Fernandez APM 2008

7/30/2019 Fernandez APM 2008

1/9

AGILE PRO JECT MANAGEMENT -AGILISM VERSUS TRADITIONAL A PPROAC HESDANIEL J. FERNAND EZAlcon Laboratories, Inc.Ft. W orth, Texas

JOHN D. FERNANDEZTexas A&M UniversityCorpus Christi, Texas

ABSTRACTFor deeades now, corporations have been changing froma hierarchical approach to project management to being morecollaborative as knowledge work has grown in importance. In thecenter of increased globalization is the need for project managersto have flexibility in a project system in order to be able to adjustconstantly to emerging challenges and opportunities.The need to distribute responsibility and initiative in supportof adaptation to change is familiar territory to "agile" approaches

to projects. In this paper. Agile Project Management will beexamined from its historical practices and applicability of thisstyle of project management to more traditional approaches toproject management. Agile Project Management has proven tobe a useful tool for today's knowledge worker and the projectmanagers in the new economy which is characterized by morecomplex and uncertain project situations. This paper presentsfundamental information about the agile methodology toencourage its implementation by professionals.

Keywords: Project Management. Agile Strategies. Patternsof Organization, Software Project Management, TraditionalManagement Approaches

OVERVIEWIn the February 2007 issue of Harvard Business Reviewthe myth of the flawless executive is dethroned in favor of the"incomplete leader" who no longer is oriented toward "com mandand control" but is instead focused on distributing responsibilityand initiative throughout the organization (4]. For decades now,corporations have been changing from a hierarchical approachto being more collaborative as knowledge work has grown inimportance. A September 2005 article in the Project Management

Journal expresses similar sentiments for the management ofprojects as the authors question the "veracity of tight centralizedmanagement", "rationalist" discourse, and a "command andcontrol" approach to project management [23]. Instead, theauthors recommend allowing for flexibility of local response inorder to be able to constantly adjust to emerging problems in theproject system.This need to distribute responsibility and initiative in supportof adaptation to change is familiar territory to "agile" approachesto projects. In this paper, Agile Project Management will be

examined from its historical practices, and the applicability ofthis style of project management. Age Project Managementis proving to be a useful tool to today's knowledge worker andthe project managers in the new economy. As Zwicker [35]asserts, Lockheed Martin was looking for a way to improveits development of software products and found the agilemethodology in the process. A comparison of Agile ProjectManagement to traditional approaches will be presented.

NEW PROJECT MANAGEMENT THEORIESIn recent years there has been particular interest in defining.or redefining, a theory of project management that can be used inthe new economy which is characterized by more complex anduncertain project situations. Koskela and Howell [25| argue in a2002 paper that the underlying theory of project management isobsolete. The theory underlying the PMBO K(Project Management

Body of Knowledge) guide by the Project Management Institute(PMI)[30) is determined to be based upon the transformation viewof production and three theories of managem ent: man agement-as-planning, the dispatching model for execution, and the thermostatmodel for control. Koskela and Howell [25] question this theo ry'ssufficiency in practice, especially in managing uncertainty andchange. A new theory is not proposed but new ingredients aresuggested: (1) a focus on Flow and Value generation in additionto transformation: and (2) inclusion of managem ent-as-organizingfor planning, the language/action perspective for execution, andthe scientific experimentation model for control. In a subsequentpaper Koskela and Howell [26] demonstrate that Scrum, anagile project management approach, is a comprehensive projectmanagement method with an underlying theoretical foundationthat includes flow and value generation empha.ses (but nottransformation), management-as-organizing, the language/actionperspective, and the scientific experimentation model. Theyconclude by arguing for a "paradigmatic transformation of thediscipline of project managem ent".

Williams [33] presents research that shows that conventionalmethods of project management (including PMBOK) can beinappropriate and potentially disadvantageous for projects thatare structurally complex, uncertain, and heavily time-limited.Instead, newer project management methods, such as "agile" or"lean" show promise for projects with the.se characteristics.

Other research has demonstrated the value of managementmodels (such as administering, organizing, sense giving, teambuilding, and engineering), even if these models do n't representbest practices [17]. Models provide a common language andframework creating a shared reality which enables comm unicationboth within and between projects. Agile Project Managementfinds its common language originating in the Agile Manifesto[8] and Declaration of Interdep endence [6]. The m anifesto anddeclaration will be examined in a subsequent paper by the authorsas the roots and sources of "agile" ideas and principles.

AGILE PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACHESAgile Project Management Practices

One way to examine approaches to agile project managementis to investigate practices of agile project management. One set ofpractices [22] includes the following:10 Journal of Com puter Information Systems Winter 2008-2009


2/9

Assume Simplicity i Embrace Change Enable and Focus on the Next Effort Incrementally Change Maximize Value Manage with a Purpose, Question Actions Project Manager must manage the project andprocess boundaries Rapid Feedback to All Stakeholders Quality Delivera bles Create Documentation Based on ValueGlen Alleman [3] describes agile as a "thought process" w ith

the following practices:1. Think small incremental deliverables2. Get the customer to have some skin in the game3. Never have breakage have continuous QA at everypoint through assurance process4 . State up front requirements are fluid build theprocesses around fluid requirements.

Patterns for Organization and Project M anagementPatterns are another approach to understand the use of agilebased practices in project management. The origins of patterns

are typically attributed to the architect Christopher Alexanderwho used patterns for the construction of towns, neighborhoo ds,and buildings. Patterns provide solutions to problems in contextor more precisely patterns are "a recurring structural configurationthat solves a problem in context, contributing to the wholenessof some whole, or system that reflects some aesthetic or culturalvalue." [13]

Coplien and Harrison [13] demonstrate that values drivestructure from which process emerges. They believe that anorganization's structure is a much better indicator of effectivenessthan process and structure is most effective when oriented on"product" instead of "process". Good com munication, as a foun-dation to structure, requires an emphasis and value on both thehuman element and an understanding of roles and comm unication.Coplien and Harrison [13] believe that effective organizationswill demonstrate patterns that can be used by other organizationsto be effective. A series of approximately 93 patterns are givenrelated to; (1) project management, (2) piecemeal growth, (3)organizational style, and (4) people and code. The particularrelevance of patterns to agile project management are; (1) theirroots in agile principles and. perhaps even more importantly, (2)as a description of an approach which is in harmony with the agileidea of not supplying hard and fast rules which claim to workin all situations. Instead, patterns are a special kind of rule that"works together with other patterns to create emergent structureand behavior" [ 13 | which makes for effective organizations.

Khazanchi and Zigurs [24] see patterns "as a way ofunderstanding and dealing with complexity", with particularapplication toward the management of virtual projects. In a 2005PMl publication, Khazanchi and Zigurs [24] argue for threetheoretical elements to define patterns; (1) communication, (2)coordination, and (3) control. They believe that patterns canbe created for these three elements that include processes, bestpractices, factors, tools and techniques.Theoretical Approaches

A variety of books have been written in the agile project

management domain that are based on different theoreticalfoundations; Theory of Constraints [5], Critical Chain [2 7], LeanProduction [29], Complex Adaptive Systems [7, 21], ChaosTheory [15] and Cooperative Game Theory [ II ]. Even though thetheories appear to be div erse, at their core, they all are in harmo nywith the agile principles found in the Agile Manifesto [8] andDeclaration of Interdependence [6[. Wysocki [34] summarizessome of these approa ches in his book on effective softwareproject management. Even though this book is oriented towardssoftware, the principles extend beyond software, and the modelsused are effective ways to understand agile project management.Agile Project Ma nagement Strategies

From an agile project management classification perspective,the Iterative, Adaptive, and Extreme strategies defined byWysocki [34] fall under the agile project management umbrella.The Linear and Incremental strategies are traditional projectmanagement approaches. These approaches will be brieflyreviewed to help differentiate them from the agile approaches. Inaddition , Wy socki [34] has identified an approach which identifiesproject characteristics in a quadrant and then matches those todifferent project management strategies. Project characteristicsare classified based on a certainty to uncertainty continuumfor the project goal (ends) and project solutions (means). Afteridentifying the quadrant (see Figure I below) that a project is in,specific, situational project strategies can be selected to matchproject management strategy with problem type. If there is doubtabout the quadrant a project b elongs to , the less risky strategy is toerr on the side ofchoosing a higher numbered quadrant. How ever,depending on how the project evolves, it may be advisable toadjust the management ofthe project to the strategies of a lowerquadrant if the project characteristics change. The authors willexamine these quadrant characteristics in a subsequent paper.

CoalNot Clear

Clear

4

] 2Clear No t Ctear

SolutionFIGUR E I: Project Characteristics Quadrantsby Goal and Solution Uncertainty Adaptedfrom 34J

Linear StrategyA Linear strategy is a traditional strategy that consists ofdependent, sequential phases that are executed with no feedbackloops. The project solution is not released until the final phase.This strategy fits Quadra nt 1 projects because of the followingcharacteristics of this strategy: (1) Clearly defined goal, solution,and requirements; (2) Few scope change requests; (3) Routine

and repetitive projects; (4) Use of established templates.The strengths of the Linear strategy include; (I) The entireproject is scheduled; (2) Resource requirements are known; (3)

The most skilled resources are not required; (4) Team membersWinter 2008-2009 Joumai of Computer Information Systems 11


3/9

can be distributed. The weaknesses of the Linear strategy are:(1) Plan and schedule do not accommodate change very well;(2) Costs can be higher; (3) Time to complete can be longer,especially if change occurs; (4) Requires detailed plans; (5) M ustfollow a defined set of processes; (6) Is not focused on customervalue as much as delivering against the plan.Incremental Strategy

An incremental strategy is identical to a Linear strategyexcept that each phase of the project releases a partial solution.The characteristics of this strategy are identical to the Linearstrategy except that business value must be delivered prior to thefinal phase. Therefo re, this strategy is also well suited to Quad rant1 projects.

The strengths of the Incremental strategy include: (1)Business Value is produced earlier in the project life cycle; (2)Change requests can be accommodated between increments anddiscovered through incremental solutions; (3) Stronger focuson customer value than the Linear approach. Some weaknessesofthe Incremental strategy include: (I) Heavy documentation;(2) Difficulty defining function/feature dependencies; (3) Morecustomer involvement is required compared to the Linearapproach.Iterative

An Iterative strategy consists of a number of repeated phasesthat include a feedback loop after a group of phases is completed,The last phase of a group may include a partial solution if thecustomer desires. The Iterative strategy is a leam-by-doingstrategy that uses intermediate solutions as a pathway to discoverthe details of the complete solution.The strengths of the Iterative strategy include: (1) Customercan review current solution for suggested improvements; (2)

Scope change can be accommodated between iterations; (3)Adapts to changing business conditions. Weaknesses of thisstrategy include: ( I ) Requirement for a more active customer thanQuadrant 1 projects; (2) The final solution cannot be specified tothe customer at the outset of the project. An example agile projectmanagement method is Scrum [32].Adaptive Strategy

An Adaptive strategy is similar to an Iterative strategy exceptthat with an Adaptive strategy each iteration's feedback adjuststhe next iteration so that a solution will be converged upon. Aniteration can release a partial solution at the discretion of thecustomer. The Adaptive strategy is a quadrant 2 and quadrant3 strategy because it is best suited to projects whose solution isonly partially known. To remove the uncertainty, the solutionis arrived at via a continuous change process from iteration toiteration. The success ofthe Adaptive strategy is therefore highlydependent on the ability to accommodate frequent change andadjust accordingly. Therefore, planning is done primarily in ajust-in-time manner.

The strengths of the Adaptive strategy include: (1) Does notwaste time on non-value-added work; and (2) Provides maximumbusiness value within the given time and cost constraints. Theweaknesses of this strategy include: (1) Must have meaningfulcustomer involvement throughout the project; (2) Cannotidentify exactly what will be delivered at the end of the project.

Example agile project m anagement methods are Adaptive ProjectFramework [34] and Adaptive Software Development [21].Extreme Strategy

An Extreme strategy is similar to an Adaptive strategy exceptthat instead of adjusting with each iteration to converge upona solution, the goal of the project must also be discovered andconverged upon. The lack of goal clarity is the main differencebetween the Adaptive and Extreme strategies. The Adaptivestrategy requires a clear goal and the Extreme strategy does not.Research and development, or similar projects would fall in thisQuadrant 3 oriented strategy. This type of project goal uncertaintyis also referred to as "chaos" as "often the project ends up withfinal results that are completely different from the project'soriginal intent" [16]. Figure 2 graphically represents a search fora goal through an extrem e, quadrant 3 project.

Range of acceptable solutions

PathKI : Desired Coal

Attained Coal

ProjectStartFIGURE 2: Goal Searching in Extreme Projects {34}

The strengths of the Extreme strategy include; (1) Allowsfor keeping options open as late as possible; (2) Offers an earlylook at a number of partial solutions. The weaknesses of thisstrategy include: ( 1 ) May be looking for solutions in all the wrongplaces; (2) No guarantee that any business value will result fromthe project. Example agile project management methods areINSPIRE [34] and Flexible (DeCarlo's [15] eXterme ProjectManagement).Summary of Stratetes

Wysocki |34j provides a somewhat simplified, high levelview of these strategies in terms of both construction and projectmanagement to highlight the iterative cycle differences and alsothe way the project management phases interrelate with thesecycles.

In Figure 3, Wyso cki's [34] five strategies are compared froma scope, design, build, test, and deploy p erspective. Although thedifferences are simplified in the figure, the main differences arebased ufjon which phases are reiterated per cycle. In an extremestrategy, even the project scope is readjusted ba sed upon feedbackfTom the project iterations.Another way to examine the differences in the strategies isby comparing project management phases to the development

or construction phases. The iteration differences between thestrategies can be seen, in particular, in the way that planning,mo nitoring and control operate differently (F igure 4). Bycomparing the traditional Linear and Incremental strategies to12 Journal of Computer Information Systems Winter 2008-2009


4/9

Unear SCOPE - DESIGN - * BUILD - * TEST DEPLOY

Incremental SCOPE - DESIGN -* BUILD -* TEST * DEPLOY

Iterative

Adaptive

Extreme

FIGUR E 3: Project Managem ent Strategies Based on Complexity and Uncertainty [34]

the Iterative, Adaptive, and Extreme strategies, the differencesbetween agile project management approaches and the traditionalapproach can be more easily seen. Of particular note, the planningefforts with the agile approaches are done more often and in aniterative manner.Summ ary of Agile Project Managem ent A pproachesGeneral comments

The principles of Agile Project Management begin with theunderlying principles and values of the Agile Manifesto [8] andDeclaration of Interdependence [6]. Of particular importanceare the emphases on people and the desire to remain flexibleand adaptable in the face of uncertainty and complexity. Agileproject management approaches also emphasize a generativeapproach , where only what is needed (processes, tools, proce dures,documentation, etc) is required to be used in the project. Plus,there is awareness with agile that different situations requiredifferent solutions or different methodologies or approaches.Cockbum [9] outlines four additional principles that could beconsidered when selecting an approach or methodology for projectmanagement: ( 1 ) A larger group needs a larger methodology; (2)A more critical system one whose undetected defects w illproduce more damage needs more publicly visible correctness(greater density) in its construction; (3) A relatively smallincrea.se in methodology sizx or density adds a relatively largeamount to the project cost; and (4) The most effective form ofcommunication (for transmitting ideas) is interactive and face-to-face. Plus, project priorities and delivery date, level of quality.and desired visibility into the process could also impact theapproach chosen.

Finally, there must be a match between the project, culture,project team, customers, and the project strategy that is selected.This decision is not fixed, however, but the team and/or projectmanager should be willing to change the strategy as the project

characteristics change. There oug ht to be a continued emphasis onmatching the level of processes, procedures, and docum entationto the needs of the project.Applicability beyond Software

Even though the majority of the literature related to "Agile"ideas and "Agile Project Management" is still within the softwaredevelopment domain there are attempts to widen the scopeof agile project management and make it applicable in ofherareas. One area that is receiving particular attention recently isconstruction. Conclusions in this area include: "There seems tobe considerable potential for gains to be made from the adoptionof APM in the pre-design and design phases of construction;iterative and incremental development can facilitate creativesolutions, particularly to complex and uncertain requirements.However, the fractured and temporary nature of the actualconstruction organization is likely to impede the desirablecontinuation of these practices through to construction andsupport". [28]

AGILE AND TRADITIONALPROJECT MANAGEMENT

Harm ony with PMBOKAt the 2004 PMI Global Conference. Griffiths [19] describeda way for agile methods to be used alongside traditionalmethods. His suggestion was to take as-is the PMBOK processesfor Initiation and Closure, and then build on the ProgressiveElaboration concepts for the Planning process. The Execution andControlling processes, however, were handled quite differentlyand an agile approach is suggested. Sliger |31| finds a high

level of compatibility between the PMBOK and agile practices.Highsmith's [211 Agile Project Management framework is usedby Sliger as the basis of comparison with the PM BOK.Winter 2008-2009 Journal of Com puter Inform ation System s 13


5/9

Linear SoftwareDevelopmentPhases

ProjectManagementPhases

SCOPt

SCOPE PLAN

DESIGN BUILD TEST

LAUNCH MONITORdCONTROL

DEPLOY

CLOSE

IncrementalSoftwareDevdopmentPhases


SCOPE DESIGN

SCOPE PLAN LAUNCH

8UILD TESTTJ.

MONITOR&CONTROL

DEPLOY

CLOSE

IterativeSoftwareDevelopmentPhases


SCOPE * DESIGN BUILD

SCOPE PLAN LAUNCH

TtST

MONITOR6CONTROL CLOSE

AdaptiveSoftwareDevelopmentProcess


SCOPE DESIGN

SCOPE

BUILD TEST

PLAN LAUNCH MONITOR&CONTROL CLOSE

ExtremeSoftwareDevelopmentProcessPfiases

ProjectManagementPfviies

FIGURE 4: Project Management Strategies Based on Complexity and UncertaintyAdapted from [34]

14 Journal of Computer Information Systems Winter 2008-2009


6/9

Comparison of Traditional and Agile POST-AGILISMWhen comparing different project strategies or approaches,Wysocki [34] also details differences between traditional and

agile projects.Traditional Versu.s Agile Projects

Traditional projects are clearly defined with well documentedand understood features, functions, and requirements. In contrast,agile projects discover the complete project requirementsby doing the project in iterations and therefore reducing andeliminating uncertainty. Because of this, agile tends to behigher risk compared to traditional projects, but agile has theflexibility to more easily adjust to changes in project require-ments.

I

Traditional Versus Agile ProjectTraditional project managers manage their projects against thebudget, schedule, and scope. Metrics and variance can be tracked

against the planned baselines. The traditional project managerwants to reduce risk and preserve the constraints of time andmoney. In contrast, the agile project manager is focused insteadon deliverables and business value and budget and timelineare secondary. The agile project manager is trained to delivera product instead of adherence to a process like the traditionalproject manager.Traditional Vcrsu.s Agile Teams

Traditional projects can more easily support distributed workteams of specialists and junior members because of the well-defined requirements and other documentation. Agile projectteams require co-location of team members and staff in orderto embrace change and rapidly produce increments. Projectsbeing worked in multiple locations can have teams using agilemethods in each location. The commitment level from agileproject members must be greater than from traditional teammembers as they are called upon to take a greater roie in theirprojects.

Case in PointThere is much evidence in the literature of successfulimplementations of the agile methodology. One example is that

of Lockheed Martin [35] which involved an effort to improvethe delivery of systems to the client and finding the agileapproach in the process of its investigation. Lockheed Martinmanagers chose agile practices in order to improve four areasthat were consistently part of management's focus: managingchanging requirements, increasing productivity, ensuring qual-ity standards were met. and developing and delivering a prod-uct increment more often. In one departmental implementationof the agilism. a majority of those polled within the businessarea saw a greater than ten percent improvement in productivity,product quality, customer satisfaction and overall reduction ofcost of development [35]. Given the large scale of LockheedMartin and many industry systems, even the smallest improvementin any of these areas has a major positive impact to the bottomline.

In recent years there has been a growing dissatisfaction withthe term "agile" and corresponding "agile" practices. New termsare being introduced such as "pliant" and "non-linear" to replace"agi le". At Ihe core of" this dissatisfaction is the concern that theterm "agile" is being used primarily as a marketing device andthat many prescribed "agile practices and processes" are beingfollowed with blind adherence at the expense of being flexibleand adaptable to the need for different practices and processes.Coplien [13] expresses fear that "we are lemmings" simplyfollowing the latest fad rather than being adaptable to finding thebest practices for the projects. He also advocates a return to theAgile Manifesto and its roots as a means of bringing focus backon people and on being effective not simply being "agile" as anend in itself.

In addition to the concerns that "agile" has lost touch with itsoriginal meaning, there are other concerns and criticisms aboutagile and agile project management. Bciehm sees risk of designmistakes that "cannot be easily detected by external reviewers dueto the lack of documentation." [12] During the first eWorkshopon Agile Methods, there was concern that the reason agile workedwas simply that agile approaches require more experienced peopleand therefore the capabilities of the team mem bers are what projectsuccess should be attributed to rather than agile practices andprinciples [ 18]. Alleman [ I ] believes that managing projects withagility is no more than simply using process areas appropriatelyand with intelligence. Elsewhere Alleman |2] argues that Agile is"a delivery mechanism", a "style of performing processes", butnot a discipline. Previously a stronger advocate of agile projectmanagement. Alleman [2] now has "had second thoughts abouthow much hype there is around Agile Project Management havingobserved failed projects that adopted agile project managementtechniques without first understanding the core principles ofproject management." Alleman [2] believes that a better startingpoint is to "pick your favorite project management processes- PM l. CH2M Hill. Prince2, DoD PMBOK. NASA SystemsEngineering, Solomon's Perfonnance Based Earned Value, or avariety of others" and then "apply agile principles to those processareas - that's agile project managem ent."

CONCLUSIONSummary

Agile practices, including project management, grew outof a need to manage projects characterized by complexity anduncertainty with responsiveness and adaptability. When goalsand solutions are unclear and there is high volatility, there isparticular need for alternative approaches to managing projects.Becoming equipped with different approaches to projectmanagement will allow project managers to better match thecharacteristics of the project at hand. The effort to accommodateagile project management approaches and learn how to be flexibleand adaptable may well be worth the investment for many projectmanagers. This flexibility could be highly advantageous whenfaced with certain typs of projects and project scenarios.Importance of Matching Projectto Project Management Approach

The need to properly match the project management approachWinter 2008-2009 Journal of Computer Information Systems 15


7/9

to the project is crucial to project success. However, simplymaking a one-time decision to be "agile" may be insufficientfor the organization, or perhaps even for the life of a particularproject. Instead, there must be a willingn ess to change, adap t, andbe aware of how best to manage a given project situation within aparticular environment and culture.Hybrid Approach

While not direetly focused on project management, thecomments by Cunha and Gomes [ 14J on product development areequally valid; "the traditional engineering roots of managementprocesses should be complemented with a more organic andadaptive view. In summary; order may not be as good as itseemed and the challenge may reside in the identification of theappropriate combination of structure and disorder." A hybridapproach to project management with both traditional and agilepractices may be the most valid approach.Heart of Agiie P ractices

This paper has spent a great deal of time discussing a varietyof processes and procedures which build on agile values andprincip les, but if the heart of agility is not maintained, then simplyfollowing an "agile" process is not being agile. Cockbum [10]describes it this way; "I keep telling people that agile is mostly anattitude, not a methodology or fixed set of practices." "Agility isa means to an end, not the end itsel f |20]

As Lockheed Martin [35] experienced, when one is lookingfor ways to improve productivity, product quality, customersatisfaction and reduce production costs, it may be that one willdiscover the heart of agility at the center of the solution,

I

Areas of Future InvestigationThe literature on agile project management is still in itsinfancy, but much more research should be done into agileproject management outside the scope of software develop-ment. Included In this research should be the development ofproject management patterns extensible into agile projects ingeneral. There is also the possibility of producing a commontheory of agile project management that could help projectteams understand the underlying ideas of agile within the con-text of project management. Finally, additional work is al-ready underway to bring agiie ideas into the PMFs PMBOK.However, the success and likelihood of introducing agile ideasinto the PMBOK is unknown.

REFERENCES[1] Alleman, G. "Agile Blog" email to Yaho o Grou ps, AgileProject M anagement grou p. Mar 1, 2005.[2] Alleman, G. "Agile Project M anagement", Herding Cats

Blog, February 16, 2(X)7. http;//herdingcats.type pad.com /my_ weblog/2007/02/i ndex. html[3] Alleman, G. "The Characteristics of an Agile Project?" em ailto Yahoo Groups, Agile Project Management group, Jan 12,2007.[4] Ancona, D. "In praise of the Incomplete Leader", HarvardBusiness Review, Feb 2007, pp 92-100.[5] Anderson, D. Agile Management for Software E ngineering,Prentice Hall, 2004, 311 p.

[6] Anderson, D. "The Declaration of Interdependence", 2005,http://www.pmdoi.org/[7] Augustine, S. Managing Agile Projects, Prentice Hall, 2005,264 p.[8] Beck, K. "The A gile Manifesto", Agile Manifesto web site,2001, http://www.agilemanifesto.org

[9] Coekbu m, A. "Selecting a Project's Method ology", IEEESware, July/August 2000, pp. 64-71.[10] Cockbum, A. "AUP Article: A Difference of Focus" emailto Yahoo Groups, Agile Project Management g roup, Apr 27,2005.[11] Cockbum, A. Crystal Clear: A Huma n-Powered Methodologyfor Small Teams, Addison-Wesley. 2005. 311 p.[12] Cohen. D. "An Introduction to Agile M ethods", Advances inComputers. Vol. 62., Elsevier Inc, 2004.

[ 13] Coplien, J. and Harrison, N. Organizational Pa tterns of AgileSoftware Development. Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005,401 p.[14] Cunha, M. and Gom es, J. "Order and Disorder in ProductInnovation M odels", Creativity and Innovation Managem ent,vol. 12, Number 3, September 2003, pp. 174-187.[]5]DeCarlo, D. eXtreme Project Management, Jossey-Bass,2004,515 p.[16] De Meyer, A., Loch. C , Pich, M. "Managing ProjectUncertainty; From Variation to Chaos", MIT SloanManagement Review, Winter 2002, pp. 61-67.[17]Engwall, M., Kling, R., Werr, A. "Models in action;how management models are interpreted in new productdevelopment", R&D M anagement, 35, 4, 2005, pp 427-439.[18] eWorksho p. Summ ary of the First eWorkshop on A gileMethods, April 8,2002 http://fc-md.umd.edu/projects/Agile/S ummary/S ummaryPF.htm[19] Griffiths, M. "Using A gile Alongside the PM BOK ", PMIGlobal Congress Proceedings Anaheim, Califomia,2004.[20] Harrison, N. "Beyond Agility; Organizational Pattem s ofSuccessful Software Teams", Agile Vancouver conference,Nov 15-16, 2006, http;//www.kruchten.org/agileVancouver/presentation_slides/Neil Vancouver2006.pdf[21] Highsmith. J. Adaptive Software Development: ACollaborative Approach to Managing Complex Systems.Dorset House P ublishing, 2000, 358 p.[22] Inman. "The Practices of Agile Project Managem ent",Last accessed 3/30/07, http://www.inman.eom.au/project_management.htm[23] Ivory. C , A lderman, N. "Can Project M anagement LearnAnything from Studies of Failure in Complex Systems?",Project Management Journal, September 2005, pp 5-16.[24] Khazanchi and Zigurs. Patterns of Effective Manag ement ofVirtual Projects: An Exploratory Study, Project ManagementInstitute. 2005 .[25] Koskela, L., Howell, G. "The underlying theory of projectmanagement is obsolete". Proceedings of the PMI ResearchConference, 2002 , pp. 293-302.[26] K oskela, L., Howell, G. "The Theory of Project Managem ent:Explanation to Novel Me thods", Proceedings IGLC-10 , Aug2002, Gramado, Brazil.[27] Leach, L. Lean Project Management: Eight Principles forSuccess, Advanced Projects, Inc., 2005, 226 p.

[28] Owen s, R. "Is Agile Project M anagement Applicable toConstruction?" Proceedings IGLC-14, July 2006, Santiago,Chile.[29] Poppendieek, M., Poppendieck, T. Lean Software

16 Journai of C om puter Inform ation System s W inter 2008-2009


8/9

Development: An Ag ile Toolkit, Addison-Wesley, 2(X)3. 20 3P-[30] Project Management Institute. A Guide to the ProjectManagemenl Body of Knowledge, 3rd Edition, ProjectManagement Institute, 2004.[31] Sliger, M. "A Project Man ager's Survival Guide toGoing Agile". Whitepaper, Rally Software DevelopmentCorporation, 2(X)6, www.rallydev.com

[32] Sutherland, J. "'The Roots of S crum: How JapaneseManufacturing Changed Global Software DevelopmentPractices" JAOO, Aarhus, Denmark, 28 Sep 2005 http;//

jeffsutherland.com/scnim/RootsofScnimJA0028Sep2(X)5.pdf

[33] Williams, T. "Assessing and Moving on From the DominantProject Management Discutirse in the Light of ProjectOverruns." EEE Transactions on Engineering Managem ent,Vol. 52, No. 4, November 2005.[34] Wysocki, R. Effective Software Project Management, WileyPublishing, Inc., 2006, 618 p.

[35] Zwicker, M. "CASE STU DY; W ar Stories - Fighter Jetsand Agile Development at Lockheed Martin". Agile Journal,April 7, 2007, www.agilejoumal.com.

Winter 2008-2009 Journal of Com puter Information Systems 17


9/9

Documents

Fernandez APM 2008