10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 22 September 2021 Revised: 24 November 2021 Accepted: 6 December 2021
DOI: 10.1002/sd.2285

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The linkage between Agile project management and

sustainable development: A theoretical and empirical view

Małgorzata Zakrzewska1 | Katarzyna Piwowar-Sulej2 | Szymon Jarosz1 |

1 1
Adam Sagan | Mariusz Sołtysik

1

w,
Cracow University of Economics, Krako
Poland Abstract
2
Wroclaw University of Economics and The issue of project management methodologies has never be undertaken by
Business, Wrocław, Poland
academics in the context of their contribution to sustainability. There is the lack of
Correspondence understanding which Agile Project Management (APM) results and Agile value crea-
Mariusz Sołtysik, Cracow University of

w, Poland.
tion methods are in line with the assumptions of sustainability. The article fills this
Economics, Krako
Email: soltysik@uek.krakow.pl gap and presents the linkage between Agile project management and sustainability.
The article presents both theoretical considerations as well as the results of empirical
Funding information
Ministerstwo Edukacji i Nauki, Grant/Award research that explains the relationship between APM and sustainability. As a result of
Number: 021/RID/2018/19
multiple surveys, Guttman scales were developed, which showed the degree of Agile
aspects' influence on sustainability, taking into account both the results of Agile
implementation and the methods of value creation. Research revealed that improving
the timeliness of deliveries, increase in productivity and improving the atmosphere in
the organization as APM result is significant for sustainability. Value creation
methods that most correspond with sustainability are design thinking and Agile
rituals. The above provide certain practical and theoretical implications.

KEYWORDS
Agile, organizational sustainable development, project management, sustainability

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and

In general terms, sustainable development refers to the ability of
maintaining natural processes, objects and matter, where the compet-
ing forces can coexist in due balance. Continuous overexploitation of
certain resources or matter results in their depletion, thus causing
imbalance and ultimately their exhaustion (Liu, 2017). Sustainability, in
turn, is treated as a long-term goal, result of processes which are
being performed within sustainable development (UNESCO, 2021).
The first literature references addressing sustainability concept can
be traced as early as in 1713 regarding the sustainability of forests in
terms of logging regrown timber alone to retain soil fertility. The envi-
ronmental issue was first mentioned in the chemical book Silent Spring
authored by Carson (Carson, 1962 cited in: Lees, 2012). Nowadays Sus-
tainable Development defined as “meeting the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to
Development, 1987, p. 49) is based on the triple bottom line (TBL)
framework authored by Elkington (1997). The first bottom line high-
lights the need of environmental development, the second one—social
development, and the last one—economic development. This frame-
work promotes that companies concurrently focus on three types of
goals: environmental, social, and financial and treat them as equally
important. Moreover, the essence of sustainability is associated with
long-term stakeholder value creation in terms of the above-presented
bottom lines (Tapaninahk & Kujala, 2017). Huarng et al. (2020) argue
that value creation is not always sustainable as competition distorts the
process.
The concept of sustainability is still being developed, transferring
to organizational level (Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010; Dyllick &
Muff, 2016) and matched with different fields of knowledge such as
entrepreneurship (Hall et al., 2010; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011;

Sustainable Development. 2022;30:855–869. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sd © 2022 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 855

856

pez-Torres
Shepherd & Patzelt, 2011), knowledge management (Lo
et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2019), human resources management
(Ehnert, 2009; Macke & Genari, 2019; Wagner, 2011) and finally –
project management (Armenia et al., 2019; Chawla et al., 2018).
Sustainable project management can be defined as “planning,
monitoring and controlling project delivery and support processes,
considering the environmental, economic and social aspects of the life
cycle of the project's resources, processes, deliverables and effects,
aimed at realizing benefits for stakeholders, and performed in a trans-
parent, fair, and ethical way that includes proactive stakeholder partic-
ipation” (Silvius & Schipper, 2014).
The analyses carried out by Wawak and Wo
zniak (2020) with the
use of a text mining tool indicate that sustainable project management
is the one of three new growing trends visible in the publications dis-
cussing project management. This trend highlights the growing role of
sustainability mainly in infrastructure and development projects.
These projects utilize a significant amount of resources which have
the potential to negatively influence the environment, thus the discus-
sion about sustainability in these projects is directed towards the
environmental bottom line (Deland, 2009; Labuschagne et al., 2005).
However, in other types of projects the assumptions of sustainability
can be implemented.
Project management can be performed in line with the guidelines
specified in project management methodologies (PM methodologies),
which represent guides to be followed in terms of essential documen-
tation and the required eligibilities crucial to carry out the subsequent
project stages. Their role is two-fold: to provide the already verified
framework for inexperienced project managers in order to assist them
in project completion and also to support organizations in adjusting
project management procedures and terminology. Undisputedly, they
exert impact on organizing work and addressing team members in the
project.
The subject literature provides two general approaches referring
to running projects: a traditional one, that is, managerial and a modern
one also referred to as Agile. The first one goes back to the 50s of the
20th century, whereas the latter was developed in 1990s. The tradi-
tional methodological approach describes the essential processes and
the systematically arranged collection of well-established manage-
ment techniques. In addition, it has been adopted that each consecu-
tive project stage cannot be initiated if the previous one has not been
entirely completed, including the respective documentation. Such atti-
tude, however, is no longer sufficient, for example, in the case of soft-
ware development projects (Berger & Beynon-Davies, 2009). This gap
has been filled by the Agile approach, following which the required
solutions are developed along with the occurring problems.
Agile implementation both in projects and in the entire organiza-
tion must be preceded by a thorough assessment of long-term
achievement of the desired project results (Joslin & Müller, 2015).
Moreover, researchers previously emphasized that Agile approach is
directed towards delivering business value (Racheva et al., 2009).
This value is defined in different ways—from a generator of profit for
organizations (Barnett, 2007) through achieving good price for
product to broader meaning including “multiple things” (Poole, 2007).
10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.
The current opinion highlights the need of value orientation for all
project stakeholders (Gareis et al., 2011).
Although professional e-portals confirm that sustainability as the
way of thinking has always been included in the Agile principles
(Arell, 2020), to the best authors' knowledge the issue of project man-
agement methodologies has never been undertaken by academics in
the context of their contribution to sustainability. There is the lack of
understanding to what extent different Agile project management
(APM) results and Agile value creation methods contribute to sustain-
ability. The purpose of this study is to fill this gap through theoretical
and empirical exploration of the linkage between APM and the
assumptions of sustainability. The authors have formulated the fol-
lowing research questions:
1. RQ1: Why, in theory, the Agile methodologies of project manage-
ment are more sustainability-oriented than traditional project man-
agement methodologies?
2. RQ2: How the results of APM implementation – revealed in prac-
tice – correspond with organizational sustainability?
3. RQ3: How methods of developing value creation for stakeholders used
in companies within APM contribute to organizational sustainability?
Following Introduction, the second section of the paper presents
literature background which allows us to extend the conceptualization of
sustainable project management and formulate an answer to the first
research question. The third section, that is, the empirical part of the paper,
presents original research with its methodology, results, and discussion.
The authors undertook a study on the results of Agile implementation as
well as the ways of creating stakeholders value. The study was based on a
survey method; however, data were collected among four groups of
respondents: companies' employees involved in APM implementation,
scientists, certification assessors and APM practitioners. The paper ends
with conclusions, limitations, and directions for further research.
The article contributes to the academic knowledge by (a) identify-
ing and describing the linkages between the types of project manage-
ment methodologies and assumptions of sustainability; (b) presenting
original research findings linking APM with sustainability through anal-
ysis of results from APM implementation and the ways in which
stakeholder value is created; and (c) formulating directions for future
research.
2 | LI T E RA T U R E BA C K GR O U N D A N D
CONCEPTUALIZATION
2.1 | Principles of organizational sustainability as a
basis for constituting sustainable project management
The assessment of sustainability can be performed at various levels,
for example, national, regional and also organizational. Organizational
sustainability was defined by Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) as “meeting
the needs of a firm's direct and indirect stakeholders (such as share-
holders, employees, clients, pressure groups, communities, etc.),

ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.
without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future stake-
holders as well”.
The general principles of organizational sustainability are reflected
in the TBL approach which was presented in the Introduction. Compa-
nies should focus on three types of goals, that is, environmental, social
and financial, and treat them as equally important. ISO 26000 also lists
the principles of organizational sustainability. This standard has been
developed by the International Organization for Standardization and
provides guidelines for organizations in applying the principles of social
and environmental responsibility.
The above-mentioned standard comprehensively defines social
responsibility indicating compliance with the following rules: account-
ability, transparency, ethical behavior, respect to stakeholders interests/
legal regulations/international norms of behavior (Idowu et al., 2019).
Bansal (2005) stated that cooperation with different stakeholders, taking
the form of exchanging information and knowledge as well as process
management covering sustainability needs for an ongoing implementa-
tion of corporate sustainability remain indispensable. Tapaninahk and
Kujala (2017) emphasized the need of value creation for stakeholders. As
far as value creation is concerned it's worth mentioning that the interac-
tion with stakeholders can be stimulated by using various techniques
such as, for example, surveys, meetings, workshops (with brainstorming
or other heuristic techniques) (Durham et al., 2014).
The sustainable company policies should be reflected in all func-
tions (e.g., marketing, HR), processes and projects; however, the effec-
tive implementation of sustainability principles in function, process or
project can act as a trigger for organizational transformation towards
sustainable development (Figure 1). According to Bonem (2018)
implementation of the sustainability paradigm must include an evalua-
tion of the following considerations:
1. Long-term changes in the existing technology,
2. Long-term cost and availability of utilities,
3. Long-term availability of materials,
4. Long-term operability and maintainability of the process facilities.
As a result of the three-fold structure, sustainability is mainly mat-
ched with the projects that consume large quantities of energy and
SUSTAINABILITY
AS A MANAGEMENT
PARADIGM IN THE
ORGANIZATION
Organizational policies, practices,
measures aiming at achieving
balance between economic,
environmental and social goals
F I G U R E 1 Sustainable project
management as a result of and/or
driver for organizational sustainability
10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
857
materials, and their outcomes have lifelong impacts on the natural
environment, society and economy (Armenia et al., 2019). However,
the environmental bottom line addresses the problem of appropriate
resources management within a project life cycle (Silvius & Schipper,
2014) which concerns all types of resources and all types of projects.
The appropriate resources management has impact on financial per-
formance as well. From the perspective of processes that make up
project management the above-mentioned activities including, for
example, advancing technologies, should be undertaken.
Sustainability aspects should be taken into account by sponsors
in their decision-making processes about project financing. It requires
thinking in the long-term perspective about project outcomes. Gareis
et al. (2011) emphasized the need of value orientation for all project
stakeholders. Sustainable project management should be based on
ensuring all decisions being made in the best interest of stakeholders,
including client and/or end-user, project manager and project team
members, sponsor, and wider society (Silvius & Schipper, 2014). How-
ever, a client is always the most important stakeholder and value crea-
tion needs client's participation (Mustak et al., 2013). Strong
relationship with a client encourages trust and allows for open discus-
sion addressing all problems and possibilities. This is one of many
characteristics of APM.
2.2 | Project management methodologies and
sustainability
As mentioned before, there are two main types of PM methodologies,
that is, the traditional one (Project Management Body of Knowledge –
PMBoK – or Prince2) and the more flexible modern/Agile one
(e.g., crystal, function-based programming [FDD], ASD – adaptive pro-
gramming and Scrum [Jayasudha et al., 2017]). Table 1 presents the
comparison of these two approaches to project management.
Following the traditional approach to project management, pro-
jects are perceived as individual and sealed activities. The actions they
are supposed to involve are defined in advance, even though the
future remains unpredictable (Koskela & Howell, 2002). It has been
adopted that the traditional project environment is both rational and
SUSTAINABLE
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
• matching short- (delivering product) and
long-term (effects of consuming the
product) orientation
• engagement of all stakeholders, value-
creation for all stakeholders
• appropriate energy and material resources
management within a project life cycle
 10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
858 ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.

T A B L E 1 Traditional versus Agile project management – authors' compilation based on (Cohen, 2019; Piwowar-Sulej, 2012; Piwowar-
Sulej, 2020b; Špundak, 2014)

Approach Characteristics Advantages Disadvantages

Traditional • End users not involved in the
next stages of the project.
• The project manager role is to be
formal coordinator, producer and
hard-driver.
• Waterfall approach.
Agile • Flexible approach.
• End users involved in the next
stages of the project.
• There is no formal manager.
• The work of the team is
supported by coaching and
mentoring.
• Iterative approach.
• Simplicity of use: the model is popular and A
popular and fully operationalized.
• Project roles and responsibilities are
detailed.
• The different stages of the project are
clearly separated.
• Documentation is for sharing knowledge.
• Flexible and voluntary approach to
introducing changes
• Ongoing stakeholder engagement and
immediate response to changes.
• Ability to change the scope and assumptions
of the project in progress.
• Projects with high risk, especially high
costs and extension of the project
duration.
• Huge emphasis is placed on the correct
implementation of the first phases of
project management.
• Complicated resource planning and
scheduling without a plan.
• Continuous availability of all parties
involved to provide feedback and react to
changes.
• The organizational structure does exist.

linear (Piwowar-Sulej, 2020a). Mechanistic division of work along with
its assumed manageable and predictable nature is an inherent compo-
nent of the traditional methodology (Saynisch, 2010). Such approach
is also referred to as waterfall methodology. It was initially identified
by Royce, an American IT expert and director at Lockheed Software
Technology Center in Texas in reaction to management problems cau-
sed by the growing complexity of software development. Based on
this approach, complexity is most effectively managed using rigorous
and hierarchical control.
The waterfall methodology takes cascading steps, that is, one
phase progresses logically to the next one, being a closed process.
Project work begins with the collection and analysis of the respective
requirements, solution design and implementation, moving on to deal-
ing with any problems. All work in the project is decided at the begin-
ning, including its scope and the requirements necessary to complete
it successfully (Thomas & Fernández, 2008). The concentration on
requirements is of major significance. The idea of the project has to
be defined precisely upfront as there is no space for introducing cor-
rections once the project has been commenced.
One can find linkages between sustainability and traditional project
management. For example, according to the assumptions of PMBoK,
improvement takes the form of resource leveling aimed at balanced work-
force facilitating the use of resource. PMBoK also defines stakeholders as
“…individuals and organizations who are actively involved in the project,
or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of
project execution or successful project completion” (Project Manage-
ment Institute, 1996). The project stakeholders' management includes:
identification of stakeholders, planning their engagement, managing and
monitoring their engagement. However, previous research shows that
the traditional method of managing stakeholders still prevails, even
though it should give way to involving them from the perspective of sus-
tainability (Bond et al., 2012; Karlsen, 2002). As shown in Table 1, end-
users are not involved in later project stages.
When it comes to APM definition, it says that “Agile methods are
the mix of iterative development, with the set of best practices to
cope software changes and increase client satisfaction” (Nisar &
Hameed, 2004). The main idea of agility can be found in sentences
which were placed at the very beginning of The Manifesto (Agile
Manifesto, 2020; Dingsøyr et al., 2012). The Agile Manifesto, declared,
in 2001, was the response to the growing number of unsuccessful soft-
ware development projects carried out using the waterfall approach. It
was recognized that the reason for the waterfall approach inefficiency
lies in attempting to deliver IT projects as characterized in the first
stage. In addition, conducting it in organized, distinct and frequently
long stages impedes the verification of results during the project. Such
strategy contradicts the idea of cooperation and uninterrupted commu-
nication thus affecting negatively the ultimate project result.
The Agile founders chose people and interacted with processes
and tools, running software instead of extensive documentation, work-
ing with clients on contract negotiations and responding to changes
resulting from the plan (Agile Manifesto, 2020). These principles
describe agility. Implementing these key values and principles in devel-
opment should guarantee a proper interaction between a developer
and a client which should result in customer involvement in the design
and development stages and consequently delivering a convenient
working software. It will also help both the developer and customer to
respond to changes effectively. From the design and development per-
spective, Agile methodologies should assure customer satisfaction in
early stages, acceptance of changes in the requirements, cooperation
between developers and clients, addressing requests from motivated
individuals, team communications, and simplicity in the development
process (Al-Ratrout, 2019). The Agile approach means also a new
approach to “PM – project team members” relationships. In this case
project manager plays the role of a coach and mentor rather than a for-
mal boss (Piwowar-Sulej, 2013). Self-organizing teams are developed
along with the simplified procedures and processes. The later research
confirms that project stakeholders' satisfaction, proper competencies of
the project team, team members' personal development and high com-
munication level are responsible for project effectiveness (Shenhar &
Dvir, 2007). These attributes of APM approach correspond mainly with

ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.
TABLE 2 Sustainable development – Traditional project management – Agile project management (based on [Michaelides et al., 2014])
Characteristics of the traditional project
Assumptions of sustainability management
Long-term orientation Short-term orientation
Consideration of the interest of today Consideration of the interest of sponsor/
and future generation stakeholders
Value-orientation Deliverable/results-orientation/ speed to
market-orientation
Focus on: people, planet, profit Focus on: fixed scope, various time and
budget
Consideration of increasing complexity Reduction of complexity
the social bottom line, however all bottom lines are interconnected
(e.g., in response to consumer needs a negative environmental impact
of product may be reduced).
Michaelides et al. (2014) in their article presented a comparison of the
assumptions of sustainable development (first column in Table 2) with
characteristics of the general project management (second column in
Table 2). As described above, it cannot be generalized that project man-
agement in general is always a short-term oriented activity and operates
within the “iron triangle” (constraints: cost, time, budget). Therefore, a
slightly different approach was proposed in Table 2, which distinguishes
between the traditional and modern approaches to project management.
It is a form of summarizing the above presented discussion.
The practices of creating Agile software were not entirely new, but
the fact that they were formulated and integrated within one ground-
breaking theory was a novelty (Williams & Cockburn, 2003). This
approach has led customers to appreciate improvements in many aspects,
such as speed of delivery and reduction of software development costs
(Highsmith, 2002). The latter is in line with financial bottom line. Over
time, these results were not limited to software engineering. Agile
methods are gaining popularity and are currently used regardless of size
or sector in which the organization operates because of the hanging
business and economic environment (Whitelock, 2019). Furthermore,
Agile methodologies are used in many organizations and for different
kinds of projects which vary from distributed to individual work (Nagaria
et al., 2019). At this point a question arises, how different results of
APM implementation—including the above-presented and many others—
correspond with sustainability threated as a complex construct including
all TBLs.
3 | RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND
DESIGN
3.1 | Research process and methods
The study was conducted using three surveys: a survey among com-
panies' representatives, an expert survey, a comparative survey.
The main research problem, as presented in the title of this article,
concerns the linkage between APM and sustainability. Two Agile-related
10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
859
Characteristics of the Agile project
management
Short and long-term orientation
Consideration of the interest of all project
stakeholders (including project team
members)
Value-orientation/speed to value-
orientation
Focus on: fixed time and cost, various scope
Giving answer to increasing complexity
aspects were identified and included in the study: APM implementation
results and methods of value creation for stakeholders.
The first and second study phases followed the same pattern:
research tool construction, data collection and data analysis. The third
phase of the study was analytical and statistical in nature.
The first phase of the research consisted in conducting a survey
with employees of enterprises located in Poland who took steps to
implement APM in the organization. In the second part of the study,
the survey was used among experts in the field of project and organi-
zation management. They completed a questionnaire based on the
results obtained in the first phase of the research. The third part
of the research was carried out using the Guttman scale with the
Reproducibility Coefficient, which allowed to determine the degree of
consistency (agreement) between cumulative items representing
agile-related concepts and experts' attitude towards them. The data
collected in the first and second phase were used for the analysis
with the Guttman scale.
3.2 | Data collection and analysis
Data collection was performed twice due to the two phases of the
study conducted in two separate populations. In the first phase, that
is, in the study in companies, a questionnaire was used which
consisted of 6 open-ended questions concerning: the sector of the
economy, the size of the company, the job position of the respondent,
the level of APM implementation, ways of creating value in the organi-
zation and the positive results of Agile implementation. The invitation
to participate in the research was sent to 150 companies from all over
Poland, and finally representatives of 52 companies were surveyed.
The survey was conducted at the turn of May and June 2019. The rate
of return was 35%, however only 50 questionnaires were valid.
In the second phase, that is, the expert study, a questionnaire was
used, which consisted of the last parts devoted to: value creation and
development and positive results of Agile implementation. Based on
the results of the first phase of the study, criteria were defined for the
above-mentioned problems, which the experts were to assess in terms
of their importance for the sustainable development of the organiza-
tion. There are 7 criteria for value creation and development and

860
7 criteria for positive results of Agile implementation. The second phase
of the study took place in January and February 2020. The rate of
return in this part of the study was 100%. The 30 experts participated
in this part of the study.
The Guttman scale is one-dimensional and its elements measure
one dimension – in this case the impact on organizational sustainabil-
ity. The experts' role was to rank the APM results/value creation
methods from the least to the most associated with sustainability.
Recoding data in the binary system consisted of the following proce-
dure: if the experts assessed a factor as negligible for sustainability,
they assigned a value 0, if the experts assessed the factors as very
important for sustainability, they assigned a value of 1. Based on this
assumption, the relevance of individual factors of Agile for sustainabil-
ity was determined for three groups of experts.
For each scale, the coefficient of reproducibility was calculated as
1 minus the result of the total number of errors divided by the total
number of responses. Furthermore, the developed scales were mar-
ked with the value of MMR (minimal marginal reproducibility), that is,
the average general frequency of each response. The MMR value
should be close to the CR. The acceptable MMR value is 0.8.
The comparison of three variables in groups was performed using
the Kruskal-Wallis test. Analyzes were conducted at 0.05 level of sig-
nificance. R software, version 3.6.3 was used.
3.3 | Characteristics of the research sample
population
The following part of the article presents both the characteristics of
the respondents participating in the first phase of the study (N = 50)
(Figure 2) and in the second (N = 30) (Figure 3). Characteristics of
FIGURE 2 Research sample characteristics [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.
companies refer to the industry and size of the company as well as
the position held by the respondent in the organization.
The presented data show that companies specializing in different
project businesses participated in the research. In the research sample
the large enterprises prevailed. Among the 50 respondents participat-
ing in the survey, the majority was project managers.
As Figure 3 shows, experts represented three areas of specializa-
tion: scientists with the expertise in project management, project
management certification assessors and Agile practitioners. Such
areas of expert's specialization have been deliberately selected.
Agile practitioners deal with Agile practices in everyday work in the
implementation of projects and operational activities in organizations.
Scientists in the field of management have theoretical knowledge and
have conducted numerous empirical researches. Finally, project
management certification assessors base in their work on Agile standards
and know the metrics relevant to the implementation of APM in
enterprises.
4 | DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1 | The first research phase
The respondents were asked to indicate the positive results of
implementing APM in their organization. The responses were grouped
into the following dimensions: better understanding of customer
needs, improved work atmosphere and employee involvement, devel-
opment of new cooperation models, increased innovation potential,
overall quality improvement, increased productivity and time savings.
The presentation of the respondents' answers on the positive results
of Agile implementation is shown in the Table 3.
 10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL. 861

FIGURE 3 Experts' characteristics [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

TABLE 3 Positive results of Agile implementation in companies

Positive results

Improving the
Increase in Improving the atmosphere in Increase in Better understanding Development of new Overall quality
Results productivity timeliness of deliveries the organization innovation of customer needs cooperation models improvement
N = 50 6 6 14 11 20 14 11
% 12 12 28 22 40 28 22

In addition, survey participants were asked to answer the ques-
tion of how stakeholder value is created and / or developed in organi-
zations. The answers were categorized on the basis of the information
provided in the survey by the respondents. The following categories
of ways to create and develop value were defined by the researchers:
regular dialog with business representatives throughout the project
life cycle, continuous commitment and end-user feedback for the pro-
ject team, business case analysis, establishing a community of practi-
tioners and experts, using the “design thinking” approach, Agile rituals
and business value assessment committees. The analysis of the
responses to value creation is presented in the Table 4.
4.2 | The second research phase
The results of expert assessment in terms of the positive results of
Agile implementation and their importance for sustainability are pres-
ented below. Expert judgments on the importance of each issue for
sustainability have been binaries and presented separately for three
groups of experts in Appendix (Tables A1 and A2).
The following Figures 4 and 5 present the Guttman scale for the
three examined variables, and their content shows the results of the
analysis for three groups of experts. Items found to be very easy on
the scale have a major impact on sustainability and items found to be
very difficult on scale have a minor impact on sustainability - this is
how the figures below should be interpreted.
Data presented in the Figure 4 point the number of Guttman
errors was the lowest in the case of certification assessors and the
highest for management researchers in the case of the analysis of the
positive results of Agile implementation and their impact on sustain-
ability. CR values for Guttman's scales according to certification asses-
sors and according to Agile practitioners exceeded the desired value
of the indicator and reached 0.94 and 0.83, respectively. A CR value
of 0.94 (certifying authority scale) means that the values are cumula-
tive and this scale of positive Agile impressions and impact on sustain-
ability is reliable. In this case, the CR value also equals the MMR value
in each case.
When analyzing the scale for the positive results of Agile imple-
mentation, it can be noticed that in the case of easy items on the
Guttman scale, for example, understanding of customer needs or
 10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
862 ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.

TABLE 4 Practices of value creation in companies

Value creation

Regular dialog Continuous stakeholder Expert community Business value Design Agile
Results with business engagement establishment Business case assessment committees thinking rituals
N = 50 18 14 8 9 1 8 8
% 36 28 16 18 2 16 16

Management researchers

New Understanding Timeliness of

Atmosphere Quality
Innovations cooperation of customer Productivity deliveries
improvement improvement
models needs improvement

Minimal Marginal
Guttman errors: 22 Coefficient of Reproducibility: 0,69
Reproducibility: 0,69

PM certification assessors

Timeliness New Understanding

Quality Atmosphere
of deliveries Innovations Productivity cooperation of customer
improvement improvement
improvement models needs
Minimal Marginal
Guttman errors: 4 Coefficient of Reproducibility: 0,94
Reproducibility: 0,94

Agile practitioners

Timeliness New Understanding

Quality Atmosphere
of deliveries Productivity Innovations cooperation of customer
improvement improvement
improvement models needs
Minimal Marginal
Guttman errors: 12 Coefficient of Reproducibility: 0,83
Reproducibility: 0,83

FIGURE 4 Guttman scale for positive APM results

atmosphere improvement in organization, experts within the three
groups of respondents were more likely to agree than in the case of
difficult items (with a less impact on sustainability).
When choosing difficult answers, the respondent should choose
all easier answers. For example, when using the Guttman scale in the
questionnaire, developed according to scientists in the field of man-
agement, the respondent will choose innovations while indicating pos-
itive impressions related to the implementation of Agile, (s)he should
also select new cooperation models, atmosphere improvement, and
so forth. timeliness of deliveries improvement (the scale is still dis-
cussed according to scientists), then (s)he could not have given a more
difficult answer because his answers would be inconsistent.
Figure 5 shows that in the context of the methods of creating
values, the Guttman scale according to certification assessors
achieved the lowest number of Guttman errors, equal to 8, and the
highest CR coefficient, equal to 0.89. Only in the case of the Guttman
scale, according to certification assessors, the CR value reached and
exceeded the desired value of 0.8. For scales of Guttman presents at
the Figure 5 the CR value is equal to the MMR value in each case, so
the percent improvement is 0 (CR not reflect the response patterns.
When analyzing the scale for the value creation methods, it can
be noticed that in the case of difficult items on the Guttman scale, for
example, design thinking, experts community or Agile rituals, experts
within the three respondents were less likely to agree than in the case
of easier items (with a greater impact on sustainability). In this case,
when asked about the methods of creating value with Agile, important
for sustainability, for example, using the Guttman scale according to
experts in the field of certification, the respondent choosing the
 10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL. 863

Management researchers

BV
Design Experts Business Stakeholder Regular
Rituals Assessment
Thinking Community Case engagement dialogue
Committees
Minimal Marginal
Guttman errors: 26 Coefficient of Reproducibility: 0,63
Reproducibility: 0,63

PM certification assessors

BV
Design Experts Business Stakeholder Regular
Rituals Assessment
Thinking Community Case engagement dialogue
Committees
Minimal Marginal
Guttman errors: 8 Coefficient of Reproducibility: 0,89
Reproducibility: 0,89

Agile practitioners

BV
Experts Design Business Regular Stakeholder
Rituals Assessment
Community Thinking Case dialogue engagement
Committees
Minimal Marginal
Guttman errors: 20 Coefficient of Reproducibility: 0,71
Reproducibility: 0,71

FIGURE 5 Guttman scale for value creation

design thinking answer should also indicate all easier answers, that is,
agile rituals, community experts, business value assessments commit-
tees, business case, stakeholder engagement and regular dialog with
business.
4.3 | The third research phase
The overall assessment in terms of significance for sustainability for
positive results of APM implementation as well as methods of value
creation was made using the Guttman scale. The order of the criteria
for the three mentioned variables was determined on the basis of the
expert assessment.
The analysis shows that only the scale for the method of creating
value and positive results of Agile implementation created on the
basis of the certification assessors' judgment corresponds to the
model (CR = 0.9). The acceptable value of MMR (MMR = 0.89) was
achieved for the scale of value creation methods based on certifica-
tion assessors' opinion, for the Agile implementation positive results
scale based on certification assessors' (MMR = 0.94) and Agile practi-
tioners' opinion (MMR = 0.83). No statistically significant differences
between groups were found.
5 | DI SCU SSION
5.1 | Theoretical contributions
This research fulfills the need for determination of practices that are
considered to be the part of the sustainable practices—in this case
sustainable practices in project management (Sharma et al., 2020).
The presented theoretical considerations show that there are some
simple arguments in project management theory that Agile is more
sustainable than traditional approaches. They provide answer to the
first research question. First, the Agile methodology puts more
emphasis on teamwork and stakeholder engagement, which signifi-
cantly increases the importance of the social aspect, which is also one
of the pillars of Sustainable Development. Furthermore, one of the
typical elements of Agile Project Management and sustainability is
complexity. The theory suggests that when dealing with a complex
project, it must be managed in an Agile manner. According to the
Mesjasz (2016), Sustainable Development is related to complexity, for
example in the context of socio-political or ecological systems and
their interactions. Other points in common for Agile and sustainable
project management also include: long-term orientation, interests of
stakeholders and value orientation (Khizar et al., 2021).

864
Based on the results of this study one may state that companies
see seven main groups of positive results of implementing APM in the
organization, that is, better understanding of customer needs, devel-
opment of new cooperation models, improving the atmosphere in the
organization, increase in innovation, overall quality improvement,
increase in productivity, and improving the timeliness of deliveries.
Among them the following are significant for sustainability: improving
the timeliness of deliveries, increase in productivity and improving the
atmosphere in the organization. However, taking into account that
the scale prepared by Agile Practitioners is the most reliable, shorter
time of delivery and higher productivity contribute the most to sus-
tainable development. In this way the answer to the second research
question is provided. The obtained research results are also confirmed
to be true in the conclusions of the research by Gey et al. (2019),
which indicate a significant correlation between Agile and sustainable
practices. The most important conclusion, according to the authors of
the quoted study, relates to increasing the effectiveness of sustain-
able development practices through the use of Agile assumptions.
Before answering the question on how methods of developing
value creation for stakeholders used in companies within APM con-
tribute to organizational sustainability, it is wort emphasizing that in
recent years issues such as “stakeholder value” and “stakeholder
value creation” have become the focus of research by many scientists
(Signori et al., 2021). Different authors argued that considering the
needs and expectations of stakeholders throughout the project life
cycle contributes to the success of a project (Cleland, 1986; Olander &
Landin, 2005; Bryde & Robinson, 2005; Diallo i Thuillier, 2005;
Olander, 2007; Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010). In turn, Aaltonen and
Kujala (2010) showed that organizations should be very aware of tools
for reporting project results and effects to stakeholders, such as tradi-
tional reporting, which affects stakeholder value creation and its
development.
From Ciccullo et al. (2018) point of view, the current unfavorable
economic conditions in the world have highlighted the need to
develop organizations that can integrate various micro and macroeco-
nomic factors in order to effectively meet customer needs. At the
same time, these organizations should respect the environmental and
social requirements of a broader set stakeholders in every step of
functioning, from creating innovation (Urbaniec et al., 2021) to supply
chain (Digalwar et al., 2020). Ciccullo et al. also claim that develop-
ment value for stakeholders can be reached for example by the
improvement of environmental conditions. In addition to the relation-
ship between sustainability and stakeholder management, attention
should also be paid to the essence of stakeholders in APM methods.
Dima and Maassen (2018) maintain that the changing economic and
environmental conditions cause that all stakeholders of the project
have to bear the costs of these changes, which are especially notice-
able in APM.
Taking the above into account the presented research extends
previous studies through identifying the most frequently implemented
methods of value creation for stakeholders in the context to sustain-
ability. They cover regular dialog with business and stakeholder
engagement. Although, Kyurova and Kiryakova-Dineva et al. (2019)
10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.
argue that dialog between partners or positive business relations
impact on sustainability, the presented research shows that these
practices were rated the lowest in terms of impact on sustainability.
Taking into account the most reliable scale (PM certification asses-
sors), one may state that Design Thinking and rituals are value crea-
tion methods that contribute the most to sustainability. The last
conclusion refers to the third research question.
The expert assessment carried out in the second stage of the study
showed that there are discrepancies between the three groups of
experts: management researchers, certification assessors and Agile
practitioners. For the most part, they have a different opinion on the
relationship between the outcomes of Agile implementation and
sustainability, and the impact of different ways of creating value on
sustainability. Regarding the positive results of Agile implementation,
certification assessors and Agile practitioners judged improving the
timeliness of deliveries to have the greatest impact on sustainability,
while researchers found it to have the least impact. Management
researchers rated improving the atmosphere in the organization as the
most important for Sustainable Development, and then development
of new cooperation models. In terms of value creation, experts showed
different opinions on their degree of impact on the Sustainable
Development of the organization. Researchers from the management
discipline believe that design thinking and Agile rituals contribute to
sustainability to the greatest extent, certification assessors indicated
business value assessment committees and design thinking whereas
Agile practitioners pointed at Agile rituals and expert community estab-
lishment as the most important for sustainability. Experts showed
agreement that continuous stakeholder engagement has the least
impact on the Sustainable Development of the organization.
The presented discrepancies between the three groups of experts
are probably related to the specific nature of their work in terms of
agility. Scientists and academics focus more on the theoretical
approach than Agile practitioners who apply Agile practices and expe-
rience situations that have not yet been subjected to theoretical and
scientific analysis. Experts from the certification community are based
on methodological guidelines and their work relates to the standardi-
zation of the Agile approach as opposed to Agile scientists and practi-
tioners who usually specialize in specific fields, branches or industries.
The theoretical contribution of this study refers also to the meth-
odology used. The presented research is characterized by methodo-
logical rigor. It provides scientists with tools basing on the Guttman
scale which can be used in further research, that is, on the transforma-
tion of organizations towards sustainability. Based on CR calculations,
the Agile practitioners scale revealed to be the most reliable for
results of Agile implementation, whereas the certification assessors
scale is the most reliable for value creation methods.
5.2 | Implications for practice
Both the literature studies and the results of the presented empirical
research confirm that there is a relationship between APM and orga-
nizational sustainability. Therefore, managers should implement APM,

ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.
i.a., by creating value for stakeholders. The great flexibility offered by
the Agile approach is conducive to managing projects in a sustainable
manner. Thanks to agility, organizations can take into account eco-
nomic, social and environmental aspects in their projects. The most
reliable scale for results of Agile implementation – including answers
from practitioners – shows that improving the timeliness of deliveries
and increased productivity have the greatest impact on sustainability.
Since the certification assessors scale used in this study is the most
reliable for value creation methods, practitioners should follow guide-
lines resulted from the research conducted among this group of respon-
dents. As presented in this study Design Thinking and rituals contribute
the most to the value creation for stakeholders. Design thinking is
increasingly gaining ground as a collaborative problem-solving tool.
This is due to the approach of managers who increasingly recognize
design as strategic for the development of the organization. In this case,
design thinking has become a creative practice that stimulates
managers to think and act in response to the challenges of changing
consumer preferences, emerging new technological opportunities and
changing business models (Leerberg et al., 2010). Rituals increase the
feeling of community and commitment, thus improving the efficiency
of work. They also provide a greater sense of meaning, control, and
control of the situation, which entails an increase in value.
The research also has important implications for business in terms
of competences areas which should be the subject of PMs' human
potential development. In the light of the presented research, it is of
paramount importance to properly equip them with the competences
related to sustainable project management. The recommended activ-
ity for companies HR policymakers is to organize training in the field
of sustainable project management and continuous improvement of
employees' qualifications, and thus deriving benefits from methods
and technics (e.g., design thinking) which contribute to sustainable
development. This is also in line with the key concept of lifelong learn-
ing – which is an appropriate response to the constantly changing
economic and social conditions in which organizations currently
operate.
This study provides also knowledge which can be a subject of
teaching and thus may have impact of development of educational
institutions. Among many important factors of successful implemen-
tation of different initiatives employee characteristics (including
competencies) are of huge importance (Hong & Ma, 2020; Jha &
Iyer, 2006; Ribeiro & Domingues, 2018). A good understanding of
the methodological aspects of project management is crucial in
implementing sustainable project management. Educational institu-
tions are responsible for increasing managerial consciousness and
skills – both in the field of sustainable development and project man-
agement. Only skilled employees will be able to deliver value to
stakeholders. As presented research shows, design thinking and
business value assessment committees as methods for value creation
for stakeholders are rarely used in companies. Educational institu-
tions may contribute not only to spreading the general APM
approach in companies but also increase implementation of particu-
lar techniques such as the above-presented.
10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
865
Additionally, the research results may prove to be a valuable
source of knowledge for project management certification assessors
and certifying institutions, especially in the field of sustainable project
management. The research results can be used for them as a source
of information and data when creating new or improving existing
guidelines and standards, and preparing training content for compa-
nies and managers.
6 | C O N C LU S I O N S A N D D I R E C T I O N S
FO R F U TUR E RE S EA R C H
This article contributes to the body of academic knowledge by
elaborating theoretically and empirically the linkage between project
management methodologies and sustainability. It provides evidence that
Agile methodologies of project management are more sustainability-
oriented than traditional project managements methodologies. Further-
more, improving the timeliness of deliveries, increase in productivity and
improving the atmosphere in the organization as APM result is significant
for sustainability. However, the most crucial is the time and productivity.
Finally, value creation methods that most correspond with sustainability
are Design Thinking and agile rituals.
This study provides also implications for practitioners. They
include: broader implementation of the assumptions of APM, intro-
duction of methods of value creation such as Design Thinking and
Agile rituals, continuous development of project managers' compe-
tences in the area of sustainable project management. As far as the
academia is concerned, there is a need to update curricula regarding
the presented research results.
The findings of this study could ultimately be a hint for manage-
ment scientists. The article indicates areas that should be addressed in
future research. Although this study used multiple groups of respon-
dents, in order to make a much greater contribution to the science of
enterprise management, it is suggested to examine the characteristics
of each organization, such as company history, structure and culture,
projects and processes, and intellectual and technological capital
resources. When planning future research, it is also worth considering
study visits and in-depth interviews with employees of various depart-
ments of the organization, both for managerial and executive positions.
ACKNOWLEDG MENTS
Authors would like to thank the three anonymous Reviewers for their
positive opinions about presented work and valuable comments,
which contributed to the quality of this paper. They also appreciate
the feedback and the effort given by the Editor.
OR CID
Małgorzata Zakrzewska https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7914-1313
Katarzyna Piwowar-Sulej https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4627-4344
Szymon Jarosz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2150-6193
Adam Sagan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5608-179X
Mariusz Sołtysik https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8240-1099

866
RE FE R ENC E S
Aaltonen, K., & Kujala, J. (2010). A project lifecycle perspective on stake-
holder influence strategies in global projects. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 26(4), 381–397.
Agile Manifesto. (2020), Agilemanifesto.org.
Al-Ratrout, S. (2019). Practical implementation of agile approaches in
teaching process. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced
Technology, 8(4), 278–284.
Arell, R. (2020). Sustainability and Agile. https://agilealliance.medium.com/
sustainability-and-agile-b89a20938aa4
Armenia, S., Dangelico, R. M., Nonino, F., & Pompei, A. (2019). Sustainable
project management: A conceptualization-oriented review and a
framework proposal for future studies. Sustainability, 11(9), 2664.
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate
sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3),
197–218.
Baumgartner, R. J., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies:
Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development,
18(2), 76–89.
Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. (2012). Sustainability assess-
ment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
30(1), 53–62.
Bonem, J. M. (2018). Sustainability. In Chemical projects scale up (pp. 101–
106). https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128136102/chemical-
projects-scale-up#book-info
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Penguin Books.
Chawla, V. K., Chanda, A. K., Angra, S., & Chawla, G. R. (2018). The sustain-
able project management: A review and future possibilities. Journal of
Project Management, 3(3), 157–170.
Cohen, E. (2019). The definitive guide to project management methodologies.
https://www.workamajig.com/blog/project-management-methodologies
Deland, D. (2009). Sustainability through project management and net
impact. PMI® global congress 2009. Project Management Institute.
Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of
agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development.
Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221.
Durham, E., Baker, H., Smith, M., Moore, E., & Morgan, V. (2014). The Bio-
divERsA stakeholder engagement handbook. BiodivERsA.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate
sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.
Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable busi-
ness. Organization & Environment, 29(2), 156–174.
Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable human resources management: A conceptual
and exploratory analysis from a paradox. Physica-Verlag HD.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st cen-
tury business. John Wiley and Sons.
Gareis, R., Huemann, M., & Martinuzzi, A. (2011). What can project man-
agement learn from considering sustainability principles? (pp. 60–65).
Project Perspectives.
Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development
and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal
of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439–448.
Highsmith, J. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Addison
Wesley.
Hong, C., & Ma, W. W. K. (2020). Introduction: Education 4.0: Applied
degree education and the future of work. In C. Hong & W. Ma (Eds.),
Applied degree education and the future of work. Springer.
Idowu, S. O., Sitnikov, C., & Moratis, L. (Eds.). (2019). ISO 26000 - a stan-
dardized view on corporate social responsibility practices, cases and con-
troversies. Springer.
Jayasudha, R., Viswanathan, V., & Shanthi, P. (2017). Implementation of
reuse in the agile software development process SCRUM. Asian Jour-
nal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, 10(13), 143.
Jha, K. N., & Iyer, K. C. (2006). Critical determinants of project coordina-
tion. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 314–322.
10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015). New insights into project management
research: A natural sciences comparative. Project Management Journal,
46(2), 73–89.
Karlsen, J. T. (2002). Project stakeholder management. Engineering Man-
agement Journal, 14(4), 19–24.
Khizar, H. M. U., Iqbal, M. J., & Rasheed, M. I. (2021). Business orientation
and sustainable development: A systematic review of sustainability
orientation literature and future research avenues. Sustainable Devel-
opment, 29(5).
Kiryakova-Dineva, T., Kyurova, V., & Chankova, Y. (2019). Soft skills for
sustainable development in tourism: The Bulgarian experience.
European Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(2), 57.
Koskela, L., & Howell, G. A. (2002). The underlying theory of project man-
agement is obsolete. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & van Erck, R. P. G. (2005). Assessing the
sustainability performances of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production,
13(4), 373–385.
Leerberg, M., Riisberg, V., & Boutrup, J. (2010). Design responsibility and
sustainable design as reflective practice: An educational challenge. Sus-
tainable Development, 18(5), 306–317.
Lees, F. (2012). Sustainable development. In Lees' loss prevention in the pro-
cess industries (pp. 2507–2521). https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/B9780123971890000409?via%3Dihub
Liu, S. (2017). Sustainability. In Bioprocess engineering (pp. 829–870).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444637833
000149?via%3Dihub

pez-Torres, G. C., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Maldonado-Guzmán, G., Kumar, V.,
Lo
Rocha-Lona, L., & Cherrafi, A. (2019). Knowledge management for sus-
tainability in operations. Production Planning & Control, 30(10–12),
813–826.
Macke, J., & Genari, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on sustainable
human resource management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208,
806–815.
Martins, V. W. B., Rampasso, I. S., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O. L. G., & Leal
Filho, W. (2019). Knowledge management in the context of sustain-
ability: Literature review and opportunities for future research. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 229, 489–500.
Michaelides, R., Bryde, D., & Ohaeri, U. (2014). Sustainability from a pro-
ject management perspective: are oil and gas supply chains ready to
embed sustainability in their projects? Proceedings of Project Manage-
ment Institute Research and Education Conference. Phoenix: Project
Management Institute.
Mustak, M., Jaakkola, E., & Halinen, A. (2013). Customer participation and
value creation: A systematic review and research implications. Manag-
ing Service Quality: An International Journal, 23(4), 341–359.
Nagaria, J., Sadath, L., & Ahmed, S. (2019). Agile implementation-a mile-
stone for academics using software engineering industry practices.
Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Confer-
ences (ASET), 2019, 1–6.
Nisar, M. F., & Hameed, T. (2004). Agile methods handling offshore soft-
ware development issues. 8th International Multitopic Conference,
2004. Proceedings of INMIC, 2004, 417–422.
Piwowar-Sulej, K. (2012). Cechy kultury organizacyjnej a metodyki
prowadzenia projekto
w. Kwartalnik Ekonomisto
w i Menedżero

w, 26(4),
39–51.
Piwowar-Sulej, K. (2013). Rola kierownika projektu w wybranych
metodykach zarządzania projektami. Organization and Management,
Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Ł
odzkiej, 50, 165–176.
Piwowar-Sulej, K. (2020a). Management 3.0 from the standpoint of mod-
ern concepts of people management and leadership theories. In A.
_ n
Zabi
ski (Ed.), Entities' decision in conditions of economic growth
(pp. 20–30). Wroclaw University of Economics and Business.
Piwowar-Sulej, K. (2020b). Types of organizational culture in the context
of project management methodologies. In K. S. Soliman (Ed.), Education
excellence and innovation management: A 2025 vision to sustain

ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.
economic development during global challenges. International Business
Information Management Association (IBIMA).
Project Management Institute. (1996). Project management body of knowl-
edge. Project Management Institute.
Ribeiro, A., & Domingues, L. (2018). Acceptance of an agile methodology
in the public sector. Procedia Computer Science, 138, 621–629.
Saynisch, M. (2010). Beyond frontiers of traditional project management:
An approach to evolutionary, self-organizational principles and the
complexity theory—Results of the research program. Project Manage-
ment Journal, 41(2), 21–37.
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and
sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237.
Sharma, V., Raut, R. D., Mangla, S. K., Narkhede, B. E., Luthra, S., &
Gokhale, R. (2021). A systematic literature review to integrate lean,
agile, resilient, green and sustainable paradigms in the supply chain man-
agement. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 1191–1212.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The dia-
mond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business
School Press.
Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entre-
preneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “What Is to Be
Sustained” with “What Is to Be Developed.” entrepreneurship: theory
and practice.
Silvius, A. J. G., & Schipper, R. P. J. (2014). Sustainability in project manage-
ment: A literature review and impact analysis. Social Business, 4(1), 63–96.
Špundak, M. (2014). Mixed agile/traditional project management method-
ology – reality or illusion? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
119, 939–948.
Tapaninahk, R., & Kujala, J. (2017). Perspectives on stakeholder value crea-
tion and sustainability: A literature review. Academy of Management
Proceedings, 2017(1), 278.
Thomas, G., & Fernández, W. (2008). Success in IT projects: A matter of def-
inition? International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 733–742.
10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
867
UNESCO, Sustainable Development https://en.unesco.org/themes/
education-sustainable-development/what-is-esd/sd, 2021.
Urbaniec M., Sołtysik M., Prusak A., Kułakowski K., Wojnarowska M.,
(2021), Fostering sustainable entrepreneurship by business strategies:
an explorative approach in the bioeconomy, business strategy and the
environment; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.2885.
Wagner, M. (2011). Environmental management activities and sustainable
HRM in German manufacturing firms-incidence, determinants, and
outcomes j Umweltmanagementaktivitäten und nachhaltiges HRM in
Unternehmen des deutschen Verarbeitenden Gewerbes - Verbreitung,
Bestimmungsf. Zeitschrift Fur Personalforschung, 25(2), 157–177.
Wawak, S., & Wo
zniak, K. (2020). Evolution of project management stud-
ies in the XXI century. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 13(4), 867–888.
Whitelock, V. G. (2019). Multidimensional environmental social gover-
nance sustainability framework: Integration, using a purchasing, opera-
tions, and supply chain management context. Sustainable Development,
27(5), 923–931.
Williams, L., & Cockburn, A. (2003). Guest editors' introduction: Agile soft-
ware development: It's about feedback and change. Computer, 36(6),
39–43.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our com-
mon future. Oxford University Press.
How to cite this article: Zakrzewska, M., Piwowar-Sulej, K.,
Jarosz, S., Sagan, A., & Sołtysik, M. (2022). The linkage
between Agile project management and sustainable
development: A theoretical and empirical view. Sustainable
Development, 30(5), 855–869. https://doi.org/10.1002/
sd.2285
 10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
868 ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL.

APPENDIX

TABLE A1 Results of APM implementation in companies – experts' assessment in the context of sustainability

Better
Improving the Improving the understanding Development of
Increase in timeliness of atmosphere in Increase in of customer new cooperation Overall quality
Category Expert productivity deliveries the organization innovation needs models improvement
Management researchers 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
5 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
6 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
7 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
10 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
PM certification assessors 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
4 1 0 0 0 1 0 1
5 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
6 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
7 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
8 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
9 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
10 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
Agile practitioners 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
3 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
4 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
5 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
6 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
7 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
8 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
9 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
10 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
 10991719, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.2285 by International Islamic Universi, Wiley Online Library on [16/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ZAKRZEWSKA ET AL. 869

TABLE A2 Practices of value creation in companies – experts' assessment in the context of sustainability

Continuous Business value

Regular dialog stakeholder Expert community Business assessment Design Agile
Category Expert with business engagement establishment case committees thinking rituals
Management researchers 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
6 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
7 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
8 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
9 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
10 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
PM certification assessors 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
4 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
5 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
6 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
7 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
8 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
9 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
10 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
Agile practitioners 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
3 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
5 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
6 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
7 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
9 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
10 1 1 0 1 0 0 0