Agile Project Management and Project

Success: A Literature Review

Thomas Bergmann(&) and Waldemar Karwowski

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, University of

Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-2993, USA
thomasbergmann@siemens.com, wkar@ucf.edu

Abstract. Agile project management (APM) has recently emerged as a new

and different way of managing projects. Some experts are already voicing the
opinion that APM will become the project management of the 21st century.
However, so far APM has not impacted project management as much as it
should have. Its focus was mainly on IT projects. The literature on APM is still
in its early stages, and more research needs to be done in areas other than
software development. Therefore, the present paper provides a review of the
existing literature in the agile project management domain. It compares tradi-
tional to modern project management, specifically APM, and discusses the
influence of project complexity factors. Further, it reviews different frameworks
of project success and critical success factors. Finally, it recommends APM
dimensions irrespective of project types, which potentially could impact the
success of a project.

Keywords: Agile project management
Project complexity
Project success

Critical success factors

1 Introduction

The research activities in project management have significantly grown over the past
decades. Projects and project management became increasingly more complex due to a
more complex and faster-changing business environment. Today, more and more
project managers consider performance to be the most important objective of project
management [1]. The main problems in project management are planning, project
implementation, cost and time overruns, and quality non-achievement. To ensure
meeting expected performance, the project managers need to get a better understanding
of the meaning of project success and the factors that contribute to project success. It is
essential for project managers to identify critical success factors (CSF) and comprehend
their potential effects. This, in fact, is not an easy thing to do as up until today there is
only limited agreement among authors on critical factors and the individual influence
on project success. The enormous complexity of today’s projects makes it difficult to
categorize and reduce the factors to a manageable amount [1].
Over the past few decades, traditional project management has more and more
often reached its limitations. The traditional scope, cost, schedule control does not
work in today’s dynamic, requirement changing, and technology-driven environment.

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

J. I. Kantola et al. (Eds.): AHFE 2018, AISC 783, pp. 405–414, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94709-9_39
406 T. Bergmann and W. Karwowski

By trying to adjust to these new developments, a new project management approach

was introduced: agile project management (APM). It was determined that in any project
that faces uncertainty, complexity, volatility, and risk, there is a place for agile practices
and principles [2]. Although its focus was mainly on the software development side,
APM has high potentials to also positively impact the project management for other
project types.

2 Traditional vs. Modern Project Management

Traditional project management is, for example, represented by the Project Manage-
ment Institute’s PMBOK Guide, most elements of the IPMA Competence Baseline, as
well as the ISO 10006 standard. Per Saynisch [3], the traditional project management is
“based mainly on a mechanical, mono-causal, non-dynamic, linear structure and a
discrete view of human nature and societies and their perceptions, knowledge, and
actions”. The PMBOK guide defines the traditional project management as “a set of
techniques and tools that can be applied to an activity that seeks an end product,
outcomes or a service” [4]. This approach has been used for many years and decades. It
is characterized by a top-down approach where all directions and tasks are established
at an executive management level and then floated down within the organization. Its
leadership style is based on the command, control, and hierarchy. The approach is very
plan driven, where a plan is established in the very beginning of the project with little
flexibility to change it later. The planning is done centrally within the organization. The
traditional approach is based on a sequence of steps as explained in the PMBOK by
PMI [4] and shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. The five process groups of the PMBOK project management process

Traditional project management assumes that events are predictable and that all
tools and techniques are well understood. While going through the individual process
steps, it is also assumed that completed phases will not be revisited. The strengths of
this approach are the well-structured process and the importance of requirements. In
today’s project environment, however, it encounters its limitations quickly as a project
rarely follows the preferred sequential flow and customers typically have difficulties to
define all requirements at the beginning of the project [5]. The lack of flexibility is a
disadvantage in today’s fast-moving and complex project environment. The ownership
 Agile Project Management and Project Success: A Literature Review 407

belongs only to the project manager. The remaining team members follow the project
manager’s instructions and focus on their tasks leaving very little opportunity to
understand the “big picture” and take ownership of the project.
Modern project management approaches such as Lean and agile project manage-
ment (APM) have emerged to assist in the adaption to the new business environment
and improve these projects. However, the literature provides only a few well-defined
and effective approaches or systematic evaluations of their results [6]. Most of the
solutions are trying to establish a more flexible approach, adaptable to the contin-
gencies of the project environment to improve project performance records [7]. One of
the modern project management approaches is agile project management, which is
mainly used in software development. However, the research is slowly starting to
determine whether APM can be adapted for other project types.
APM is a highly iterative and incremental process, where stakeholders and
developers work closely together to understand the domain, determine requirements,
and prioritize functionalities [5]. Figure 2 depicts the agile development model.

Fig. 2. The agile project life cycle model [5]

The agile approach consists of many rapid iterative planning and development
cycles. This allows for constant evaluation of interim results and consequently
adjusting if users and stakeholders desire them. In this way, the product gets contin-
uously improved by the entire project team, which includes the stakeholders. This
approach allows for immediate modifications of the product as previously unknown
requirements get discovered. APM will be discussed further in detail in subsequent
chapters of this paper.

3 Project Complexity

Modern project management approaches have proven to be useful in the new economy,
which is characterized by more complex and uncertain project situations. Complex
projects demand an exceptional level of project management and solely traditional
408 T. Bergmann and W. Karwowski

systems are not appropriate anymore for the complexity of today’s projects. Williams
[8] considers it necessary to have a project complexity definition to be able to cope with
project management challenges. Although the term project complexity is widely used,
there is no clear definition for it.
Per Baccarini [9], project complexity can be interpreted to comprise anything
characterized by difficulty. A white paper on Mosaic Project Services defines four basic
dimensions that affect the difficulty of managing projects [10]:
1. The size measured regarding value;
2. The degree of technical difficulty in creating the output caused by characteristics of
project work and deliverables measured in the time needed to provide the
deliverables;
3. The degree of uncertainty involved in the project;
4. The complexity of the relationships both within the project team and surrounding
the project.
While all four factors impact the degree of project difficulty, the project manager
can only influence the last two factors, reducing the degree of uncertainty and
improving the relationships between stakeholders including the project team. The size
and the degree of technical difficulty are predetermined and cannot be influenced by the
project manager.
Although the size of the project impacts the degree of difficulty in achieving project
objectives, this does not necessarily mean that large projects are complicated or
complex. Over the last decade, the term “mega-projects” was further established in the
literature, which isn’t necessarily big projects but they are major, complex, and of high
financial value. Due to their complexity (e.g., politics and stakeholder engagement),
they are typically broken down into a series of smaller projects.
The technical difficulty inherent in a project is the combination of work needed to
accomplish the project objectives and the characteristics of the output (product, service
or result) being produced. Project duration and time pressure are common indictors for
technical difficulty [10].
There is always a degree of uncertainty associated with each project. What matters
is the understanding and the handling of uncertainties in project management. An
appropriate project delivery strategy or also called project plan will either try to
minimize unnecessary uncertainty or will go the other direction and embrace uncer-
tainty by looking for opportunities that come with the uncertainty.
Lastly, the aspect of complexity also centers around the effectiveness of relation-
ships within the project team as well as to other internal and external stakeholders.
Factors such as team size, geographical team setup and a number of project sponsors
are influencing the complexity of the project.

4 Project Success

Project success is controversially discussed in the literature. Some follow the traditional
approach and consider it a unidimensional construct concerned with meeting budget,
time, and quality [11–14] and others see it as a complex, multi-dimensional concept
 Agile Project Management and Project Success: A Literature Review 409

with many more attributes than only budget, time, and quality [15–20]. There is evi-
dence that projects do not meet their objectives and therefore, there is a need to identify
the factors that positively influence the project success. Pinto and Slevin [21] sum-
marizing it as follows: “There are few topics in the field of project management that are
so frequently discussed and yet so rarely agreed upon as that of the notion of project
success.”
Schultz, Slevin and Pinto [22] came up with the first systematic classification of
critical success factors in the field of project management. They identified two groups
of factors that impact project performance: strategic and tactical factors. The “tactical”
group includes factors such as client consulting, human resource selection and per-
sonnel training whereas factors such as project mission, top management support, and
project scheduling were categorized as “strategic” factors. Research has also shown
that the impact of success factors can vary depending on the stage in the project life-
cycle [23]. In further research, the original dimensions (time, cost, and quality) were
extended by three other dimensions: (i) meeting the strategic goals of the client
organization, (ii) achieving the satisfaction of the end users, and (iii) attaining satis-
faction of all other stakeholders [19, 24]. Ultimately, it is important to have fully
satisfied stakeholders to achieve project success [25]. It is understood that this is
depending on each stakeholder’s perception. Another approach is the one from Harold
Kerzner, who altered the original dimensions by including scope changes without
workflow interruptions, without negative impacts to the corporate culture, and with the
customer fully accepting the project results [26].

5 Critical Success Factors

From a project management perspective, critical success factors (CSF) are the char-
acteristics, conditions, or variables with significant impact on the success of the project
provided they are properly managed [27]. The CSF approach has been researched over
the last thirty years. However, there is still no consensus on the criteria that determine
project success [28].
Based on the literature, it can be concluded that there is a close link between the
type and scope of projects and their respective critical success factors. It is therefore
important when conducting an empirical study for a specific type of project that the
range of factors and measures of CSF is limited. One of the most widely quoted lists of
project success factors is the one from Pinto and Slevin [29]. Their list captures success
factors such as clear project mission, top management support, detailed specification of
implementation, competent personnel, client consultation, technical expertise, client
acceptance, timely and comprehensive monitoring & control, effective communication,
and the ability to handle unexpected problems. Some critics are missing the project
manager and his or her leadership style and competence in this list. Management
literature considers effective leadership a success factor and has demonstrated that
adequate leadership style has a positive contribution to the overall project performance.
Müller and Jugdev [30] put the success factors and success criteria about dependent
and independent variables as follows: “(1) Project success factors, which are the ele-
ments of a project which, when influenced, increase the likelihood of success; these are
410 T. Bergmann and W. Karwowski

the independent variables that make success more likely. (2) Project success criteria,
which are the measures used to judge on the success or failure of a project; these are the
dependent variables that measure success”. It is the project manager’s responsibility to
identify the relevant success criteria, from them, determine adequate success factors,
and choose an appropriate project management methodology to ultimately achieve
project success. The success criteria determined by Alexandrova and Ivanova [23] are
mainly focused on “hard” factors such as schedule, budget, project execution, and
customer satisfaction. The influencing success factors on the other side are a more
human resource (“soft”) related such as coordination by managers, top management
support, team resources, motivation, and communication. The “soft” factors are very
important for the success of the project as it is people who execute the projects and not
processes or systems [31].
Concluding, it can be said that the CSF approach has been established and dis-
seminated over the past few decades. Project success criteria vary from project to
project. The majority of the studies still focus mainly on the traditional “iron triangle”
which are cost, quality and schedule as criteria for measuring project success. Later
studies, however, concluded that other important criteria such as scope and customer
satisfaction need to be considered. Project success factors that influence success criteria
and project success vary widely. Based on the review literature, an attempt was made in
clustering project success factors suitable for most project types as follows: manage-
ment, processes, project factors, organization, human resources, and technical tasks.

6 Agile Project Management

Unlike traditional project management, which dates back to the 1950s emerging from
the defense and constructions industries, the concept of agile project management
(APM), which is similar to concurrent engineering, has its roots in the 1980s and was
developed in the twenty-first century. However, contrary to agile manufacturing and
agile software development, APM was rarely discussed in the literature. Until 2009
almost all projects that practiced the agile approach were IT projects. Consequently,
most of the APM literature was focused on software development projects. Only a few
projects in other areas started introducing agile practices in the last decade [32].
In 2001, a group of software developers came together discussing possible
approaches to improve project results. They wanted to overcome the limitations of the
traditional project management by responding faster to changes in the environment and
adapting a fast-learning approach. In this meeting, the Manifesto of Agile Software
Development was created, which states that the “highest priority is to satisfy the
customer through the early and continuous delivery of valuable software” [5]. Methods
were developed to improve the project results by focusing on short-term outcomes and
allowing frequent unpredictable changes. The team productivity was intended to be
increased by forming agile teams with low hierarchies, joint decisions, a brought
knowledge base, and excellent communication skills. Besides the focus on the project
team, the APM approach was further characterized by constantly updating the project
execution, detailed planning cycles based on short-term results, and deep customer
involvement [32]. Today, most innovative products are developed under uncertainties
 Agile Project Management and Project Success: A Literature Review 411

in turbulent environments, characterized by project complexity, unpredictable activi-

ties, and changes where the traditional approaches have reached their limits and the
APM approach offers better solutions and project results [33].
Agile project management (APM) is based on the following four value principles,
which were established by the authors of the Agile Manifesto [34]:
• To value individuals and interactions over processes and tools.
• To value working products over comprehensive documentation.
• To value customer collaboration over contract negotiation.
• To value responding to change over following a plan.
Because of changing requirements agile methodologies shall be used for projects
that exhibit high variability in tasks, in the capabilities of people, and in the technology
being used [35]. Also, for projects where the value of the product or service to be
delivered is very important to customers agile methodologies are very appropriate to
use [36]. Organizations that are flexible and conducive to innovation can easier adapt
and embrace agile methodologies than rigid organizations that are built around
bureaucracy and formalization [37]. The readiness for agile methods needs to be
carefully evaluated by the organization before their use can be initiated.
Further investigations into APM practices have resulted in the following set of
practices, which are mostly based on inputs from Fernandez and Fernandez [38]:
• Embraces and manages change instead of avoiding it.
• Incremental change.
• Assumes simplicity and avoids complexity.
• Maximizes value.
• Considers intensive planning, design, and documentation as waste.
• Creates documentation based on value.
• Goes through iterations to break up long projects (enable and focus on the next
effort).
• Empowered and motivated teams.
• Focuses on delivering working features to paying customers as soon as possible.
• Active customer participation in the implementation process.
• Rapid feedback to all stakeholders.
The reviewed literature reveals that the agile approach is more people-oriented
rather than process-oriented [39]. The human factors are an integral part of the APM
framework. This includes a highly knowledgeable and skilled project team, supportive
top management, and deeply involved customers. Augustine, Payne, Sencindiver and
Woodcock [40] prescribes six practices for managing agile projects: small organic
teams, proper guidance by agile managers, simple rules, free and open access to
information, light-touch management style, and adaptive leadership. The latter talks
about leading an agile project team with just enough involvement to give proper
guidance, but not become too rigid and leave the team as much freedom as possible. It
is described as a balancing act on the edge of chaos. Besides the human factors, the
organizational form and culture is also part of the APM framework. In today’s projects,
it is important to have a flexible and less hierarchical organization that supports the
complex and fast-changing environment [41]. Another factor is the process that needs
412 T. Bergmann and W. Karwowski

to support a short, iterative, test-driven development and emphasize adaptability [36].

Further, the appropriate technology and tools must be available for agile project
implementation.
Based on the reviewed literature, an attempt was made to define agile project
management dimensions that suit most if not all projects. The following factors
introduced by Chow and Cao [42] establish the basis for these dimensions:
• Organizational: management commitment, organizational environment, team
environment
• People: team capability, customer involvement
• Process: project management process, project definition process
• Technical: agile software techniques, delivery strategy
• Project: project nature, project type, project schedule
To emphasize the before-mentioned importance of an adequate management style,
this study also recommends a “management dimension” in the APM framework.

7 Conclusions

The presented literature review confirmed the limitations of traditional project man-
agement in today’s complex and rapidly changing business environment. The plan-
driven top-down approach comes with inflexibilities to adjust for complexity and
changing customer requirements. Modern project management approaches such as the
discussed agile project management (APM) have started filling in the gaps created by a
new business environment to improve project outcomes. APM provides sufficient
flexibility to allow for an iterative planning process with constantly changing
requirements and close customer involvement in the project execution. The increasing
project complexity is a challenge that project teams must manage to ensure the success
of the project. The original project success dimensions of time, cost, and quality were
therefore extended by scope and stakeholder satisfaction. However, project success
factors that influence success criteria and project success vary widely. Based on this
literature review, they were clustered in main categories applicable to most projects.
These clusters are management, processes, project factors, organization, human
resources, and technical tasks. Consequently, the recommended agile project man-
agement dimensions were defined accordingly in six categories: management, process,
project, organizational, people, and technical factors. This set of categories reflects the
focal points of today’s business environment and is still general enough so that it can be
applied to most project types. Concluding, this literature review has contributed to
establishing a basis for further research in agile project management, project com-
plexity and their impacts on the success outcomes of a project.
 Agile Project Management and Project Success: A Literature Review 413

References
1. Shahin, A., Jamshidian, M.: Critical success factors in project management: a comprehensive
review. In: Proceedings of 1st International Project Management Conference, pp. 1–14
(2006)
2. Jackson, M.B.: Agile: a decade in. Project Management Institute (2012)
3. Saynisch, M.: Mastering complexity and changes in projects, economy, and society via
project management second order (PM-2). Proj. Manage. J. 41, 4–20 (2010)
4. PMI: a guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). Project
Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, PA (2012)
5. Hass, K.B.: The blending of traditional and agile project management. PM World Today 9,
1–8 (2007)
6. Conforto, E.C., Amaral, D.C.: Evaluating an agile method for planning and controlling
innovative projects. Proj. Manage. J. 41, 73–80 (2010)
7. Conforto, E.C., Salum, F., Amaral, D.C., da Silva, S.L., de Almeida, L.F.M.: Can agile
project management be adopted by industries other than software development? Proj.
Manage. J. 45, 21–34 (2014)
8. Williams, T.M.: The need for new paradigms for complex projects. Int. J. Project Manage.
17, 269–273 (1999)
9. Baccarini, D.: The concept of project complexity - a review. Int. J. Project Manage. 14, 201–
204 (1996)
10. Mosaic-Project-Services: Project size and categorisation. White Paper, Mosaic Project
Services Pty. Ltd. (n.d.)
11. Brown, A., Adams, J.: Measuring the effect of project management on construction outputs:
a new approach. Int. J. Project Manage. 18, 327–335 (2000)
12. Bryde, D.: Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success. Int.
J. Project Manage. 26, 800–809 (2008)
13. Fortune, J., White, D., Jugdev, K., Walker, D.: Looking again at current practice in project
management. Int. J. Managing Proj. Bus. 4, 553–572 (2011)
14. Müller, R., Turner, R.: The influence of project managers on project success criteria and
project success by type of project. Eur. Manag. J. 25, 298–309 (2007)
15. Atkinson, R.: Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 17, 337–342
(1999)
16. Lim, C.S., Mohamed, M.Z.: Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination. Int.
J. Project Manage. 17, 243–248 (1999)
17. Jugdev, K., Müller, R.: A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project
success. Proj. Manage. J. 36, 19–31 (2005)
18. Lipovetsky, S., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Shenhar, A.: The relative importance of project success
dimensions, p. 97. Wiley Subscription Services, Inc. (1997)
19. Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A.C.: Project success: a multidimensional strategic
concept. Long Range Plan. 34, 699–725 (2001)
20. Mir, F.A., Pinnington, A.H.: Exploring the value of project management: linking project
management performance and project success. Int. J. Project Manage. 32, 202–217 (2014)
21. Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P.: Project success: definitions and measurement techniques. Proj.
Manage. J. 19, 67–72 (1988)
22. Schultz, R.L., Slevin, D.P., Pinto, J.K.: Strategy and tactics in a process model of project
implementation, pp. 34. The Institute of Management Sciences and the Operations Research
Society of America (1987)
414 T. Bergmann and W. Karwowski

23. Alexandrova, M., Ivanova, L.: Critical success factors of project management: empirical
evidence from projects supported by EU programmes. In: 9th International ASECU
Conference on “Systematic Economics Crisis: Current Issues and Perspectives”, Skopje,
Macedonia (2012). http://www.asecu.gr/files/9th_conf_files/alexandrova-and-ivanova.pdf
24. Baccarini, D.: The logical framework method for defining project success. Proj. Manage.
J. 30, 25–32 (1999)
25. Baker, B.N., Murphy, D.C., Fisher, D.: Factors affecting project success. In: Project
Management Handbook, 2nd (edn.), pp. 902–919 (2008)
26. Kerzner, H.R.: Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and
Controlling. Wiley (2013)
27. Milosevic, D., Patanakul, P.: Standardized project management may increase development
projects success. Int. J. Project Manage. 23, 181–192 (2005)
28. Fortune, J., White, D.: Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model. Int.
J. Project Manage. 24, 53–65 (2006)
29. Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P.: 20. Critical success factors in effective project implementation. In:
Project Management Handbook, vol. 479. Wiley (1988)
30. Müller, R., Jugdev, K.: Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott-the
elucidation of project success. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5, 757–775 (2012)
31. Cooke-Davies, T.: The “real” success factors on projects. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 20, 185–190
(2002)
32. Stare, A.: Agile project management–a future approach to the management of projects. Dyn.
Relat. Manage. J. 2, 43–53 (2013)
33. Chin, G.: Agile Project Management: How to Succeed in the Face of Changing Project
Requirements. AMACOM, New York (2004)
34. Agile-Alliance: Manifesto for agile software development (2001). http://www.agilemanifesto.
org
35. Kidd, P.T., Karwowski, W.: Advances in Agile Manufacturing: Integrating Technology,
Organization and People. IOS Press, Amsterdam, Washington, DC (1994)
36. Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., Mangalaraj, G.: Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies.
Commun. ACM 48, 72–78 (2005)
37. Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., Layer, J.K.: A review of enterprise agility: concepts,
frameworks, and attributes. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37, 445–460 (2007)
38. Fernandez, D.J., Fernandez, J.D.: Agile project management-Agilism versus traditional
approaches. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 49, 10–17 (2008)
39. Ceschi, M., Sillitti, A., Succi, G., Panfilis, S.D.: Project management in plan-based and agile
companies. IEEE Softw. 22, 21–27 (2005)
40. Augustine, S., Payne, B., Sencindiver, F., Woodcock, S.: Agile project management:
steering from the edges. Commun. ACM 48, 85–89 (2005)
41. Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W.: The relationship between work organization and workforce
agility in small manufacturing enterprises. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44, 466–473 (2014)
42. Chow, T., Cao, D.-B.: A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects.
J. Syst. Softw. 81, 961–971 (2008)