ENG5811 Critical Analysis Essay

Literature Analysis Framework

Citation Brief Overview Line of Argument Research Methods Limitations and Critique Recommendations

Bason and Austin (2019)Depending on an individual, design thinking may imply a variety of things, but it is most often used to define the processes, tactics, and tools that go into creating human-centered goods, services, solutions, and experiences. Making a personal connection with the individuals (referred to as “users”) for whom a solution is being developed is an essential phase in this process. Designers in project management attempt to view the world through the eyes of their users and capture the essence of their users’ experiences in order to get a thorough grasp of their users’ conditions, situations, and demands. The idea is to connect with the users and maybe become close to them. Another frightening aspect of design-thinking approaches is that they rely on distinct ways of thinking. They advise their staff not to hurry to the finish line or to make a decision as soon as possible. Instead of pushing ahead, they advise kids to look in various directions to see new alternatives. People that place a high importance on things like conserving money, being efficient, and having a clear strategy may find it difficult to accomplish this. The circumstance reminds me of the expression “spinning your wheels,” which is a wonderful one to utilize. Leaders cannot rely just on traditional project management practices; they must also keep an eye on changing situations and understand when to interact with their teams. This goes above and beyond the usual project management practices. Project managers have a commitment to help their teams as they deal with the spectrum of emotions and pressures that come with the job. Project managers must do two things: (1) persuade team members that progress is being made, and (2) encourage team members to take the necessary detours that allow for discovery. It is not enough for teams to just follow management’s instructions; they must also have the flexibility to explore and experiment on their own. This will only be achievable if management loosens their hold on the reins. Descriptive research The study is limited to the opinion of leaders studied in the article. There is little mention of extant research relating to project management and related research. More emphasis on project management and how it has changed in the last few years comparative to traditional versus more modern approaches.

Haq et al. (2019)Practitioners and academics have been baffled throughout the years by the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of IT projects. The inclusion of appropriate project governance systems is one of the several key aspects identified by past study. Utilizing these strategies may result in increased project success and less opportunistic behavior. When risk factors are present, it is unclear whether or not these governance frameworks improve the performance of an IT company and a software development project. In light of this, the primary purpose of this research is to build a moderation model to evaluate the effectiveness of different governance systems under situations of requirement-related risk. The results of the study show that contractual and relational governances are especially good at reducing opportunism because they have a big effect on how well a project does. There is also evidence to suggest that requirements risk reduces the positive effects of contractual and relational governances on project outcomes. Requirements risk getting in the way of organizations reaching their goals. This study aims to add to the existing body of research by looking at how software development companies decide which governance structure to use. To reach this goal, the article will focus on contractual and relational forms of governance, as well as the effects these forms have on entrepreneurial spirit and project success. Positivist research philosophy in a quantitative deductive approach Trust, relational norms, fundamental components, change elements, and governance elements are not directly examined as they relate to opportunism and project performance in this research. Second, this research did not account for contextual factors such as the duration of the contract or the scale of the project. Finding out how variables such as budget, timeline, and resource allocation interact to determine final results is an essential topic for future research. This will allow for more in-depth analysis of the factors that contribute to the success of contractual governance and relational governance. Possible considerations for further investigation into these areas should they arise in the course of future studies.

Sweetman and Conboy (2018)Even if agile methodologies prove to be highly successful on the project level, implementing them at the project portfolio level may add a significant amount of complexity and calls for some degree of adaptability. Despite the fact that this has become a big problem, not a lot of research has been done on how to manage a portfolio of agile projects. Based on the little amount of research that has been carried out, there is a widespread belief that portfolio-level agility may be achieved by scaling up agile project-level methodologies such as Scrum. This research takes a critical look at the principles of portfolio management in an agile context by examining them through the lens of complex adaptive systems. The major focus of this article is placed on how individual initiatives operate as agents within a dynamic and intricate portfolio. The complex adaptive systems theory (CAS) is based on natural science and attempts to explain the behavior of non-linear dynamic systems with many interdependent pieces that must adapt to a continually changing environment. CAS was originally used in the realm of natural sciences. The CAS has previously shown that agile projects that operate as complex adaptive systems are emergent and can adapt to their surroundings. This skill has consequences for the management of agile initiatives.   Since it works effectively in other sectors and because agile project portfolios are complex and adaptable, CAS is the ideal solution to handle change in project management. Because of this, some believe that CAS is the best way. Nonetheless, CAS is a complex theory that makes it difficult to use in information systems. As a result, the way theory is applied must be altered so that the emphasis is placed on the factors that create change. Uses an exploratory, qualitative approach The paper focuses on the CAS theory and fails to adequately compare how traditional approaches in project management compare to the agile methodology In order to provide a more thorough explanation of how each assumption may be implemented in practice and to authentically test these assertions, extensive examples are required. Furthermore, these conditions are necessary. The use of longitudinal examples is very beneficial for assessing an individual’s ability to rapidly and consistently describe an ever-evolving aim, as is required in a portfolio of agile projects.

Critical Analysis Essay

Changing the Traditional View of Project Management

In recent years, the agile methodology has created waves in project management Bason and Austin (2019) assert that the business world is always changing and companies are constantly looking for new processes, techniques, and strategies to help them run their operations more successfully and efficiently. Haq et al. (2019) contends that even though there are hundreds of techniques to project management, the final selection should be based on the kind of company and its needs. As a result, authors and scholars differ on project management approaches, especially in pitting Agile against traditional, or waterfall, techniques. While Sweetman and Conboy (2018) take a neutral stand recommending the use of a methodology that links better with a specific project, Haq et al. (2019) call for the abolishment of traditional approaches, a point that Bason and Austin (2019) concur with. Each of these frameworks has its own set of rules, methods, and guidelines for how things should be done. However, a gap exists in literature regarding specificity of project management and the kind of approach that should be applied. Ultimately, the traditional view of project management must change and become more adaptable since its value-neutral selling point has led to high project failure in modern companies and projects, requiring a shift to more agile project management approaches.

There is a bias amongst authors on their preferred project management approach, with divergent views on why the traditional approach is polarized on either total success or total failure. Bason and Austin (2019) and Sweetman and Conboy (2018) do not agree on which methodology should be used in project management. Haq et al. (2019) mention that there is a need to study both agile and traditional project management before deciding on the approach to use. Traditional project management is divided into five steps: planning, execution, monitoring, and completion as summarized in figure 1 below. Traditional project management focuses on performing tasks in the right order, keeping records, undertaking some preliminary planning, and assessing the priority of activities (Sweetman and Conboy, 2018). Because the criteria are set but the time and cost are not, the traditional approach often confronts financial and timetable restrictions. Projects are established and planned in advance using the traditional method to project management. The focus is on formal procedures and excessive documentation, with as little involvement from customers as feasible. In traditional project management there are defined number of phases, and the requirements are assumed to remain constant despite the risk of varying costs and completion timeframes (Haq et al., 2019). This strategy is best useful for projects when the scope is unlikely to change dramatically. Traditional project management emphasizes the need of rigorous planning and analysis throughout the development process (Sweetman and Conboy, 2018). As a consequence, the development process is streamlined through rigidity, thus leading to high project failure rate in the past.

Figure 1: Traditional project management brief summarization

(Source: Haq et al., 2019)

Haq et al. (2019) has an open bias for the agile technique over the traditional project management because the former splits projects into smaller, more manageable tasks and uses a continuous delivery and feedback mechanism to keep the customer involved throughout the process. Agile project management is a relatively new and adaptive method to project management that seems to be gaining popularity these days. According to Haq et al. (2019), over 73% of firms use agile project management. The flexibility of agile is one of the key reasons behind this. It is an iterative project management method that prioritizes customer input, adaptation, and teamwork as represented in the summarization on figure 2 below. Agile allows project team members to be more adaptable and ensure that the end product meets the needs of the customer. Using the agile technique, the project is broken into a series of shorter, time-boxed sprints that generally last two weeks (Sweetman and Conboy, 2018). As a consequence of these sprints, project teams are better prepared to adapt to new information and changes. Clients get regular updates and their feedback is quickly incorporated into the development process since the Agile approach puts a high emphasis on user interaction.

Figure 2: Agile project management (Adapted from Haq et al., 2019)

Traditional project management takes a biased stand on what is required for every project, without leaving room for flexibility. In comparison the agile method improves flexibility and clarity. It also speeds up problem solving, improves teamwork, and simplifies requirements. When compared side by side, Agile project management is undeniably more adaptable than traditional project management (Sweetman and Conboy, 2018). Because the project is separated into sprints, it is straightforward to make changes while the project is still in progress. Unlike the traditional method, everyone in the team is always aware of the project’s status while using Agile, as seen in Figure 3. Each team member participates to the formulation of the plan and identifies who is accountable for which areas of the project using this plan. Everything becomes more open and transparent as a result. Similarly, consumers are included throughout the process, and their feedback is taken into account to guarantee a positive end. Every Agile iteration pushes teams to interact and share information often. There is no information silos, and everyone’s opinion is valued, regardless of their position in the business (Haq et al., 2019). Teams, for example, engage in daily meetings and plan sprints in the Scrum project management approach. During these meetings, the team reviews its success, issues, and goals for the next day, a concept that is conspicuously lacking in the traditional approach.

The lack of bias in approach for Agile method’s all-encompassing approach to problem-solving makes project management simpler, faster, and less time- and labor-intensive. If team members are allowed to make modest changes without first seeking clearance from the project manager, they may save a lot of time and make more progress (Bason and Austin, 2019). For example, Kanban and Scrum are two of the most prominent Agile approaches, and both demand that the project be divided into smaller, more manageable tasks. This enables the project to improve while keeping its high standards. Unexpected changes in circumstances or problems may force the team to retreat to the basics while following the traditional strategy. As a consequence, both time and money are lost.

Figure 3: Difference between traditional and agile project management approaches

(Source: Haq et al., 2019)

While many authors take a biased stance on why traditional project management fails, it is important to note that traditional project management approaches are not all bad. This technique offers several advantages, including clear guidance, high levels of control, a single point of contact, and thorough documentation. Because everything has been prepared in advance, each team member is aware of their responsibilities and the demands of the project. As a result, individuals may do successfully with minimal monitoring. In a traditional approach, the function of project manager holds almost all of the authority, and even little, trivial modifications need the manager’s approval. This makes it difficult to alter the project’s scope.

The greatest issue with traditional methods is that they are excessively inflexible and biased on what, when, and where of project management. Traditional project management is most effective when everything goes according to plan (Haq et al., 2019). When this occurs, it is simple to achieve your objectives. But when it comes to operating a company, nearly nothing goes according to plan. If you employ the typical approach to project management, which is to plan and then execute, you will encounter difficulties when things do not go as expected. In contrast, the Agile technique for project management is not at all rigid. There are no strict regulations. Instead, general ideas are provided to keep the group on track. However, if something unforeseen occurs during the project, there will be no delays. Instead, the planners will restructure everything from scratch.

Comparatively, Agile project management is all about being able to adapt to changes as they arise and putting results ahead of form and strategy in an unbiased position. Unlike the rigid structure of traditional project management, which makes it impossible to integrate new ideas, the agile method makes it very easy. As a result, agile project management makes it easier to work on several projects at the same time. This is due to the fact that the structure is significantly less rigid and may be adjusted. The agile technique simplifies decision-making since it can be changed quickly (Bason and Austin, 2019). There are goals and milestones, but people have much greater freedom to follow their own interests. Because of the customer feedback, milestones, and checkpoints, it is straightforward to assess whether or not the project is moving as anticipated. This is what makes the agile approach superior to traditional project management. The entire process becomes faster, easier to solve issues, quicker decision making, and involves end-user input.

Even though agile project management has many advantages, it is important to note that a lack of structure is not always beneficial to a company, despite the obvious bias in traditional methods. This is something that must be kept in mind at all times. Although freedom is good, having too much of it is not always desirable. Agile project management is currently beneficial for many organizations, yet in more rigid areas, traditional project management may be preferred (Haq et al., 2019). Agile project management is ideal for today’s enterprises. Agile project management works well for small to medium-sized projects because it gives each team member enough liberty throughout the process. On the other hand, if there are no rules, it may be difficult to handle enormous projects, an area in which traditional ways of project management remain preferable.

In summary, due to the fact that the value-neutral selling point of traditional project management has resulted in a high rate of project failure in modern companies and projects, a shift to more agile project management approaches is required. The traditional view of project management needs to change and become more adaptable. Agile makes it easier for teams to work, improves software quality in enterprises, keeps customers happy, lowers development costs, and shortens time to market. Agile maintains a flexibility that is nonexistent in traditional project management. As a result, better results in project management are visible, while traditional project management’s rigid view may lead to failure.

Reference List

Bason, C. and Austin, R.D., 2019. The right way to lead design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 97(2), pp.82-91.

Haq, S.U., Gu, D., Liang, C. and Abdullah, I., 2019. Project governance mechanisms and the performance of software development projects: Moderating role of requirements risk. International Journal of Project Management, 37(4), pp.533-548.

Sweetman, R. and Conboy, K., 2018. Portfolios of agile projects: A complex adaptive systems’ agent perspective. Project Management Journal, 49(6), pp.18-38.