adopt agile practices but are not able or willing to implement a full APM

(10)

approach into the organization, thus implying that there are significant dissimilarities between non-IT and IT industries. Since the software development industry is arguably already able, according to prior research (Conforto et al., 2014; Spalek, 2016), to implement these agile approaches it would be appropriate to focus on non-IT industries that aim to leverage these agile principles but where a full APM experience would not be suitable. Moreover, Auer and Rosenberger’s (2018) sample consisted of experts originating from and operating in the IT-sector, which arguably makes the study’s findings coming up short on realizing these differences between sectors which weakens their basis of argument. In turn, this would mean that it would be more relevant to examine sectors such as manufacturing, and other physical product industries over software, i.e., focus on physical product development over software development. The lack of focus on agile research in traditional environments is according to Bianchi, Marzi & Dabic (2018) unfortunate due to its remarkably positive track record in software development. Moreover, Bianchi et al. (2018) call for additional research with regards to, not only agile practices in non-IT product development, but also on different hybrid models. Cooper and Sommer (2016b), argue that one should continue to investigate the challenges of HPM, why it could be successful and what factors that ease or hinder the success of the concept. On the one hand, there are studies that identify and distinguish what challenges organizations face when leveraging the HPM approach (Zasa et al., 2021; Edwards et al., 2019; Cooper & Sommer, 2018). On the other hand, they imply that there is a need for additional, more extensive research that focus on interviewing managers to include and emphasize their views and experiences in this matter (Cooper & Sommer, 2016b). Moreover, the research conducted by Tessem (2018) calls for similar actions where it argues for further qualitative investigation of what combination of processes, and factors, are inherent in projects deemed successful and unsuccessful. There are examples of studies that have researched the early adopters of hybrids and its initial success (Cooper & Sommer, 2018). However, there are still multiple gaps that remain unaddressed, especially regarding project success of organizations that have utilized hybrid approaches for some time. By realizing that projects’ characteristics differentiate between IT and non-IT sectors, a new perspective on project management is revealed. As already presented in this section, previous research has failed to identify what underlying factors that influence project success when employing an HPM approach in physical product development.

Purpose & Research Questions

Initial studies and their findings of HPM are promising and it seems to be a viable option when aiming to implement agile practices without abandoning traditional methods (Conforto & Amaral, 2016; Cooper & Sommer, 2016a). According to Bergmann and Karwowski (2019) it is also an essential prerequisite that project managers comprehend the concept of project success and what various factors that influence success in order to meet the project requirements. This thesis seeks to identify and provide a deeper understanding of what ultimately leads to hybrid projects’ success in physical product

(11)

development. Due to the lack of unified models of HPM there is no standard way of measuring its success either. Therefore, in order to address the purpose, one must first determine what constitutes project success to identify what factors that could bear a potential influence on it. Moreover, previous research has primarily focused on the benefits and challenges of HPM implementation processes (Conforto & Amaral, 2016; Copola Azenha et al., 2020; Salvato & Laplume, 2020), whereas a strict limited number of studies have investigated what drives and influences the success of HPM projects. Those studies that actually have investigated the underlying factors, e.g., Auer and Rosenberger (2018), tend to include IT-bound samples, and therefore do not consider the differences among sectors. As mentioned, software companies have already been confirmed as being effective when utilizing agile methods (Conforto et al., 2014). Furthermore, as Cooper and Sommer (2016b) stated, the managerial views and experiences should be investigated to capture the essentials in this matter. The belief is that this study could contribute to the current literature by investigating more traditional sectors’ employment of HPM.

Due to the call for more extensive research in this still relatively unexplored area, the purpose of this study is to investigate project managers’ experiences and perceptions of factors influencing hybrid project success in physical product development. By analyzing underlying factors that influence HPM projects in physical product development, from the project manager’s perspective, this thesis seeks to discover new insights that are unique to more traditional companies, acknowledging the dissimilarities between IT and non-IT industries. Based on what is argued above, the following research questions were formed; What underlying factors influence hybrid projects’ success in physical product

development? and How do project managers perceive hybrid project success?. With the

eventual reveal of these factors and their influence on success, this study intends to serve as an aid for non-IT companies, and their managers, that want to optimize and leverage HPM in physical product development, after having implemented a blend of the two philosophies. Moreover, the identification and analysis of influencing factors might serve as a foundation for more extensive studies and contribute to the success of hybrid projects in the future. Conclusively, the findings of project managers’ perceptions of project success could contribute to the debate on how hybrid project success should be evaluated. Research Question 1: What underlying factors influence hybrid projects’ success in

physical product development?

(12)

2 Literature Review

To fully understand and capture the underlying factors that influence hybrid project success, one must understand the interaction between traditional and agile project management. Therefore, the following section will provide a brief walkthrough of the two project management paradigms. More specifically, this chapter will cover the history, contemporary view, benefits, and challenges of the respective approaches. An overview of the most common traditional and agile project management practices, techniques, and tools will be provided along with a depiction of what a merge between the two philosophies could look like.

Project Management

“Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements” (PMI, 2017, p. 10). It is a concept that is widely known around the world and research concerning the topic has accelerated since the 1990s (Garel, 2013). Even though project management as a discipline is spreading quickly, it is not as acknowledged as other disciplines like finance, marketing and management (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). There is a general notion of what project management is, but no formal project management theory exists (Garel, 2013). As of now, project management theory is rather a group of different leading practices, than any formal theory (Engwall, 1998). According to Shenhar and Dvir (2007) this will most certainly be the case in the future as well, since project management is a complex concept where the research is spread in a multitude of different directions. However, a continuation of research in project management theory might lead to new sets of leading frameworks that can, in turn be beneficial for both projects and project managers (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).

The goal of a project is to produce unique results, products or services, which in turn generates a beneficial outcome for stakeholders (PMI, 2017). According to PMI (2017), projects are valuable to organizations due to its ability to deliver consistent business value which serves as one reason for the sudden increase of interest in project management during the last decades. Project management does in turn work as a countermeasure to the wide array of different challenges that projects are exposed to in the contemporary world of business (PMI, 2017). Examples of these are, time and resource limitations as well as complex and continuously changing environments that restricts a projects ability to generate business value (Bergmann & Karwowski, 2019; Cooper, 2014; Spalek, 2016). In attempts to maintain business value, organizations incorporate project management to better handle the modern-day challenges and to increase one’s competitiveness (Azanha, Argoud, de Camargo Junior, & Antoniolli, 2017).

A project is a temporary endeavor with a definitive ending, whose lifecycle consists of different processes which eventually will result in one or several unique outputs (PMI, 2017). Even though projects are similar to one another, they can vary in terms of, for

(13)

example, number of processes and type of life cycle philosophy (PMI, 2017). More traditional methods have processes commonly known as stages or phases and are grounded in predictive life cycles where the majority of the planning is done in the initial phases of a project (PMI, 2017). One can view these phases as steps that illustrate a project’s life cycle from initiation to finalization. Philosophies like agile on the other hand, are instead focusing on adaptive life cycles that are using iterative and incremental processes (PMI, 2017). This means that a project does not have any clear planning or launching phase, but instead plans and produces output continuously through a series of iterations or sprints (Zasa, et al., 2021). Additionally, there are combinations of both adaptive and predictive cycles in so called hybrids, where fixed components of projects are using predictive approaches and the changing elements are following adaptive approaches (PMI, 2017).

Traditional Project Management – TPM

Since the mid-20th century, one has used similar principles in most projects where the idea has been to adopt a standardized way for project implementation (Špundak, 2014). The purpose of having a standard is to help projects’ meet their predefined requirements by implementing the same principles to a variety of different projects (Conforto & Amaral, 2010). According to Cooper (2008) many projects fail because of poor leadership and planning, and in order to provide guidance and make sure no crucial steps are missed in the product development process, TPM methods like the stage-gate model was developed. TPM focuses on the long-term and it provides a detailed plan on what processes are going to be used and how they will be used (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a). It’s ability to provide a long-term and uniform solutions to projects is something that have been popular among larger and more traditional sectors like the manufacturing industry (Conforto & Amaral, 2014). These industries are in turn characterized by following top-down concepts where the assignments of projects are structured and decided by senior management (Bergmann & Karwowski, 2019). The combination of being able to apply the same uniform approach to many projects, with the need for bureaucracy and control, is a concept which has turned out to be effective in these types of industries (Edwards et al., 2019).

Traditional methods like the waterfall and stage-gate models are based on predictive life cycles (PMI, 2017), which means that most of the planning and project requirements are set in the initial phases of a project (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). These TPM approaches describe the life cycle of projects and provides project managers with a linear step-by-step framework from initiation to closure (Cooper 1988, 2008, 2017). However, since the main concept of TPM is the ability to plan the entirety of a project ahead of time (Cram & Marabelli, 2018), it relies on a set of basic assumptions. By implementing a TPM approach one assumes that a project is linear, the requirements are explicit and the risk of changes throughout a project is minimal (Špundak, 2014). According to PMI (2017), the main goal of a project is to create unique results or outcomes, and the way that TPM aims

(14)

to achieve that is by optimizing projects through planning (Špundak, 2014). By using predictive approaches, you know the supposed inputs and outputs in each phase (PMI, 2017) and the focus will be on formalizing and documenting all processes (Nerur, Mahapatra, & Mangalaraj, 2005). This means that a lot of effort will be allocated towards measurement, in order to control performance (Nerur et al., 2005). The bureaucracy and the focus on control does in turn underline the need for formalized processes with clear requirements since this is a valuable tool that one can measure and evaluate (Bergmann & Karwowski, 2019).

2.2.1 TPM – Practices

As established earlier, the very essence of TPM is to optimize projects through thorough planning by following a linear and sequential structure, where the life cycle is illustrated from initial idea to completion (Špundak, 2014). Project management processes is a term for the different activities throughout a project (PMI, 2017). These activities originate from some type of input which is then exposed to certain project management tools and techniques in order to generate specific outcomes upon completion (PMI, 2017). One example of an outcome, in TPM, is a phase, which upon its completion would be the input to the subsequent project management process and so on (PMI, 2017). These phases do in turn consist of certain tasks or deliverables that needs to be completed before advancing to the next phase (Cooper, 2008). Some models have included an additional concept called gates, which serves as control points that are placed between two phases (Cooper, 1990). In a gate, individuals with authority decides whether one should continue or terminate the project (Cooper, 1990), depending on its performance and usefulness to the organization (Cooper, 2008). The number of phases and what models look like in practice may differ depending on which TPM approach one employs. However, the project management processes that constitutes the TPM life cycles are similar and have been summarized by the PMI (2017) into five sequential process groups.

The first step of the TPM process groups is the initiation group of processes, where one seeks to gain the approval to initiate either a new project or stage in a project life cycle (PMI, 2017). If the process is part of an entirely new project, this is formalized by the project creator in a document called the project charter, which is a record of crucial information linked to the project like objectives, requirements, resources and potential termination criteria (PMI, 2017). It is compiled by someone outside of the project with enough power to acknowledge the creation of the project and the resources associated, who then turns the responsibility over to the project manager (PMI, 2017). Following the initiation processes, a project manager will focus on the planning aspects by creating a scope and establishing the requirements as well as how one will achieve them during the life of the project (PMI, 2017). The project charter is used as a foundation to create the project management plan, which contains the coordination of all plan related activities and states how they will be executed and finished (PMI, 2017). Some of the more central components of the project management plan are the so called “triple constraints” (Basu,

(15)

2014) which refers to the time, cost, and scope or quality of a project (Parker, Parsons, & Isharyanto, 2015; Maylor, 2010). The three components must be defined and benchmarks or requirements must be created in order to be able to measure and compare them to the actual performance of a project (PMI, 2017). A common project management measuring and scheduling tool is the Gantt chart, which helps project managers to manage time requirements more effectively (Eppinger, 2001). In addition to Gantt charts, another common time management tool in TPM is the critical path method which, similarly to Gantt chart, is also used to estimate time and measure the progress of projects (Habibi, Birgani, Koppelaar, & Radenović, 2018). When the planning processes are completed, the focus will shift towards the predetermined goals and the execution of the project, which will commence according to what has been decided during planning (PMI, 2017). These processes comprise the main tasks of a project which includes activities associated with procurement, development, and management of projects (Chaves, Araújo, Teixeira, Júnior, Rosa, & Nogueira, 2016).

Following the execution processes are the monitoring and controlling processes, which refers to those project management activities that are following the progression through measuring and evaluating (PMI, 2017). It is important to measure the performance and inform possible stakeholders about the project’s progress (Chaves et al., 2016). Processes that focus on monitoring and controlling are therefore vital when tracking possible issues that deviate from the initial plan (PMI, 2017). By implementing these types of processes, one increases a project’s ability to manage change and create modifications to areas like schedules, costs, and specifications to the product (Chaves et al., 2016). Lastly the final process group is the closing group which consists of those processes that exist in order to complete, for example, a project or a phase (PMI, 2017). During these processes, the project manager will evaluate the plan and make sure that all aspects of the project are finished (PMI, 2017).

2.2.2 TPM – Benefits

TPM is a well-known project management philosophy, and the application areas are many (Spalek, 2016; Tereso, Ribeiro, Fernandes, Loureiro, & Ferreira, 2019). Its ability to apply one uniform standard project management model ensures rigid and widely applicable processes to the majority of projects (Špundak, 2014). These types of projects are best suited for bigger projects where the requirements are clear and the environment experiences little change (Batra, Xia, Van der Meer, & Dutta, 2010; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Additionally, TPM does not require any significant customer involvement (Coram & Bohner, 2005), it also works particularly well in longer lasting projects involving a wide range of project members, and where control of quality is of the essence (Brandl, Kagerer, & Reinhart, 2018). It is based on heavy front-end planning which serves as building blocks for the anticipating and managing of possible issues during the life cycles of projects (Highsmith & Cockburn, 2001). Through thorough planning and a focus on continuous measurement and optimization of projects, one can ease the process of

(16)

identifying and counteracting possible deviations from the initial plan (Highsmith & Cockburn, 2001). The sequential models of TPM have an inherent incremental cost structure, where the costs are spread out over the life cycle of a project and increases with each consecutive stage (Cooper, 1990). It means that as commitment to the project increases so does the costs, and if a project would turn out unbeneficial it can be terminated without any further costs (Cooper, 2008). This means that TPM have a built-in risk mitigation tool that can save organizations resources by scrappbuilt-ing any undesirable projects (Edwards et al., 2019).

Traditional projects are, as mentioned earlier, often using a top-down decision-making approach (Cooper, 1990) and are characterized with a high degree of formality (Nerur et al., 2005). Decision-making in TPM projects is generally easier, compared to more modern philosophies like agile, since the responsibility of the project is not localized in the project team, but rather limited to the project manager (Nerur et al., 2005). Even though the project manager has more authority than in for example APM, due to the corporate structure, more overhauling decisions are still made by the senior management (Cooper, 1990). In turn, this means that documentation is of great importance and plays a crucial role in terms of communicating and tracking, for example progress (Nerur et al., 2005; Brandl et al., 2018), since it provides senior management with transparency (Browning & Ramasesh, 2007). This transparency, that TPM provides, is something that is attractive to senior managers since this allows them to increase their influence and control of projects (Browning & Ramasesh, 2007). This is one main reason to why TPM are popular in bigger organizations since it gives them the ability to control a wide range of projects and their work through the concept of gates (Chin, 2004). These gates provide organizations and senior managers with a natural ability to decide on the continuation or termination of a project depending on its usefulness to the organization (Cooper, 2008; Brandl et al., 2018).

2.2.3 TPM – Challenges

The benefits of TPM have been well documented and the application areas have claimed to be many (Spalek, 2016). However, despite the wide implementation of TPM methods, 58 % of projects that advances from the TPM planning phases fail (Barczak, Griffin, & Kahn, 2009). Cooper and Sommer (2020) argue that one reason for this is, either failure in connecting to customer needs or issues with market-segment targeting. They further explain that the common denominator, between the two issues, is that they are both linked to the very essence of TPM, i.e., pre-planning. What used to be the strengths of TPM e.g., planning and documentation, have turned into mere formalities or seen as nuisances whose primary purpose is to secure advancement of one’s project into the execution processes (Cooper & Sommer, 2020). One of the core issues of TPM is that it is based on heavy front-end planning which tends to struggle in areas that are inherent with change (Chin, 2004). This means that the main strength of the TPM models i.e., its ability to plan and optimize processes, is not as effective where change forces varying degrees of

(17)

modification to the extensive preplanning (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a). This makes planning and progress measuring tools, like Gantt, obsolete since the original plans are continuously changing (Cooper & Sommer, 2020).

Traditional models have been claimed to suit especially well for large projects with clear requirements and where change is expected to be low (Batra et al., 2010). TPM has also been argued to be a uniform project management approach that can be implemented in all types of projects, which provides practical benefits to organizations (Špundak, 2014). However, at the same time as it would be beneficial for organizations to use a general project management model, questions regarding the actual legitimacy of the uniform abilities of the TPM approach have arisen (Chin, 2004; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). When using a TPM approach one assumes that one model can be applied to all projects, that projects are linear, requirements are known, and that change will not become a significant factor (Špundak, 2014). This is where TPM gets criticized, because today’s business environment is accompanied with complexity and ambiguity (Špundak, 2014). The uncertain climate leads to changes that cannot be avoided, thus increasing the need for modifications, and thereby making preplanning less efficient (Collyer, Warren, Hemsley, & Stevens, 2010). When exposed to change, the more traditional methods struggle and have received critique for its inability to adapt (Cooper & Sommer, 2016b; Zasa et al., 2021). The planning does not only result in an inability to adapt, but also raises issues in terms of pure workloads on the project team (Chin, 2004). Criticism about the time wasting in TPM have emerged, since it requires the team to execute all steps of a project life cycle, even when not entirely necessary (Zasa, et al., 2021). According to Chin (2004) this becomes especially noticeable in smaller project teams with limited resources, where an excessive focus on for example planning becomes a bigger part of the project, leaving little room for other processes.

Projects in areas such as product development involves innovative elements, which tend to be particularly unpredictable in the initial processes as a result from the increased uncertainty and complexity that follows innovation (Chin, 2004; Cooper & Sommer, 2016a). This is a major drawback when implementing TPM in product development since the ambiguity surrounding innovation increases the difficulty to plan an entire project life cycle (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a). In the case of product development, it is important to remain flexible in terms of being able to change requirements, increase the responsiveness and being able to modify the initial scope (Azanha et al., 2017). TPM models are criticized for being too focused on scope, budget and time which makes them too rigid and unable to reach the flexibility required to keep up with the everchanging environments (Bergmann & Karwowski, 2019; Spalek, 2016). The current climate of contemporary business is anything but stable, change as well as unpredictability have become important factors that organizations must address in order to be competitive (Azanha et al., 2017). Due to the rigid nature of TPM, it lacks an effective way to manage possible changes in for example customer needs (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a). Traditional methods do not adapt to changes after a plan has been accepted, which creates issues in

(18)

later stages of projects (Cooper & Sommer, 2018). Some of these issues, that might occur down the life cycle, can include examples of unsatisfied clients, obsolete products, and costly modifications (Serrador & Pinto, 2015).

Agile Project Management – APM

In 2001, the Agile Manifesto was published by the Agile Alliance. The manifesto constitutes the foundation of what today is known as APM and it was a reaction towards TPM’s inability to grasp and cope with the increased complexity, magnitude, and uncertainty of projects in the IT-sector, more specifically software development (Beck et al., 2001; Conforto, Amaral, da Silva, Di Felippo, & Kamikawachi, 2016). Essentially, the Agile Manifesto consists of a range of different principles and values that are supposed to guide developers and project managers to respond quicker and more efficient towards continuous change and uncertainty (Beck et al., 2001).

The Agile perspective introduced a new way of how to view project management. With its four core values; “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools, Working software over comprehensive documentation, Customer collaboration over contract negotiation, and Responding to change over following a plan” (Beck et al., 2001, p. 1), the aim was to focus on the individual and a project’s ability to adapt over organization and project structures and plans (Beck et al., 2001). Built upon these values, the alliance formed twelve principles, “The Agile Principles”, (see Appendix 1) that would serve as guidance for projects and project managers. APM is not solely a new strategy, but it inherits a new way of thinking that managers must adopt in order to be truly agile (Cooper & Sommer, 2020; Edwards et al., 2019). Boehm and Turner (2005) exemplified this way of thinking by stating that it is important to embrace change rather than opposing it. Moreover, Conforto and Amaral (2016, p. 2) further explained how APM’s main focus is to meet customer needs by “using short development cycles (iterations) and continuous change and adaptation all the way through the project life cycle”. In fact, according to Conforto et al. (2014), APM is originally a categorization of several strategies rather than merely a method or tactic, which means that the manifesto did not necessarily create something new. From the manifesto, APM has emerged and experienced a rapid increase in its practical expansion (Bergmann & Karwowski, 2019). With the majority of its utilization within IT and software development, organizations and project managers within traditional non-IT companies who still utilizes TPM have realized the benefits of agile strategies (Conforto et al., 2014) whereas research has only started to realize this possibility of bridging APM with TPM (Conforto et al., 2014). Actually, as early as 2005, Boehm & Turner (2005) stated that large aerospace and manufacturing businesses had begun the implementation of agile methods. Despite their early illumination of the subject, research has directed its focus elsewhere rather than shedding light on APM beyond IT and software (Conforto et al. 2014). Boehm & Turner (2005, p. 31) further illustrated that “agile development makes the entire development cycle much more like a maintenance phase by providing short, focused iterations”. In fact, Conforto et al. (2014)

(19)

found that APM is appropriate for non-IT environments as long as they are dynamic and continuously changing. The PMBOK (PMI, 2017) explains that to be able to cope with projects of this nature, active engagement and cooperation with the project’s stakeholders is imperative. Furthermore, this way of including stakeholders sets high demands on transparency from the organization and project, e.g., inviting stakeholders to meetings concerning the project (PMI, 2017; Spalek, 2016). This could be one of the reasons why agile strategies often are, as argued by Conforto and Amaral (2016) recommended for smaller projects regarding TPM environments.

2.3.1 APM – Practices

As already mentioned, the agile construct was not necessarily something new but could be seen as a rebranding and categorization of previous methods and techniques, often referred to as “lightweight” or “light” (Beck et al., 2001; Conforto et al., 2014; Edwards et al., 2019). During this period, “agile”, or APM, was developed into a well acknowledged term within project management (Conforto et al., 2014), but despite this, there is still no unified concept or definition of an agile framework (Conforto et al., 2016). Conforto et al. (2016) addressed this with a thorough literature review, formulating that; Agility is the project team's ability to quickly change the project plan as a response to customer or stakeholders needs, market or technology demands in order to achieve better project and product performance in an innovative and dynamic project environment. (Conforto et al., 2016, p. 8)

This emphasizes that the Agile approach is oriented around customer satisfaction and aims to optimize the project and product. What is not presented in the definition, is the continuous evaluation and search for improvement, which is often expressed by an iterative working process throughout the project. Serrador and Pinto (2015) identified this iterative process as an important approach and technique that enables APM to be adaptable in the way it is supposed to be. Furthermore, Zasa et al. (2021, p. 55) explained that a key characteristic for APM is that “individuals and interactions are more relevant than processes and tools”. This is also the case for scrum, which is one of the most popular agile frameworks and methods (Brandl et al., 2018). Ken Schwaber, one of the authors behind the Agile Manifesto, developed scrum together with Jeff Sutherland in the early 1990s (Schwaber, 2004). From 2001, the concept has become an integral part of the agile methodology. Even though it was originally designed for software development, it is applicable for any organization that is in need of project management (Azanha et al., 2017). Basically, it is a framework for dividing projects into smaller fractions which in turn work in shorter time-boxed sprints (Schwaber, 2004). At the start of a project, key functions and activities are identified and divided into tasks, these constitutes what is usually called the Product Backlog which is later divided into the Sprint Backlog (Schwaber, 2004). It is from this array of activities which each team chooses a task for the next sprint. These sprints usually last for 2-4 weeks (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a), and

(20)

the objective is to have a deliverable, task or function ready at the end of that period (Schwaber, 2004). During a sprint, the scrum master holds daily scrum meetings, i.e., daily stand-ups, which are supposed to last around 15 minutes and focus on what obstacles that are present and what the plan is for the day (Schwaber, 2004). Cooper & Sommer (2016b) listed some common agile tools, such as Product Backlog, Sprint boards and Burndown charts. Conforto et al. (2014) listed similar tools, claiming that they are recommended for APM practices. Another common technique for APM is Product Vision, where the purpose is to create an initial vision of the project’s outcome i.e., goal. Serrador & Pinto (2015) found that the quality of this vision is important for the success of a project. While there are many methods and frameworks of how an organization can be agile, this section has briefly covered scrum as it demonstrates a typical illustration of what APM entails.

2.3.2 APM – Benefits

Since the agile movement was a reaction towards the limitations of TPM, it offers some benefits where TPM comes up short. APM is known for being dynamic, where you have an unclear plan of the end product and the planning process continues during the entire project, rather than being limited to only one phase or stage (Conforto et al., 2014). Instead, the iterative lifecycles of APM allows the scope to be incorporated in all phases of a project which does not only reduce the risk of failing to identify a scope, but tends to also increase the quality of products as well as improving control and communication of projects. Similar findings have been concluded by Begel and Nagappan (2007), who also found that APM increases coordination as well as the response time in regard to both technical and customer related changes. The inherent nature of developing a project incrementally is particularly useful when circumstances change (Batra et al., 2010), since it allows APM projects to better adapt to possible changes in customer needs both in terms of precision and speed (Spalek, 2016). This ability, to deliver faster and more accurate deliverables within complex environments (Brandl et al., 2018), does in turn provide organizations and customers with an increase in business value (Azanha et al., 2017). By focusing on increased business value and customer needs, APM may lead to a range of other benefits such as, significantly reduced costs due to irrelevant processes and improved innovation speed (Benassi, Ferreira Junior, & Amaral, 2011).

As already mentioned in this paper, APM is not only about being more adaptable and responsive, but also about increasing the quality of the end product (Zasa et al., 2021). Agile approaches embrace change and one way of doing this is by continuously including various stakeholders in the project (PMI, 2017; Serrador & Pinto, 2015) which according to the PMBOK (PMI, 2017) mitigate risks and reduce costs. Serrador and Pinto (2015) further add that scrum meetings improve communication and the quality of the project, thus increasing customer satisfaction. Pereira, Torreão, and Marçal (2007, as cited in Azanha et al., 2017), tune in on this by claiming that APM leads to higher accuracy in

(21)

terms of meeting customer demands and expectations. APM methods like scrum does not only achieve this, but does so with a noticeably faster time-to-market (Brandl et al., 2018).

2.3.3 APM – Challenges

While APM brings a new perspective and many new tools, methods, and other benefits to the table, it does inherit some challenges and limitations as well. Conforto and Amaral (2016) issued that APM in a new product development setting may result in failures and reworks which subsequently leads to increased costs. Furthermore, Cooper and Sommer (2016b) found that it is exceedingly difficult to make investments in a project when there is no clear plan and where the end product is unknown or highly ambiguous. This is an aspect which is very difficult to mitigate since an important feature of Agile, especially scrum, is the progressive delivery of the project and product. The idea of processing and delivering a subset of functions is arguably not possible in all TPM settings. This is often due to the interdependencies between the different parts of a project (Zasa et al., 2021). Zasa et al. (2021) further explain that TPM, in large-scale organizations, is deeply anchored in how they operate which tends to make managers and organizations reluctant to replace it. Regarding larger organizations, the need of documentation and archives often coincides with the agile values and principles. This is due to the fact that they rely on the knowledge of the scrum team and its capabilities, i.e., tacit knowledge, rather than standardized processes and documentations. Timminger and Seel (2016, as cited in Auer & Rosenberger, 2018) present this as a clear challenge for APM and especially in a setting characterized by TPM. On the contrary, Serrador and Pinto (2015) found that team members’ experience did not influence the success of the project. In summary, APM’s ability to cope with fast changes and welcoming change and innovation, comes with a trade-off. The lack of planning and “learning by doing”, as illustrated by the agile principles, often result in unclear situations, thus making it more difficult to make decisions but also to evaluate them. In other words, APM might not be suitable in all situations.

Hybrid Project Management – HPM

The new business environment has changed the landscape for projects and organizations with newly found demands in addition to areas like costs, time, and quality (Spalek, 2016). TPM has been called inadequate and criticized for being too rigid and its overuse of bureaucracy (Spalek, 2016). The solution, has for many actors, been APM with its ability to react quickly and more accurate to customer and environmental needs (Copola Azenha et al., 2020). Even though APM looks promising, its implementation has been lacking outside of software development and questions have therefore been raised if it is applicable to organizations outside of the software development sector (Conforto et al., 2014). Spalek (2016) argues that one might question the possibility to run a project solely on agile principles. The reasoning behind this is the fact that the companies that decide on running projects solely on APM outside of the software industries are highly limited,

(22)

even though the rapidly changing environment should benefit agile approaches (Spalek, 2016).

Traditional industries like manufacturing and construction have historically been implementing TPM, while the software development industry has typically been using APM (Conforto et al., 2014). New physical product development is an especially complex environment due to the inherent uncertainty and the wide array of different components and organizations that may be involved in a project (Kim & Wilemon, 2003). No matter which of the two approaches one adopts, there will be tradeoffs. On the one hand, TPM means a reduction in flexibility and with that comes a particular vulnerability towards change (Nerur et al., 2005). On the other hand, APM’s lack of planning may lead to exceeded budgets and additional reworking with regards to products where complexity is inherent and consists of a high number of interlinking components (Turk, France, & Rumpe, 2002). Conforto and Amaral (2016) are two researchers that argue for a merge between the two approaches, i.e., a hybrid, in order to gain benefits from both methodologies. Boehm and Turner (2003) further argue that both philosophies complement one another well. TPM offers a framework for projects to follow, using macro planning while APM is more directed towards the micro aspects of planning (Karlström & Runeson, 2005, 2006). HPM is a concept where one tries to combine the flexible aspects of APM while maintaining the bureaucracy and process orientation of TPM (Komus & Kuberg, 2015, as cited in Auer & Rosenberger, 2018). Due to the lack of clear definition of what a hybrid project is, arguably one can identify HPM as leveraging features from both TPM and APM (Auer & Rosenberger, 2018). Manufacturers that traditionally have used TPM are now moving towards using HPM models by implementing APM principles into their already existing TPM models (Salvato & Laplume, 2020). One of the more common models is the agile-stage-gate model, which can be explained as an implementation of agile principles with inspiration from scrum, into the traditional stage-gate model (Sommer et al., 2015; Cooper & Sommer, 2016a, 2016b). The benefits and usefulness of stage-gate in new physical product development has been well documented (Cooper, 2014). However, along with other TPM models, its tendency of detailed planning impedes innovation and the applicability in changing environments are highly limited due to the rigidity linked to heavy front-end planning (Sætre & Brun, 2013). By implementing agile principles into already established TPM models like stage-gate, you combine the benefits of planning while at the same time provide projects with tools to manage the everyday operations (Karlström & Runeson, 2005, 2006). It may be difficult to implement APM in all areas of more traditional organizations due to the inherently long-life cycles of TPM, but more agile methods could be applied in certain kinds of projects, specifically those operating within innovation (Conforto et al., 2014).

(23)

2.4.1 HPM – Practices

The lack of definition has led HPM into being a broad philosophy where projects may differ quite significantly in appearance, since the main requirement is simply that one uses concepts from both TPM and APM (Auer & Rosenberger, 2018). There are some relatively well documented and more detailed HPM models like the agile-stage-gate (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a, 2016b, 2018), but there are also other less formal types of hybrids. Some companies, within the manufacturing industry for example, have implemented a concept called phased planning since they found it difficult to plan an entire project solely in one phase (Conforto et al., 2014). Traditionally in TPM, all requirements have to be known about a product before development, but in combination with agile principles one allows projects to develop some of the requirements incrementally (Cooper & Sommer, 2016b). Even though there are examples of existing HPM models, it may seem contradictory to combine models that are based on long-term planning, TPM, with other models that emphasize planning grounded in the short-term, APM (Cooper & Sommer, 2016b). However, as mentioned earlier, the two philosophies are often used for different parts of HPM and while TPM is often used to provide macro aspects of projects, APM is focused towards micro and everyday operations (Karlström & Runeson, 2005, 2006). APM is not necessarily always applied in all aspects of a project, but mostly in areas defined as more technical e.g., the developing and testing processes in the stage-gate model (Cooper & Sommer, 2016b). The development stages naturally consist of sprints and in each sprint, items in an HPM model can be picked from a development backlog as one would from the product backlog in APM (Cooper & Sommer, 2016b). In addition to sprints, other common APM concepts like daily scrums and retrospective meetings may also serve as important parts in HPM (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a). Since these organizations, that develop physical products, traditionally have utilized TPM, it is often considered as the foundation for HPM. For example, models like the agile-stage-gate employ the traditional stage-gate as a main structure, but where some of the stages have been implementing agile principles and practices instead (Cooper & Sommer, 2016a). TPM establishes an overview of what needs to be done, how it is supposed to be done and expected results when finishing a stage (Sommer et al., 2015). The use of documentation in TPM does not only provide projects with a planning tool, but also communicates and coordinates other internal entities of an organization (Karlström & Runeson, 2006). According to Cooper (2016) one can increase the efficiency of communication by replacing parts of this focus on documentation in favor for daily meetings that are commonly found in APM practices. By combining the two, one can increase the effectiveness of communication within the team, while at the same time generate documents that can coordinate and provide insights to internal stakeholders (Karlström & Runesson, 2006).

In summary, HPM is when organizations decide to utilize a merge between TPM and APM in a project. There is no unified theory or method that constitutes what HPM is, rather than that the ambition for the merge, is to leverage the benefits from the two

(24)

philosophies, and obviously simultaneously mitigating their challenges. Therefore, there is no need to further elaborate the benefits and challenges of HPM as it inherits both philosophies.

Project Success

To be able to distinguish what underlying factors that influence the success of hybrid projects one must first define what constitutes project success. Traditionally, it has been natural to measure a project’s success in terms of three dimensions, cost, time and quality, also known as the Iron Triangle, or the triple constraints, (PMI, 2017). These dimensions have a wide following among scholars who still believe that the traditional ways of measuring project success are important (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). However, with the realization of agile methods and other emerging perspectives, the triangle’s relevance has started to become questioned as a sole determinator of project success (Gemino et al., 2020; Ika, 2009). This has led to a wider discourse of what the definition “project success” really means and entails (Bergmann & Karkowski, 2019). What is not always considered however, is the more subjective soft values when measuring project success, like the satisfaction of stakeholders (Ika, 2009). The PMBOK (PMI, 2017, p. 13) defines project success as; “Success is measured by product and project quality, timeliness, budget compliance, and degree of customer satisfaction”. Clearly, the three traditional constraints still play a pivotal role in defining project success but customer satisfaction and the project quality, is included as well. From the Agile Manifesto (Beck et al., 2001) and its principles, it is declared that the highest priority of the agile approach is to satisfy the customers and that “Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage” (Beck et al., 2001, p. 2). Arguably, there is a clear shift of focus regarding projects’ actual purpose. Žužek, Kušar, Rihar and Berlec (2020) further denote that APM is people-oriented and emphasizes stakeholders’ success which underlines the importance of, not only customers but, all stakeholders. The PMBOK (PMI, 2017) have started to drift towards that direction as well, as it acknowledges customer satisfaction as well as suggesting that project success could also be measured in terms of its ability to meet objectives.

Since APM is more adaptive and faster to respond than TPM, through continuous feedback and learning (Beck et al., 2001), it could be argued that an additional parameter should be considered in terms of project success. Serrador and Pinto’s (2015) effort towards measuring the success of APM, acknowledges that APM should measure success in terms of a project’s impact on the organization, rather than solely focusing on cost, time, and quality. This means that those that are truly agile, even though they might consider other dimensions, should focus on what the contribution to their organization really was. Ribeiro and Fernandes (2010) further explained that since APM intends to make organizations more flexible and adaptive to change, this should be measured as well, i.e., serving as parameters for project success. The project’s impact on its own organization, flexibility, and adaptability all refers to an organization’s capabilities and

(25)

skills. In other words, with support from the agile principles, these can be summarized into one parameter, Internal Improvements. Basically, it refers to the organizations ability to cope with changes, improve their response time, and the project’s impact on the organization.

To summarize, the view of project success in this paper is declared from a hybrid perspective. As already mentioned, there are different types of measurements linked to project success. TPM have traditionally, as mentioned in Atkinson (1999), linked project success to the Iron Triangle, while the introduction of APM have broaden the concept of project success to include other success parameters as well (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). However, a gap within the HPM literature has been identified where no real definition exists of what a successful hybrid project should be evaluated by. Therefore, this study has constructed a preliminary model (see Figure 1) illustrating parameters from both APM and TPM which could evaluate successful projects within HPM. Arguably, since HPM is a mix of APM and TPM, it would be natural to depict hybrid project success accordingly. Namely, that hybrid project success should be measured in terms of Internal Improvements, Customer Satisfaction, and the Iron Triangle, i.e., a merge of APM and TPM dimensions.

(26)

3 Research Design

It is important to declare the research philosophy and paradigm early in the research process (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, Jackson, & Jaspersen, 2018). Therefore, during the entire research process, “Research Methods for Business Students” (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016) has been used as guidance. In addition to Saunders et al. (2016), on some occasions other literature has assisted as well. The following section will provide a thorough disclosure of the research design. Here the philosophical standpoint, adopted strategy and method are presented and argued for, as well as the sampling and data analysis. The purpose of this section is to exhibit the decisions taken during the study, as well as the reasoning behind them. This section is imperative for the study in order to yield trustworthiness, which is achieved by revealing the arguing and how the researchers have directed and conducted their research. Lastly, additional measures that have been taken to further enforce this paper’s quality and trustworthiness is presented and argued in this section as well.

Critically Reviewing the Literature

Saunders et al. (2016) highlight the importance of a thorough literature review as it provides the context and theoretical framework for the study. Therefore, it is important to apply a critical perspective when assessing and analyzing prior research and literature (Saunders et al., 2016). The literature review itself further illustrates the relevance and urgency of the intended research area. When assessing the data, it is important to carefully evaluate each source and apply key criteria for extracting the relevant literature from the extensive databases. During the composition of the review, the tool “Literature Review Process”, provided by Saunders et al. (2016, p. 73) has been used. Initially, keywords such as “HPM”, “Hybrid Project Management”, “Agile Project Management”, and “Traditional Project Management” were used. By critically evaluating articles that were considered relevant, additional keywords were identified and used. Each article was carefully evaluated by the following parameters: AJG rating, times cited (in Web of Science), peer reviewed or not, and relevance to the subject of interest. Due to the novelty of HPM in academia, no strict criteria were set when screening the articles. Instead, a collective evaluation based upon the parameters above were made, whether to include the publication in this paper or not. Because of this novelty of the topic, additional sources besides peer-reviewed articles could be included as well, naturally, these were also evaluated by similar criteria. The search itself was carried out across two platforms, “Web of Science”, and “JU Primo”. Eventually, a total amount of 76 references were assessed prior to the review, where the majority consisted of peer-reviewed articles published in project management journals.

Research Philosophy & Approach

In research, it is important to clarify the perspective and philosophical standpoints of the researchers, this is due to its influence on the entire study as well as the reasoning behind