Dissertation Title: Optimizing Project Performance: A Comparative

Analysis of Agile and Waterfall Project Management Methodologies.

Master Title: Master in Global Business Administration

Name: Gaurav Liladhar Rozatkar

Year: 2022-2024
ABSTRACT

This dissertation navigates the complex terrain of Project Management Methodologies (PMM),
focusing on the predominant Agile and Waterfall models, and culminates in a compelling
exploration of a hybrid approach. The study underscores the need for adaptable PMMs and
delves into the historical and conceptual evolution of Agile and Waterfall methodologies. By
meticulously analyzing Agile's client-centric and adaptive nature and exploring the structured
phases of Waterfall, the dissertation provides a comprehensive understanding of both
approaches. Through a mixed-methods research design, including surveys, interviews, and
secondary research, the study gleans insights from real-world projects. The findings emphasize
the advantages and drawbacks of Agile and Waterfall, paving the way for a robust discussion on
the potential benefits of a hybrid methodology. The dissertation concludes that while Agile offers
flexibility, Waterfall provides structure, and a hybrid model strategically balances both for
optimized project performance. The research recommends a nuanced understanding of when to
embrace adaptability and when to rely on a sequential approach, offering valuable insights for
project managers and organizations in today's dynamic project management landscape.

2
CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 2

CONTENTS 3

CHARTS 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6

DISSERTATION THESIS 8

INTRODUCTION 9

CHAPTER ONE – LITERATURE REVIEW I 12

CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW II 22

CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY 33

CHAPTER FOUR – FINDINGS / ANALYSIS / DISCUSSION 40

4.1 FINDINGS 40
4.2 ANALYSIS 47
4.3 DISCUSSION 52

CONCLUDING REMARKS 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY 61

3
CHARTS

FIGURE 1 ELEMENTS OF WATERFALL PROJECT METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 2 AGILE SDLC

FIGURE 3 BENEFITS OF APPLYING AGILE METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 4 AGILE WORKFLOW OF AN INSURANCE COMPANY

FIGURE 5 AGILE VS WATERFALL SUCCESS LEVELX

FIGURE 6 SUMMARY OF THE RECENT LITERATURE ON TRANSITION FROM

WATERFALL TO AGILE

FIGURE 7 DECISION TREE TO SELECT IF AGILE OR WATERFALL METHODOLOGY IS

MORE SUITABLE

FIGURE 8 SUMMARY OF THE RECENT LITERATURE ON COMBINING WATERFALL AND

AGILE

FIGURE 9 METHODOLOGY KNOWLEDGE

FIGURE 10 USED METHODOLOGY

4
FIGURE 11 WATERFALL MEETS DEADLINE

FIGURE 12 AGILE MEETS DEADLINE

FIGURE 13 MEETING BUSINESS EXPECTATIONS AND CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 14 WATERFALL PHASES

FIGURE 15 MAIN DISADVANTAGES OF WATERFALL METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 16 WATERFALL DEFINITION

FIGURE 17 FACED CHALLENGES

5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who have played a pivotal role in the
completion of this dissertation. First and foremost, I extend my sincere appreciation to my
dedicated supervisor, Athanasia Kairou, for her unwavering guidance, invaluable insights, and
continuous support throughout the research process. I am grateful for the expertise and
encouragement provided by Professor Sandra Alguacil, whose profound knowledge in project
management significantly enriched the quality of this work.

My heartfelt thanks go to my parents for their unwavering support, encouragement, and belief in
my abilities. Their love and understanding have been a constant source of motivation. I also want
to acknowledge the contributions of my friends, Chinu Mangal, Sawan Panda, Sai Teja, Vishal
Kushwaha, and Darshana, for their encouragement, constructive feedback, and camaraderie.

I extend my gratitude to the entire academic community at BSBI for fostering an environment
conducive to learning and research.

This dissertation would not have been possible without the collective support and encouragement
of these individuals. Their contributions have left an indelible mark on this academic journey,
and I am truly grateful for their unwavering support.

6
Statement of compliance with academic ethics and the avoidance of plagiarism

I honestly declare that this dissertation is entirely my own work and none of its part has been copied
from printed or electronic sources, translated from foreign sources and reproduced from essays of other
researchers or students. Wherever I have been based on ideas or other people texts I clearly declare it
through the good use of references following academic ethics.

(In the case that is proved that part of the essay does not constitute an original work, but a copy of an
already published essay or from another source, the student will be expelled permanently from the
postgraduate program).

Name and Surname (Capital letters):

GAURAV LILADHAR ROZATKAR

Date: 02/05/2024

7
DISSERTATION THESIS

8
INTRODUCTION

In the intricate tapestry of project management, methodologies serve as the guiding compass for
organizations navigating the complex terrain of delivering projects. This introduction embarks on
a journey into the heart of Project Management Methodologies (PMM), exploring their role in
optimizing project performance. Recognizing project management as an established discipline,
embraced by the majority of leading organizations globally, this study delves into the pivotal role
of PMM in ensuring the successful delivery of projects across diverse industries and scales.

A Brief Description of the Topic

Project Management stands tall as the principal vehicle employed by organizations worldwide to
deliver their work. Regardless of industry sector or project size, leveraging an appropriate PMM
is widely acknowledged to enhance the likelihood of completing projects within budget, on time,
and to the satisfaction of all stakeholders (Charvat, 2003; Josler & Burger, 2005; Milosevic &
Patanakul, 2005; Munns & Bjermi, 1996; Pitagorsky, 2003). However, the efficacy of this
condition depends on the project manager's understanding of the project's nature and their ability
to 'reshape and scale' it to fit the unique characteristics of the project

Effective PMM are essential for the success of projects, and the two most prevalent
methodologies, Agile and Waterfall, have garnered widespread. A survey by Serebryantseva
(2022) indicates a preference for Agile by 71% of businesses, while 51% utilize the Waterfall
methodology. The selection of an appropriate methodology is critical for optimizing project
performance. Therefore, effective PMMs are those that can be tailored to specific environments,
adapting to the dynamic nature of projects and stakeholders' demands. The belief in the
adaptability and customizability of PMMs stems from the understanding that a methodology
must be flexible yet provide guidelines rooted in best practices and past experiences. The
overarching goal is to ensure that the project team comprehends the scope of their work, what
needs to be accomplished, and how to accomplish it using the tools and techniques available
within the methodology (Charvat, 2003). Project development methodologies are the backbone
of successful projects, and their significance is underscored by the variety of available
approaches, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

Aims and Objectives

The acknowledgment of the need for customizability and adaptability leads us to a crucial
understanding—that the nature of projects and project environments varies widely. The same
PMM may not be a one-size-fits-all solution, emphasizing the importance of methodologies that
can be tailored to specific contexts (Charvat, 2003; Chemma & Shahid, 2005; Cockburn, 2000b).
This recognition sets the stage for our exploration into two of the most prevalent and contrasting
PMM —Agile and Waterfall. Mishra et al. (2021) highlights potential pitfalls, emphasizing the

9
importance of selecting a methodology tailored to a project's specific needs. Despite the
prevalence of Agile and Waterfall methodologies, the choice between them remains a complex
decision. The choice is pivotal in determining the success and efficiency of a project with the
overarching goal of optimizing project performance. Alongside, this thesis delves into the
historical and conceptual evolution of both methodologies, acknowledging their roles in shaping
the landscape of project management.

Brief Methodology Description

The current writing highlights the requirement for a relative examination to address the
continuous discussion concerning the predominance of one strategy over the other and the
possible benefits of a hybrid approach. This research seeks to address the identified gap by
conducting a comparative analysis of Agile and Waterfall methodologies, aiming to optimize
project performance.

The primary objectives include understanding the contextual factors that make one methodology
preferable over the other, determining the scenarios where a combination of both methodologies
(hybrid approach) is optimal, and providing valuable insights for project managers and
organizations facing complex project environments. Through surveys and interviews, project
managers, team members, and stakeholders share their experiences, preferences, and insights
related to Agile and Waterfall methodologies.

Secondary research encompasses the comprehensive review of existing literature, scholarly

articles, industry reports, and case studies related to Agile and Waterfall methodologies. This
part of the research is focused on gathering theoretical insights, identifying trends, and
understanding the broader landscape of project management methodologies. By synthesizing
information from various sources, secondary research contributes to the theoretical foundation of
the study and helps contextualize the findings obtained through primary research.

Research Questions

• What are the contextual factors that make Agile methodology preferable over Waterfall
in certain project environments?
• In which scenarios is a hybrid approach, combining Agile and Waterfall methodologies,
optimal for optimizing project performance?
• How can the insights derived from a comparative analysis of Agile and Waterfall
methodologies provide valuable guidance for project managers and organizations facing
complex project environments?

Synopsis of the Chapters

To guide the reader through this exploration, the dissertation's structure is outlined. Each chapter
contributes a unique perspective to the overall comparative analysis, delving into the properties

10
of Agile and Waterfall methodologies, comparing their strengths and weaknesses, and exploring
the possibilities of a hybrid methodology. The structure is designed to provide a comprehensive
understanding of both methodologies and their implications for optimizing project performance.

Chapter 1: Meticulously analyze the key principles and characteristics defining Agile
methodology, drawing insights from renowned researchers (Kuusinen et al., 2016). This chapter
aims to provide a foundational understanding of Agile's client-centric and adaptive nature.

Chapter 2: Shifts the focus to the Waterfall methodology. It delves into the structured phases of
Waterfall, unearthing the advantages and drawbacks associated with this traditional approach
(Almeida and Simões, 2019).

Chapter 3: Pivotal chapters that outlines the research design, participant selection criteria, and
the rationale behind adopting a mixed-methods approach. It details the strategies employed to
gather real-world insights through surveys, interviews, and secondary research methods. This
chapter is crafted to be the roadmap for our research journey, transparently detailing the methods
we employ to extract meaningful insights from both theoretical and practical realms. The
inclusion of mixed-methods ensures a holistic and nuanced perspective.

Chapter 4: Present the findings gleaned from primary and secondary research. A detailed
analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and comparative performance of Agile and
Waterfall methods opens the way to a robust discussion where the results are synthesized into
actionable insights.

The aim of dissertation is to achieve profound understanding of when to embrace adaptability,

client-centricity, and agility, and when to rely on a structured and sequential approach. The
journey ahead promises a comprehensive exploration, offering actionable insights to optimize
project performance in a dynamic and ever-evolving project management landscape.

11
CHAPTER ONE – LITERATURE REVIEW I

Project Quality Management is a critical knowledge area in project management, focusing on

incorporating key elements to enhance overall project efficiency. This literature review explores
two prominent project management methodologies, namely the Waterfall technique and Agile
methodology, within the context of project quality management. As the quest for optimal project
performance intensifies, understanding the nuances of these methodologies becomes crucial for
project managers navigating the complex landscape of project quality management.

The Waterfall technique, as described by [1], is a sequential approach to project quality

management. Tasks are performed in a step-by-step manner, minimizing the possibility of
overlapping. The inherent strength of the Waterfall model lies in its comprehensive
documentation of each phase, offering a robust foundation for effective project auditing [1]. Yet,
within the rigid structure of Waterfall, critiques emerge, especially when considering its
applicability to complex projects. [2] contends that the inflexibility of the Waterfall model makes
it less adaptable to the dynamic demands of complex endeavors making it unsuitable for complex
projects, diminishing their utility for project managers. In response, [3] advocates for a
disciplined sequential approach completing each phase before initiating a new one, so as to
harness the maximum benefits of the Waterfall model. Despite these challenges, proponents
argue that the Waterfall technique holds significant potential for enhancing overall project
quality. Also, various studies (e.g., Alzoubi et al. 2016; Friess 2019; Ammad et al. 2019; Alzoubi
and Gill 2021, 2020; Shameem et al. 2020; Hummel et al. 2015) suggets that the Waterfall
strategy has been extensively scrutinized in software development, emphasizing its structured
approach.

Beyond the waterfall technique, another project management approach that finds application in
various projects is the agile methodology. The Agile methodology thrives on short development
cycles, often referred to as sprints, fostering an environment of continual improvement in
product or service development [4]. Moreover, [5] states that applying the agile methodology in
project management offers benefits such as increased focus on customer needs, waste reduction,
better control over project outcomes, and flexibility in managing unforeseen circumstances.
However, despite the benefits of the agile methodology, certain limitations and shortcomings
must be acknowledged. One of these concerns poor planning regarding resource allocation for a
project [6]. In contrast, [7] argues that a significant challenge with the application of the agile
methodology in project management lies in the lack of documentation for various project
activities. This absence makes it challenging for project managers to document and monitor
activities within a project effectively.

12
Studies by Kumar and Bhatia (2014) and Yadav et al. (2015) emphasize the responsiveness of
Agile to changes, reduced paperwork, and rapid development, ultimately lowering costs and
development time. In contrast, the Waterfall model, with its reusable components, may expedite
project duration and provide a more structured approach [8].

Khoza and Marnewick (2020) present conflicting findings, stating that while Agile
methodologies are 60% more effective in process development, there is no distinction in business
success between projects employing Waterfall or Agile methodologies [8]. The success in
project management is higher for projects employing a Waterfall methodology, according to
their research [8].

Thummadi and Lyytinen (2020) conducted an analysis of software design practices, revealing
that the impact of the methodology on software design activities is less significant than
anticipated. Individual designer habits, project circumstances, and ambient noise account for a
significant portion of variance in software design practices [8].

Recent studies, such as those by Alam et al. (2022) and Thesing et al. (2021), delve into the
nuanced relationship between project size and the suitability of Agile or Waterfall
methodologies. Alam et al. (2022) suggest that Agile is more suitable for small projects, while
Waterfall proves significantly more suitable for large projects, with medium-sized projects
showing similarity in effectiveness for both methodologies [8].

Thesing et al. (2021) conclude that the choice between Agile and Waterfall depends on various
criteria, including time, cost, scope, organizational structure, and team qualities. This
underscores the importance of considering contextual factors when selecting a methodology [8].

Comparative Study of Waterfall vs. Agile in the Light of Literature

Waterfall Methodology:

The Waterfall methodology, among various software development life cycle (SDLC) models,
stands as the oldest and most recognized approach. It comprises stages like planning, analysis,
design, and implementation, with each stage's outcome feeding into the next, creating a linear
progression [9]. Ensuring that the primary stage is completed before moving to the subsequent
one is fundamental to the success of the Waterfall strategy, underscoring the necessity for
meticulous planning. This sequential approach aims to complete the project within a specified
timeframe, emphasizing the importance of working in linear stages and avoiding the
commencement of the second stage before the conclusion of the first [9].

For the Waterfall strategy, planning is identified as a crucial feature, allowing teams to execute
projects on time by working in a well-defined sequence. The project manager plays a vital role in
optimizing productivity by ensuring efficient resource utilization and minimizing expenses,
workers, and time waste [10]. It proves beneficial, particularly in intricate and extensive projects

13
requiring a comprehensive plan to progress through predefined stages. In this method, initiation
of the second stage is contingent upon the completion of the first, emphasizing the importance of
a well-defined timeline for large projects. Deviations from the established timeline can incur
significant costs and hinder progress [11].

This method is applied to address primary product needs and stringent regulatory requirements.
It is most effective when projects have precise requirements, allowing for minimal changes and
modifications [12]. The waterfall strategy is particularly well-suited for organizations following
robust and strict procedures, presenting a challenge for the more flexible agile strategy [13].

In instances where the product owner prefers not to be involved in project management, the
waterfall strategy permits contribution only during innovative and large projects, especially when
project potentials and requirements are thoroughly outlined at the project's outset [14]. The
waterfall approach is fitting for developing existing products when organizational staff members
are engaged in the development of a current legacy product with well-known effects that must
interface with the identified or present product [15].

Projects employing the waterfall method adhere to fixed schedules and timelines that cannot be
altered, and financial plans are predefined and immutable [16]. This approach is advantageous
when project control is dictated by cost or timeline considerations, given that project needs and
opportunities are well-understood. The waterfall method operates through a set of procedures
contingent on the value agreed upon in the preceding stage, requiring linear progression and
ensuring the initiation of the second stage only after the completion of the first [17].

The outcome of utilizing the waterfall method is the delivery of excellent work, presenting a
well-defined feature set in accordance with the predetermined financial plan or timeframe.

Pros:

The Waterfall method, as expounded by [8], introduces advantages in the realms of planning and
design. Collaboration between the project team and customers facilitates clarity and a shared
understanding of deliverables. This approach streamlines the achievement of project goals within
specified resource and timeline constraints [8]. Furthermore, the Waterfall model offers
transparency in gauging project progress, given its predefined opportunities, mitigating the risk
of delays. The methodology's capacity for replicable procedures contributes to efficiency and
consistency across similar projects [18].

Cons:

Challenges within the Waterfall model revolve around assumptions made during the planning
and design phases. [14] posits that the model presupposes users possess a complete
understanding of project needs, a presumption that may not always align with the delivered
outcomes. Divergent user expectations can necessitate changes or rework, incurring additional

14
costs and time. The linear nature of the Waterfall strategy proves less flexible for adapting to
unforeseen events, with changes challenging to incorporate once the process is underway [14].
This lack of flexibility diminishes its suitability for large and complex projects, as issues surface
only in the testing stage, and the working product is realized in the final stage [19].

Fig. 1 - Elements of Waterfall Project Methodology

Challenges:

Implementing Waterfall methodology encounters hurdles in organizations harnessing technology

and expertise. The method's linear development introduces risks at each stage, lacking
adaptability to changes in the swiftly evolving project landscape [20]. Additionally, the delayed
outcome in the Waterfall approach poses significant challenges, as clients and developers remain
uninformed about project status until completion, intensifying risks and complexities in damage
control. The inability to check the project until completion adds further layers of complexity to
risk management [21].

Usage:

15
Waterfall project management follows a structured procedure, with every project adhering to a
similar pattern. The process typically commences with requirements analysis, followed by
designing, coding, testing, and finally, operations towards project objectives [22].

Requirements: The organization analyzes the requirements, determining the software to

be used.

Design: The organization formulates methods, strategies, and ideas for software
production.

Coding: The organization addresses issues, writes down codes, and finds solutions.

Testing: The organization verifies codes, ensuring functionality without issues.

Operations: The organization organizes codes in a production environment and provides

ongoing support.

Agile Methodology:

In stark contrast to the Waterfall methodology, Agile embraces short development cycles, known
as sprints, promoting continuous improvement in product or service development [4]. Agile, as
outlined by [5], offers a range of benefits, including heightened customer focus, waste reduction,
better control over project outcomes, and flexibility in managing unforeseen circumstances
within a project.

The agile methodology focuses on empowering individuals and establishing their connections
with the project early on, consistently delivering value to the organization. Agile project
management prioritizes offering more value to the organization's priorities in a timely manner
and within the given budget, particularly when the project's risk is lower than its delivery
challenges [23]. In cases where a project has limited primary needs and does not need to adhere
to strict regulations, the agile development method can inspire projects and lead to reduced time
to market [24]. It is particularly beneficial for organizations that operate with flexibility and don't
need to strictly adhere to rules [25].

When a product owner wishes to actively participate in project management, the agile method
facilitates their involvement as part of the project team. The owner can assess product necessities
and contribute to evaluating the product opportunity and its operations [24]. Furthermore, the
agile software development method is helpful for teams seeking innovative approaches in the
production process, exploring elements and necessities creatively [26].

In situations where rapid project delivery is essential, the agile approach is suitable, prioritizing
procedures and results over extensive requirements and documentation [27]. Additionally, the
agile approach is ideal for projects with a flexible budget, enabling quicker market entry with
changes to the financial plan. If the change's impacts are valuable for the organization, the agile

16
strategy is beneficial, acknowledging that implementing valuable features may require additional
time and resources [28].

Agile proves effective for organizations within a short timeframe, offering flexibility in team
procedures that can enhance project opportunities.

Fig. 2 – Agile SDLC

Pros:

Agile methodology, according to [5], offers distinct advantages, notably an increased focus on
customer needs. The iterative nature of Agile allows for continuous improvements in the
development process, minimizing waste and providing better controls over project outcomes.
The flexibility inherent in Agile enables teams to adapt swiftly to unforeseen circumstances,
contributing to project resilience [5].

Cons:

However, Agile is not without its challenges. [6] highlights issues related to poor resource
planning, emphasizing the need for meticulous planning in Agile projects. Additionally, [7]
raises concerns about the lack of extensive documentation of project activities, making it
challenging for project managers to monitor and document all facets of a project effectively.

Implementation Challenges: While the benefits of Agile are apparent, the

implementation of Agile methodologies comes with its own set of challenges.
Transitioning from a traditional Waterfall approach to Agile requires a significant
cultural shift within organizations. Resistance to change, lack of understanding, and the
need for continuous communication can impede the smooth adoption of Agile
methodologies.

17
Cultural Shift: The cultural shift required for Agile adoption involves a change in
mindset, collaboration, and openness to adaptability. Organizations accustomed to rigid
structures may find it challenging to embrace the flexibility inherent in Agile
methodologies. Training programs and change management strategies become essential
to ensure a smooth transition.

Resistance to Change: Resistance to change is a common challenge when introducing

Agile methodologies. Employees, accustomed to traditional project management
approaches, may resist the shift towards iterative and collaborative methods. Addressing
this resistance involves effective communication, highlighting the benefits of Agile, and
involving employees in the transition process.

Understanding Agile: A crucial challenge in Agile implementation is ensuring that all

team members, from executives to developers, have a clear understanding of Agile
principles and practices. Training programs, workshops, and continuous learning
initiatives are vital to equip teams with the necessary knowledge and skills to thrive in an
Agile environment.

Communication Challenges: Effective communication is the backbone of Agile

methodologies. The need for regular communication, feedback loops, and collaboration
can be challenging in large organizations or those with distributed teams. Overcoming
communication challenges requires the use of agile tools, establishing clear
communication channels, and fostering a culture of transparency.

Comparative Analysis: A comparative analysis of the Waterfall and Agile methodologies

reveals distinctive strengths and weaknesses.

Stakeholder Involvement: Waterfall methodology encourages stakeholder involvement

during the initial planning and design phases, ensuring a clear understanding of
deliverables. In contrast, Agile methodology maintains ongoing stakeholder engagement
throughout the iterative development process, fostering adaptability to changing
requirements [8].

Project Progress Measurement: The Waterfall model provides a comprehensive view of

project progress due to predefined opportunities, minimizing chances of delay. Agile's
adaptability allows for ongoing progress measurement, aligning with changing project
dynamics [18].

Flexibility: Waterfall's linear nature makes it less flexible for unforeseen events and
changes. Agile's iterative approach and flexibility enable teams to adapt swiftly,
addressing changes as they arise [14].

18
 Resource Planning: Both methodologies face challenges related to resource planning.
Waterfall requires meticulous planning upfront, while Agile demands ongoing resource
flexibility to adapt to changing project needs [6].

Documentation: Waterfall's comprehensive documentation aids in monitoring project

activities but may be deemed cumbersome. Agile's minimalistic documentation may pose
difficulties for project managers in monitoring and documenting various activities within
a project. The iterative and collaborative nature of Agile may result in less formalized
documentation, making it imperative for teams to find a balance between agility and
maintaining a comprehensive record of project activities.

Case Study: Insurance Company in Saudi Arabia

This case study pertains to a real insurance company in Saudi Arabia with a workforce of 300
employees playing a crucial role in project delivery. Ranked among the top 5 insurers locally, the
company offers various insurance types for individuals and corporations. The utilization of the
waterfall strategy posed challenges, including project delivery delays, difficulty in understanding
requirements, potential project failure, and the inability to modify stable requirements or coding.
The company, recognizing the need for change, initiated new methods and objectives in 2020,
transitioning from the waterfall approach to an agile approach.

The shift involved considerations such as team and project size, project requirements, company
reliability, and accommodating changes requested by the product owner during project
execution. While transitioning from Waterfall to agile presented challenges for the entire
company, particularly the IT department overseeing all projects, the company aimed for a more
effective project delivery. Employee learning and training played a vital role in adopting the
agile method, encouraging a shift in thinking. Focusing on the benefits, effective communication,
and involving the project owner were key aspects of this transition. The agile method proved
advantageous, particularly when regular communication among project participants ensured a
clear understanding of the project's objectives.

Fig. 3 - Benefits of applying Agile Methodology

19
In the discussion, the analysis emphasized the importance of identifying measures applicable to
projects in the insurance industry. Findings from the survey suggested that, out of the two project
methodologies, agile was considered more suitable and useful in many aspects. The flexibility it
offered and its efficiency in completing projects were highlighted, along with its effectiveness in
achieving quality-related project outcomes. Combining primary data with secondary data
enhanced the reliability of the research.

Figure 4 illustrated the workflow of an insurance company applying the agile methodology in its
projects. The process initiated with gathering requirements, involving stakeholders, followed by
creating an adjustable plan led by a senior project manager. Team members were assigned
specific responsibilities within set timeframes for each phase. Designers then created UI/UX
interfaces based on prototypes, subject to stakeholder reviews and modifications. The product or
service development phase aimed to deliver a workable product, allowing developers to add
more sprints for improvement. Testing, validation, and verification occurred in the testing
environment, with fixes and changes evaluated by the project manager. The agile team supported
stakeholders throughout the production phase, ensuring a successful product launch and
considering customer experience at every iteration step.

Fig. 4 - Agile Workflow of an Insurance Company

This comprehensive literature review provides valuable insights into the secondary research
surrounding Waterfall and Agile methodologies in the context of project quality management.
By synthesizing findings from various studies and incorporating real-world case studies, it sheds
light on the nuanced strengths, challenges, and contextual considerations associated with each
methodology.

The Waterfall methodology's structured approach, sequential stages, and emphasis on

comprehensive planning and design have proven beneficial in certain contexts. However, its

20
rigidity and limited adaptability to changes pose challenges, particularly in the dynamic
landscape of contemporary project management.

On the other hand, Agile methodologies, with their iterative nature, customer focus, and
flexibility, offer advantages in adapting to changing project requirements. However, challenges
related to documentation, resistance to change, and the need for effective communication must
be addressed for successful Agile implementation.

The comparative analysis highlights that the choice between Waterfall and Agile is not a one-
size-fits-all decision. It depends on factors such as project size, organizational structure, and
team qualities. The literature underscores the importance of considering contextual elements and
tailoring the methodology to the specific needs of the project.

As organizations navigate the complexities of project management, understanding the intricacies

of Waterfall and Agile methodologies becomes crucial. This literature review serves as a
foundation for further exploration and empirical studies, encouraging a deeper understanding of
the evolving landscape of project management methodologies.

21
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW II

Effective project management holds significant importance for any organization as it validates
the project's estimation, defines how it will be executed and delivered, establishes the timeline,
and determines the cost through the collaborative efforts of the project management team. It
ensures that the undertaken project adds genuine value to the organization's opportunities.
Improved project management guarantees the alignment of the project's key objectives with the
strategic goals of the organization. By aiding organizations in establishing precise plans to
achieve strategic objectives and goals, project management plays a crucial role in confirming the
existence of a well-structured approach. Without proper project management, there is a risk of
teams working without accurate information and data, neglecting the predefined methods
established prior to project initiation.

Project management is crucial as it provides direction and leadership within a project. The
absence of project management can lead to a lack of guidance, control, and purpose. The
guidance from senior leadership to team members empowers them to excel in their project roles,
offering vision, motivation, training, and inspiration for the team to deliver their best
performance. Hence, in the field of project management, various established approaches have
been employed over time, with two prominent ones being agile project management and
waterfall project management.

In project management, the Waterfall approach entails dividing a project into distinct and
sequential stages, where each stage commences only after the completion of the preceding one.
This method represents the most traditional way of managing a project, where team members
work linearly towards a predetermined end goal. Through this approach, each project participant
has a clearly defined role, and stages or objectives are not anticipated to change. Team members
operate efficiently, mindful of their roles and diligently completing their assigned tasks [29].

Agile Project management is an iterative strategy designed to oversee the development of

software, addressing constant challenges and integrating customer feedback. It operates through
short project cycles, continuous analysis, and adaptation, concurrently covering the work of
multiple teams [30]. This approach is beneficial for individuals working autonomously, allowing
them to follow their preferred methods rather than adhering to a linear approach. The primary
objective of the agile strategy is to provide benefits throughout the entire operation, not just at
the project's conclusion. Agile projects emphasize showcasing core values such as faith,
authorization, flexibility, and relationship performance [31].

Agile methodologies gain popularity for their emphasis on quick development cycles,
transparency, and heightened efficiency (Singer, 2022). According to the Standish Group report
(The-Standish-Group, 2020), Agile projects outperform Waterfall projects, with over 40%

22
success compared to less than 15% for Waterfall in 2020. Conversely, Waterfall projects face a
higher failure rate at around 30%, while Agile projects experience a lower failure rate of 10%.

Project failures, common to both methodologies, often stem from poor project management,
including time constraints, misunderstood requirements, and communication issues. A 2019
TrustRadius.com study echoes the trend, indicating a higher confidence level in the success of
Agile (42%) over Waterfall projects (26%) (PremierAgile, 2023). This reflects a growing
preference for Agile methodologies in contemporary project management.

Fig. 5 – Agile vs Waterfall Success Level

Transitioning from Waterfall to Agile: A Comprehensive Review

Previous studies have extensively documented the transition from traditional Waterfall
methodologies to Agile frameworks, recognizing the evolving landscape of project management.
A summary of key studies is presented in Table, capturing insights into the challenges, benefits,
and strategies employed during this transition.

Mixed Approaches:

Kuusinen et al. (2016) proposed a mixed approach that combines aspects of Waterfall and Agile
methodologies. The focus is on performing decomposition tasks or functions in a Waterfall
manner while adhering to Agile concepts. This hybrid model aims to leverage the structured
nature of Waterfall alongside the flexibility and iterative development of Agile.

Semi-Structured Framework:

Richter et al. (2016) explored the application of Agile as a semi-structured framework,

emphasizing a bottom-up change approach. This involves introducing Agile practices gradually
within a traditionally Waterfall-oriented company. The semi-structured framework allows for a
more flexible and adaptive transition, aligning with the existing organizational structure.

Delphi Technique and Surveys:

23
Dima and Maassen (2018) utilized the Delphi technique, coupled with surveys and interviews, to
identify prevalent software development methods in the IT industry. The findings highlighted a
growing trend favoring Agile methodologies due to their ability to swiftly meet changing
consumer demands. However, challenges such as increased pressure on team members were
acknowledged.

Exploratory Case Study:

Kasauli et al. (2020) conducted an exploratory case study focused on a sizable systems
engineering firm transitioning to Agile. The study identified challenges related to developers'
awareness of changing requirements, managing these requirements, and a lack of fundamental
Agile knowledge like user stories. Potential solutions were suggested to address these issues,
emphasizing the importance of adequate training and awareness programs.

Assessment of Agile Methodology Capabilities:

Fagarasan et al. (2021) and Almeida and Simões (2019) assessed the capabilities of Agile
methodologies within a Waterfall software development context. The evaluation considered
factors such as predictability, practicability, and intricacy. The findings indicated that Scrum
emerged as the most preferred Agile methodology due to its ability to handle complex issues and
adapt quickly to changing market conditions.

Effect on Software Development, Developers, and Project Management:

Wafa et al. (2022) investigated the total effect of Agile methods on software development,
developers, and project management dimensions. The study, conducted in Pakistan's IT industry,
revealed a strong correlation between applying Agile methods and achieving project success.
The critical dependence on Agile methods for project quality, client satisfaction, cost control,
and timely delivery was highlighted.

Quality-Focused Environment:

Saarikallio and Tyrväinen (2022) addressed the integration of Agile methods within a quality-
focused environment. The study, implemented in an established company with a complex
structure, demonstrated that interventions significantly improved quality. The research argued
that Agile methodologies, when combined with a quality-focused environment, are crucial for
advancing the software industry.

Agile Transformations and Potential Pitfalls:

KnowledgeHut (2023) emphasized the potential benefits of Agile transformations when

implemented effectively, contributing to organizational responsiveness and flexibility. However,
as highlighted by ProductPlan (2023), many firms face challenges midway through aggressive
full-scale Agile transformations. Failures can occur due to improper application of Agile

24
techniques, lack of management support, a mismatch between chosen approaches and
organizational needs, and rushing the transformation process.

The transition from Waterfall to Agile methodologies is a complex and multifaceted process, as
evidenced by the diverse studies summarized in Table. The mixed approaches, semi-structured
frameworks, and assessments of Agile capabilities within Waterfall contexts underscore the
flexibility and adaptability required during this paradigm shift.

Challenges such as the pressure on team members, lack of awareness, and the need for a quality-
focused environment highlight the intricacies of transitioning to Agile. These challenges
necessitate thoughtful strategies, training programs, and organizational support to ensure a
smooth and successful transformation.

As organizations embark on Agile transformations, learning from the experiences and insights of
previous studies becomes imperative. The nuanced understanding provided by these studies
contributes to a holistic perspective, guiding organizations through the intricacies of transitioning
from traditional Waterfall methodologies to the dynamic world of Agile project management.

Fig 6. Summary of the recent literature on transition from Waterfall to Agile

25
Decision Tree for Methodology Selection

1. Project Complexity: The complexity of a project is a crucial factor influencing the choice
between Waterfall and Agile methodologies. For simple projects or incremental improvements to
existing products, the structured nature of the Waterfall methodology proves effective.
Conversely, Agile's emphasis on communication and collaboration makes it a superior choice for
complicated projects requiring flexibility and input from various stakeholders. The decision tree
suggests a thorough analysis of project requirements to determine the most suitable approach.

2. Clarity of Requirements: The clarity of project requirements is another determining factor.

In situations where customers are well-versed with every requirement from the project's outset,
the Waterfall methodology excels. Its rigid structure ensures that predefined regulations and
deliverables are met. On the other hand, if project requirements are not fully known at the
beginning, Agile's iterative approach accommodates evolving requirements, making it a
preferred choice.

3. Time Constraints: Time constraints play a crucial role in methodology selection. Waterfall,
with its predefined schedule, is ideal when strict timelines are essential. However, if timelines
allow for flexibility, Agile's iterative process, despite potential challenges in predicting
completion dates, proves advantageous by delivering software faster.

4. Budget Constraints: Similar to time constraints, budget limitations influence methodology

selection. The Waterfall methodology, with its meticulous planning and cost predictability,
aligns well with limited budgets. Conversely, Agile's adaptability and iterative nature are better
suited for scenarios where financial resources are ample or not explicitly restricted.

5. Customer Involvement Level: The level of customer involvement is a critical aspect. Agile
thrives when customers actively participate in the development process, contributing to iterative
refinements. In contrast, Waterfall involves less customer engagement during the development
process, making it suitable for projects where customer involvement is limited or less integral to
the project's success.

6. Team Collaboration Level: The degree of teamwork and collaboration required is a key
consideration. Agile places a strong emphasis on team collaboration and communication,
fostering a dynamic development environment. In contrast, Waterfall allows developers to work
more autonomously, each responsible for specific project components. The decision tree prompts
project managers to evaluate the preferred level of collaboration within their teams.

7. No Magic Solution: The decision tree reinforces the understanding that no methodology
serves as a "magic solution" for all project types. Each methodology has its strengths and is best

26
suited for specific project categories meeting predetermined criteria. Failure to align project
conditions with the chosen methodology may result in suboptimal outcomes.

Fig. 7 - Decision Tree to select if Agile or Waterfall Methodology is more suitable

The Hybrid Approach

In the dynamic landscape of software development, the choice between Agile and Waterfall
methodologies is often framed as a binary decision. However, as illuminated by the decision tree
analysis, the multifaceted nature of projects demands a more nuanced approach. The hybrid
software development methodology emerges as a strategic response to this complexity, offering
a flexible framework that integrates elements of both Agile and Waterfall methodologies based
on project-specific requirements.

The Necessity of a Hybrid Approach:

The discourse surrounding Agile and Waterfall methodologies acknowledges that neither is
universally applicable to all software projects. Recognizing this, there is a growing advocacy for
adopting a hybrid software development methodology, where the choice between Agile and
Waterfall is context-dependent, allowing for flexibility and adaptability (Signoretti et al., 2020).
This section delves into the nuances of the hybrid approach, exploring its adoption, strategies,
and the evolving landscape of hybrid software development.

Strategies for Hybrid Methodology Adoption:

27
Fagarasan et al. (2021) provide insights into the adoption strategies for the hybrid methodology
within software development firms. Two distinct paths are outlined:

Organizational Level Agile Adoption: In cases where firms are new to software
development, embracing Agile at the organizational level to establish a delivery model is
recommended. This approach aligns with the principles of Agile from the outset,
fostering a culture of adaptability and client-centricity.

Hybrid Integration for Established Firms: Established firms with existing successful
delivery methodologies are advised to integrate a hybrid approach. This involves
combining traditional methods that have proven effective with Agile methodology,
presenting a harmonized solution that encapsulates the best of both worlds.

Levels of Hybrid Development:

Küpper et al. (2018) introduce three common levels in the evolution of hybrid software
development methods:

1. Procedures:
• Encompass the range of tasks in the software development life cycle (SDLC).
• Define guidelines for task execution by the development team.
• Reflects the day-to-day operations of the development team within the hybrid model.
2. Frameworks:
• Include one or more techniques and approaches defining SDLC management.
• Provide a structured framework guiding the team through the development process ,
balancing Agile and Waterfall principles.
3. Context:
• Pertains to overall success criteria derived from project goals.
• Contextualizes the hybrid methodology within the broader project objectives i.e
encapsulates the project's overarching objectives and success metrics, ensuring
alignment with the chosen hybrid methodology.

Essential Components of the Hybrid Methodology:

Leong et al. (2023) emphasize the integration of three essential components—people,

procedures, and organizational elements—to improve the chances of success in Agile
development. This amalgamation has led to the development of a new project management
paradigm, the hybrid methodology. Kirpitsas and Pachidis (2022) further elaborate on the
components, particularly in terms of user stories prioritization, iterative development, and testing
phases. The subsequent iterative development, aligned with agile principles, allows for the
gradual expansion of requirements.

28
Unlike the rigid sequential nature of Waterfall, a hybrid methodology does not mandate waiting
for one phase to conclude before commencing the next (Leong et al., 2023). This flexibility
enables the independent development of project components and modules, aligning with agile
principles. Simultaneously, the incorporation of some of the structured aspects of the Waterfall
methodology ensures well-managed documentation, lower project costs, and faster development
(Morgan, 2018).

Hybrid Methodology in Action:

Kirpitsas and Pachidis (2022) shed light on the practical implementation of hybrid methodology.
The process involves creating a prioritized product backlog of user stories after the design phase,
supporting the Agile process. The team engages in iterative development, primarily following
Agile principles, and expands on requirements gradually. Unit testing occurs during sprints,
while systems integration testing and user acceptance testing follow iterative development
completion. The resulting code, along with necessary documentation, can then be delivered to
customers or put into production.
The specific ways in which the hybrid methodology contributes to and optimizes project
performance are:

1. Increased Flexibility and Responsiveness:

Agile Adaptability: The Agile component within the hybrid methodology introduces
flexibility and adaptability to changing project dynamics. With iterative development cycles,
the team can respond promptly to evolving requirements, ensuring that the final product
aligns closely with stakeholder expectations.

2. Efficient Resource Utilization:

Waterfall Discipline: The structured upfront planning characteristic of Waterfall, when

integrated into the hybrid model, provides a disciplined framework. This ensures optimal
resource utilization by defining clear project phases, milestones, and deliverables. The
organized approach minimizes the risk of resource misallocation.

3. Quicker Delivery of Small Components:

Agile Iterative Development: The hybrid methodology's Agile component facilitates the rapid
development of small software components. This iterative approach allows for quicker
delivery, meeting the growing demand for swift software releases. Customers benefit from
receiving tangible outputs at regular intervals, enhancing overall project satisfaction.

4. Lower Project Costs:

Efficiency of Agile Practices: Agile practices within the hybrid model contribute to cost
reduction. The iterative nature of Agile minimizes the need for extensive rework, reducing

29
 overall project expenses. Additionally, Agile's emphasis on collaboration and communication
streamlines processes, further optimizing resource costs.

5. Effective Documentation Management:

Waterfall Emphasis on Documentation: The Waterfall component ensures comprehensive

documentation at each project phase. This meticulous documentation management is crucial
for maintaining project transparency, aiding in issue tracking, and facilitating knowledge
transfer. Proper documentation contributes to the overall efficiency of the development
process.

6. Improved Visibility and Collaboration:

Hybrid Methodology's Collaborative Nature: The hybrid methodology, by combining Agile's

collaborative ethos and Waterfall's structured approach, fosters improved visibility and
collaboration. The team is equipped to work cohesively, reducing reporting hassles and
enhancing communication. This collaborative environment is conducive to increased
productivity.

7. Tailoring Methodology to Project Requirements:

Hybrid Methodology's Customizability: The hybrid approach allows project managers to

tailor the methodology to the specific requirements of each project. For projects with well-
defined and known requirements, the Waterfall component can be emphasized, while Agile
can be leveraged for projects with evolving or unclear requirements. This adaptability
ensures the most suitable methodology is applied to optimize project outcomes.

8. Facilitating Continuous Improvement:

Agile Retrospectives: The hybrid methodology encourages continuous improvement through

Agile retrospectives. Regular reflections on team performance and project processes enable
the identification of opportunities for enhancement. This iterative improvement cycle
contributes to ongoing project optimization.

Advantages of Hybrid Methodology:

The fusion of Agile and Waterfall methodologies in a hybrid approach offers distinct advantages.
Unlike rigid methodologies that require sequential progression, a hybrid methodology allows for
independent development of project components and modules. This key Agile feature ensures
quicker initiation of subsequent phases, contributing to the overall agility of the project (Khan
and Akbar, 2022).

Furthermore, the hybrid methodology leverages the strengths of both Agile and Waterfall,
resulting in lower project costs, faster development, and well-managed documentation (Morgan,
2018). It addresses the changing landscape of project management, where collaboration and
30
visibility across diverse tasks are crucial. According to AdobeTeam (2022), 44% of project
directors adopt a hybrid methodology to enhance team productivity, expedite production, provide
precise metrics to stakeholders, and foster a conducive work environment.

Fig. 8 - Summary of the recent literature on combining Waterfall and Agile

Tailoring Hybrid Methodology to Project and Team Needs:

Boersma (2022) emphasizes the flexibility of the hybrid methodology, allowing teams to blend
structured, waterfall elements with agile principles that align with their preferences and project
requirements. The approach accommodates frequent retrospectives for continuous improvement,
ensuring that the methodology is tailored to the specific needs of the team or project. Success lies
in selecting a methodology that resonates with the team members and the specific project
requirements (Boersma, 2022). The hybrid methodology offers a solution that supports mixed
methodologies, enhancing overall productivity and visibility (Prenner et al., 2022). This
methodology empowers teams with the autonomy to choose their working styles, contributing to
increased productivity (Özkan and Mishra, 2019).

The integration of Agile and Waterfall methodologies within the hybrid project development
approach emerges as a comprehensive strategy for optimizing project performance. By
strategically leveraging the strengths of each methodology, teams can achieve increased
flexibility, efficient resource utilization, quicker delivery of components, and lower project costs.
The hybrid methodology's emphasis on documentation, improved visibility, and collaboration

31
enhances overall project efficiency. Furthermore, the customizability of the hybrid approach
allows project managers to align the methodology with specific project requirements, ensuring a
tailored and effective approach. The inherent flexibility of the hybrid model, combined with its
ability to integrate the strengths of both methodologies, positions it as a pragmatic choice for
optimizing project performance. As the thesis progresses, a detailed analysis of how this hybrid
approach contributes to project success will be explored

32
CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY

This section articulates the chosen research methodology for investigating and optimizing project
performance through the lens of hybrid project management methodologies, specifically Agile
and Waterfall. The decisions made regarding research design, data collection methods,
prospective data analysis, practical considerations, and acknowledged limitations are outlined.

In the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding of Agile and Waterfall project management

methodologies, a primary research focus, includes surveys, interviews, and testing. Additionally,
a notable aspect of the primary research methodology is the exploration of a hybrid approach that
combines elements of both Agile and Waterfall methodologies.

Choice of Research Methodology

Methodological Approach:

Mixed-Methods Design: The research adopts a mixed-methods approach, acknowledging the

multifaceted nature of project management methodologies and the need for a holistic
investigation. This design integrates quantitative metrics with qualitative insights to capture both
the numerical trends and the nuanced experiences of project teams. It recognizes that project
success is not solely determined by numerical metrics but is deeply influenced by contextual
factors, communication dynamics, and stakeholder interactions.

Justification:

Balancing Depth and Breadth: Hybrid project management is inherently complex, requiring
both quantitative metrics for performance evaluation and qualitative understanding of contextual
factors. The mixed-methods approach strikes a balance, providing depth and breadth to the
investigation.

Triangulation for Validity: By triangulating quantitative findings with qualitative insights, the
study aims to enhance the validity and credibility of the results. The convergence of multiple
data sources strengthens the overall robustness of the research. This strategic approach
strengthens the overall robustness of the research outcomes, providing a more reliable foundation
for drawing conclusions and making recommendations.

Comprehensive Insight: he hybrid nature of the study topic, delving into both Agile and
Waterfall methodologies and their intersection in the hybrid approach, necessitates a
comprehensive research strategy. The quantitative aspect captures numerical trends and

33
statistical significance, while the qualitative aspect delves into the intricacies, providing depth
and context.

Holistic Understanding: Project performance optimization is inherently multifaceted, influenced

by a myriad of factors. The mixed-methods approach fosters a holistic understanding by
recognizing the need for both quantitative metrics and qualitative depth. It acknowledges that a
holistic exploration is essential to capture the full spectrum of project management intricacies,
providing valuable insights that extend beyond numerical indicators. This aligns with the
complex and adaptive nature of hybrid PMM, offering a robust foundation for meaningful
analysis and interpretation.

Rejection of Other Methodologies:

Given the dual nature of the research topic, relying solely on quantitative or qualitative
methodologies would oversimplify the complexity of PMM. Purely quantitative approaches,
while providing numerical data, may miss the contextual richness and stakeholder perspectives
crucial for a nuanced understanding. On the other hand, purely qualitative approaches, while
capturing depth, lack the statistical rigor necessary for generalizable insights.

Purely Quantitative Approaches: Exclusively quantitative methodologies were dismissed as

inadequate within the context of our thesis, recognizing the qualitative intricacies embedded in
project management. Metrics alone may not sufficiently capture the nuanced factors contributing
to the success or failure of projects.

Purely Qualitative Approaches: Sole reliance on qualitative methods was deemed insufficient,
as it lacks the statistical robustness necessary to derive generalizable insights. Our goal is to
strike a balance between the in-depth understanding afforded by qualitative analysis and the
broader perspectives provided through quantitative methods. This approach ensures a
comprehensive exploration of hybrid project management methodologies.

Primary Data Collection Methods

The primary data collection methods encompass in-depth engagement with key stakeholders
involved in project management. Surveys will be designed to gather quantitative data, offering
numerical insights into preferences, success rates, and challenges. Interviews, on the other hand,
will delve into qualitative aspects, providing a deeper understanding of the practical implications
of adopting Agile or Waterfall methodologies in real-world projects.

Insights from Stakeholders:

Structured Surveys: Quantitative data will be collected through structured surveys distributed to
project managers and team members. The survey design encompasses both closed-ended
questions for quantitative analysis and open-ended questions to elicit qualitative insights.

34
In-Depth Interviews: Qualitative insights will be gathered through in-depth interviews with
select project managers and industry experts. This approach allows for a detailed exploration of
experiences, challenges, and perceptions related to hybrid project management.

Real-time Project Evaluation:

Testing: Incorporating testing as part of primary data collection allows for a real-time evaluation
of project outcomes. Key performance indicators, efficiency metrics, and other relevant data can
be assessed to gauge the success and performance of projects under both methodologies.

Identification of Best Practices:

Surveys and Interviews: Through a combination of surveys and interviews, you can identify best
practices that contribute to project success. Stakeholders can share their experiences with
specific methodologies, highlighting practices that have proven effective in optimizing project
performance.

Challenges and Bottlenecks:

Interviews: In-depth interviews provide a platform for stakeholders to express challenges and
bottlenecks encountered during project execution. Understanding these pain points is crucial for
proposing strategies to optimize project performance.

Feedback on Hybrid Approach:

Surveys and Interviews: For the hybrid approach, collecting feedback through surveys and
interviews helps in understanding how the integration of Agile and Waterfall elements impacts
project performance. This insight can guide recommendations for optimizing the hybrid model.

Comparative Analysis:

Surveys, Interviews, and Testing: The primary data collection methods enable a detailed
comparative analysis between Agile and Waterfall methodologies. By gathering feedback on
various aspects such as adaptability, project planning, and team collaboration, you can draw
meaningful conclusions on the performance of each methodology.

Customized Recommendations:

Surveys and Interviews: Stakeholder input provides the basis for generating customized
recommendations for optimizing project performance. These recommendations can be tailored to
address specific challenges identified during the primary data collection process.

Continuous Improvement Strategies:

Surveys and Testing: Ongoing surveys and testing allow for the implementation of continuous
improvement strategies. By regularly collecting data, project managers can adapt methodologies

35
based on real-time feedback, fostering a culture of continuous improvement in project
performance.

Secondary Data Collection

Secondary data, a crucial component of this research, will be meticulously gathered through an
extensive literature review that transcends traditional boundaries. The literature review will span
academic and industry sources, delving into scholarly articles, journals, and reputable industry
reports. This multifaceted approach ensures a thorough understanding of the theoretical
underpinnings and practical applications of project management methodologies.

Theoretical Framework:

The secondary data gathered from the literature review will play a pivotal role in shaping the
theoretical framework of the study. It will provide a foundation for understanding the historical
evolution of project management methodologies, tracing their roots and evolutionary trajectories.
This historical context is essential for contextualizing the current state of hybrid project
management, including the interplay between Agile and Waterfall methodologies.

Enriching Insights:

The secondary research strategy extends beyond the confines of traditional literature reviews. It
involves a meticulous exploration of the latest industry reports to extract real-world insights and
benchmarks. Case studies, showcasing the application of project management methodologies in
diverse settings, will be scrutinized to extract valuable lessons and identify patterns of success or
challenges.

Emerging Trends:

Incorporating emerging trends in project management methodologies is vital for maintaining the
relevance and currency of the study. The secondary data collection process will actively seek out
the latest developments, innovations, and paradigm shifts in the project management landscape.
This forward-looking approach ensures that the research is not only rooted in historical
perspectives but also anticipates and responds to the evolving dynamics of the field.

Industry Perspectives:

The secondary data collection, especially through industry reports, provides a bridge between
academic theories and real-world practices. Insights from industry perspectives offer a pragmatic
dimension to the study, aligning theoretical frameworks with the practical challenges and
opportunities encountered by organizations employing hybrid project management
methodologies.

36
Diversity of Sources:

Recognizing the multifaceted nature of project management, the secondary data collection
process emphasizes diversity in sources. Academic literature provides theoretical foundations,
while industry reports, case studies, and emerging trends offer a more practical and
contemporary outlook. This diversity ensures a well-rounded and comprehensive understanding
of the subject matter.

Integration with Primary Research:

The insights gleaned from the secondary data collection process will seamlessly integrate with
the primary research findings. This integration serves to validate and contextualize the empirical
data collected through surveys, interviews, and testing. By drawing on a rich tapestry of
secondary sources, the study aims to fortify its analytical depth and contribute valuable
perspectives to the ongoing discourse on hybrid project management methodologies.

Prospective Data Analysis

Quantitative Analysis:

Statistical Techniques: Survey data, collected through a quantitative method, will undergo
rigorous statistical analysis Various statistical tools including regression analysis and correlation
studies, will be employed to identify patterns, correlations, and significant relationships within
the quantitative dataset. This will allow for a nuanced examination of the numerical aspects
related to Agile and Waterfall methodologies.

Qualitative Analysis:

Thematic Analysis: Qualitative data from interviews will undergo thematic analysis, identifying
recurring themes and narratives. This qualitative approach ensures a nuanced understanding of
the qualitative aspects associated with hybrid project management. This involves categorizing
responses into key themes, identifying relationships between different qualitative variables, and
drawing insights from the rich narrative data. The qualitative analysis aims to provide depth to
the study by exploring the context, motivations, and challenges associated with the adoption of
specific methodologies.

Practical Considerations

Ethical Considerations: The research will adhere to ethical standards, ensuring informed
consent, confidentiality, and anonymity for participants. Ethical guidelines will be strictly
followed throughout the data collection process.

Resource Optimization: Considering the constraints of time and resources, the survey and
interview processes will be efficiently managed to optimize data collection within the available
timeframe.
37
Mixed-Methods Approach: The adoption of a mixed-methods approach ensures a
comprehensive investigation that goes beyond mere quantitative or qualitative insights. By
integrating both types of data, the study aims to achieve a more holistic understanding of the
complexities surrounding project management methodologies.

Limitations of the Methodology

Generalizability: While the mixed-methods approach provides depth, generalizing findings to all
project management contexts may have limitations. The diverse nature of projects and industries
may require tailored methodologies.

Subjectivity in Qualitative Analysis: Thematic analysis of qualitative data introduces a degree of

subjectivity. Despite efforts to maintain objectivity, interpretations may be influenced by
researchers' perspectives.

Reliance on Existing Literature: The study acknowledges the potential bias introduced by
relying on existing literature. While efforts will be made to access the latest and most relevant
sources, the dynamic nature of the software development field may result in emerging
methodologies not fully captured in the analysis.

Scope Limitations: The scope of the study is confined to Agile and Waterfall methodologies due
to their prominence. However, it is important to recognize that other methodologies may be
emerging and evolving, contributing to the ongoing discourse in project management.

Minimizing Potential Biases in Primary Data Collection: This methodology addresses potential
biases through clear protocols for survey administration, standardized interview questions, and
rigorous testing procedures. These measures contribute to the reliability of the data, ensuring a
robust foundation for analysis.

Integration of Hybrid Approach: The integration of a hybrid approach into the primary research
methodology adds a layer of complexity and depth to the comparative analysis of Agile and
Waterfall methodologies. It considers the advantages of flexibility, risk mitigation, and tailored
solutions while weighing considerations related to project-specific adaptation, communication,
and training.

This methodology addresses how potential biases in primary data collection will be minimized.
Clear protocols for survey administration, standardized interview questions, and rigorous testing
procedures can contribute to the reliability of the data. The combination of quantitative metrics,
qualitative insights, and real-time testing positions this research to make significant contributions
to the field of project management.

The integration of a hybrid approach into the primary research methodology adds a layer of
complexity and depth to the comparative analysis of Agile and Waterfall methodologies. The
advantages of flexibility, risk mitigation, and tailored solutions are weighed against

38
considerations related to project-specific adaptation, communication, and training. The hybrid
approach acknowledges the dynamic nature of project management and seeks to provide insights
into how a balanced integration of Agile and Waterfall practices can enhance project
performance and outcomes.

39
CHAPTER FOUR – FINDINGS / ANALYSIS / DISCUSSION

4.1 FINDINGS
The initial phase of our investigation involved gauging respondents' awareness of Agile and
Waterfall methodologies. From the 82 participants, a significant 78% claimed familiarity with
both approaches, indicating a substantial understanding within the project management
community. This widespread awareness underscores the relevance of our study in a professional
context, where knowledge of diverse project management methodologies is essential.

Fig. 9 - Methodology Knowledge

Project Methodology Preferences

To delve deeper into the respondents' project management preferences, The second question
focused on respondents' preferred methodology. This part of survey inquired about the choice of
methodologies across projects. The results revealed a diverse spectrum of preferences:

Hybrid Approach (44%): Nearly half of the respondents expressed a propensity for a
hybrid approach, indicating a strategic alignment with the versatility offered by a
combination of Waterfall and Agile methodologies.

Agile as Primary Methodology (35%): A significant proportion, 35%, indicated a

preference for Agile as their primary methodology. This finding aligns with industry
trends favoring iterative and collaborative practices.

Fig. 10 - Used methodology

40
 Exclusive Use of Waterfall (13%): A minority, comprising 13% of respondents, reported
exclusive utilization of the Waterfall methodology. While a relatively small percentage,
this group signifies that there are still scenarios or projects where the structured, linear
nature of Waterfall is deemed appropriate.

Timely Completion with Waterfall Methodology

The third question explored respondents' views on the timely completion of projects under
Waterfall methodology. Participants were probed regarding their perception of completing
projects on time when employing the Waterfall methodology. The findings reflected mixed
sentiments:

Affirmative Views (40%): Approximately 40% of respondents affirmed the ability of the
Waterfall methodology to ensure timely project completion. This positive view suggests a
belief in the structured and sequential nature of Waterfall, where each phase is completed
before moving on to the next, contributing to overall project efficiency.

Disagreement (26%): In contrast, 26% of respondents expressed disagreement with the

statement about Waterfall's timeliness. This divergence in opinions highlights varying
perspectives within the project management community regarding the efficiency of
Waterfall in meeting project timelines.

Uncertainty (34%): A considerable 34% remained uncertain about the timely completion
facilitated by the Waterfall approach. This uncertainty suggests a level of ambiguity or
lack of consensus among professionals regarding the predictability of project timelines
under the Waterfall methodology.

Fig. 11 - Waterfall Meets Deadline

Timely Completion with Agile Methodology

Contrastingly, the fourth questions explored respondents' views on the timely completion of
projects under Agile methodology. Respondents were asked about their views on the timeliness
of projects completed using the Agile methodology. The outcomes presented a distinct trend:

41
 Positive Perceptions (57%): A notable 57% of respondents asserted that Agile
methodologies significantly contribute to completing projects on time. This positive
perception aligns with Agile principles, emphasizing iterative progress and constant
collaboration, enabling teams to adapt swiftly to changing circumstances.

Uncertainty (29%): Approximately 29% of respondents were uncertain about the impact
of Agile methodologies on timely completion. This uncertainty may stem from the
dynamic and iterative nature of Agile, which may not adhere to traditional project
timelines but rather focuses on delivering incremental value.

Disagreement (13%): A minority of 13% held the belief that Agile methodologies did not
enhance the timeliness of project completion. This dissenting view suggests that, despite
the popularity of Agile, there are professionals who question its efficacy in ensuring
timely project delivery.

Fig. 12 - Agile Meets Deadline

Meeting Business Expectations and Satisfaction

The fifth question aimed to identify the methodology perceived as most suitable for meeting
business expectations and satisfaction. This sought insights into which methodology respondents
believed was better suited for meeting business expectations and ensuring satisfaction.
Noteworthy findings emerged:

Fig. 13 - Meeting business expectations and customer satisfaction methodology

42
 Agile Favored (58.5%): The study found that 58.5% of respondents favored Agile as the
most suitable methodology for fulfilling business expectations. This preference
underscores the industry's recognition of Agile's efficacy in meeting business
requirements and ensuring satisfaction among stakeholders.

Challenges and Issues in the Waterfall Methodology

To gain deeper insights into challenges faced during Waterfall projects, the sixth question
targeted the specific stages where teams encountered issues. The responses revealed critical
points of contention:

Requirement Phase Challenges (30.5%): A significant portion, 30.5%, reported problems

emerging during the requirement phase. This finding suggests that the early stages of
Waterfall projects, where requirements are gathered and documented, pose specific
challenges that need attention.

Implementation Phase Concerns (23%): Another significant group, 23%, highlighted the
implementation phase as a significant area of concern. Issues during implementation may
indicate challenges in translating documented requirements into actionable project
components.

Uncertainty (22%): A notable 22% expressed uncertainty about the specific phase
causing challenges. This ambiguity suggests that, for some respondents, pinpointing the
exact stage of challenges within the Waterfall methodology might be challenging or that
challenges may span multiple phases.

Fig. 14 - Waterfall Phases

Disadvantages of Waterfall Methodology

The seventh question delved into the perceived drawbacks of the Waterfall methodology.
Findings suggested a nuanced understanding among respondents. Noteworthy findings emerged:

Identified Drawbacks (38%): A substantial 38% of respondents identified various

drawbacks associated with the Waterfall methodology. These drawbacks included

43
 inflexibility, challenges in error handling, and an extensive documentation process. This
critical assessment reflects a recognition of the limitations of Waterfall and the need for
addressing these issues in contemporary project management practices.

Fig. 15 - Main Disadvantages of Waterfall methodology

Advantages and Perceptions of Waterfall Methodology

Respondents were then prompted to share their experiences regarding the advantages of using
the Waterfall methodology on their projects in the eight question:

Acknowledged Advantages (61%): A majority, 61%, acknowledged positive aspects

associated with the Waterfall methodology. Despite its drawbacks, Waterfall continues to
offer benefits in certain contexts, as perceived by a significant portion of respondents.

Fig. 16 - Waterfall Definition

Additionally, respondents were asked to select the best characterization of the Waterfall
methodology:

Perceived as Linear and Resource-efficient (68%): A substantial 68% perceived

Waterfall as a linear methodology requiring minimal resources, rendering it beneficial.
This perception aligns with the structured nature of Waterfall, where each phase is
completed before moving on to the next, contributing to resource optimization.

44
Transition from Waterfall to Agile

The research sought to understand the challenges faced during the transition from Waterfall to
Agile methodologies:

Encountered Challenges (68.3%): A notable majority, 68.3% of respondents, reported

encountering challenges during the transition from Waterfall to Agile. This highlights the
complexities associated with shifting from a structured, sequential approach to a more
adaptive and iterative methodology.

A dedicated inquiry into the specific challenges faced revealed that the predominant challenge
was the issue of frequent changes. This resonates with the inherent differences between
Waterfall's structured approach and Agile's iterative and flexible nature. The findings suggest
that organizations moving from Waterfall to Agile need to navigate challenges related to
adapting to change and embracing a more dynamic project environment.

Fig. 17 - Faced Challenges

Comparative Analysis: Agile vs. Waterfall

In line with the research objective to compare Agile and Waterfall methodologies, respondents
provided valuable insights:

Efficiency of Agile (67%): A substantial 67% believed that Agile methodology is more
efficient in project delivery compared to Waterfall. This perception aligns with Agile's
focus on flexibility, collaboration, and delivering incremental value, often leading to
faster and more adaptive project outcomes.

45
 Tangible Improvements with Agile (84%): Moreover, 84% identified Agile as a source of
tangible improvements in projects. This endorsement indicates a strong positive
association between Agile practices and positive project outcomes, emphasizing its
effectiveness in real-world scenarios.

Intent to Continue Using Agile: The strong intent expressed by over 85% of respondents
to continue using Agile methodologies indicates a sustained commitment to practices that
emphasize flexibility and collaboration. This high level of commitment signifies that
professionals find value in Agile methodologies and view them as integral to their future
project management endeavors

Recommendations for Mid-size and Large Companies: The overwhelming

recommendation (81%) to use Agile for mid-size and large companies consolidates the
positive sentiment towards Agile methodologies. The recommendation aligns with the
scalability, adaptability, and collaborative nature of Agile, making it a preferred choice
for projects of varying sizes and complexities.

These findings collectively contribute valuable insights into the awareness, preferences,
challenges, and perceived advantages of Waterfall and Agile methodologies within the project
management community. The nuances revealed by respondents provide a rich foundation for the
subsequent analysis and discussion, allowing us to draw meaningful conclusions and
recommendations for optimizing project performance.

46
4.2 ANALYSIS
The analysis phase of our research involves a detailed examination and interpretation of the
findings obtained through surveys and responses from project management professionals. This
section aims to unravel patterns, trends, and correlations within the data to derive meaningful
insights into the dynamics of project management methodologies, specifically Agile and
Waterfall.

Awareness and Preference

The high level of awareness (78%) among respondents regarding both Agile and Waterfall
methodologies sets the stage for understanding their preferences and usage patterns. The broad
familiarity indicates that project management professionals are well-versed in diverse
methodologies, allowing for informed choices based on project requirements.

Preference for a Hybrid Approach (44%):The preference for a hybrid approach, indicated
by 44% of respondents, reflects an acknowledgment of the strengths inherent in both
Agile and Waterfall. The hybrid model provides a flexible framework that can be tailored
to the specific needs of a project, offering the best of both worlds. This finding
underscores the industry's recognition of the value in adapting methodologies to suit the
unique demands of each project.

Popularity of Agile (35%):The popularity of Agile (35%) aligns with industry trends
favoring iterative and collaborative methodologies. The iterative nature of Agile, with its
emphasis on adaptability and responsiveness to change, resonates with professionals
seeking more dynamic project management approaches. Conversely, the relatively lower
preference for Waterfall (13%) suggests a shift away from traditional linear models in
favor of more flexible and adaptive frameworks. This relatively low percentage suggests
a shift in project management preferences towards more adaptive and iterative
methodologies. Waterfall's linear and sequential structure might be perceived as less
accommodating in today's fast-paced and evolving project landscapes.

Timeliness of Project Completion

The second set of questions delved into the temporal aspects of project completion, seeking
insights into the perceived efficacy of both Waterfall and Agile methodologies.

Waterfall Methodology: Regarding the Waterfall methodology, 40% of respondents

expressed confidence in its ability to complete projects on time. This suggests a moderate
level of faith in the structured and sequential nature of Waterfall, where each phase is
completed before moving to the next. However, the fact that 26% disagreed and 34%
were unsure indicates a degree of skepticism and uncertainty among professionals
regarding Waterfall's ability to meet project timelines.

47
 Agile Methodology: In contrast, the respondents' opinions on the timeliness of projects
completed using Agile were notably positive. Over 57% stated that Agile methods
facilitate timely project completion. This aligns with Agile principles, which prioritize
iterative progress and constant collaboration, enabling teams to adapt swiftly to changing
circumstances. The positive perception of Agile's timeliness underscores its effectiveness
in dynamic project environments.

Challenges and Drawbacks

Further exploration of challenges within the Waterfall methodology revealed that 30.5% of
respondents faced issues during the requirement phase, while 23% encountered problems during
implementation. These findings highlight specific pain points within the Waterfall approach,
emphasizing the need for targeted improvements, especially in the early stages of project
development.

Drawbacks of Waterfall (38%): The acknowledgment of drawbacks associated with

Waterfall, such as inflexibility, difficulty in error handling, and an extensive
documentation process by 38% of respondents, corroborates existing critiques of this
methodology acknowledging drawbacks such as inflexibility, difficulty in error handling,
and an extensive documentation process. This identified challenges and drawbacks
underscore the importance of considering alternative approaches, particularly in
situations where flexibility and responsiveness are paramount. These responses shed light
on areas where Waterfall may fall short in meeting modern project management
expectations.

Advantages of Waterfall (61%): On the positive side, 61% of respondents found

advantages in using the Waterfall methodology on their projects. This suggests that,
despite its drawbacks, Waterfall continues to offer benefits, potentially in scenarios
where a linear and well-documented approach is crucial.

Transition from Waterfall to Agile

The challenges reported by 68.3% of respondents during the transition from Waterfall to Agile
shed light on the difficulties faced in adopting a more adaptive and iterative methodology. The
most prominent challenge, identified by respondents, was the issue of frequent changes. This
resonates with the inherent differences between Waterfall's structured approach and Agile's
iterative and flexible nature. The findings suggest that organizations moving from Waterfall to
Agile need to navigate challenges related to adapting to change and embracing a more dynamic
project environment.

Efficiency and Improvements

48
Comparatively, 67% of respondents felt that Agile methodology is more efficient in delivering
projects than Waterfall. This perception aligns with Agile's focus on flexibility, collaboration,
and delivering incremental value, which often leads to faster and more adaptive project
outcomes.

Moreover, 84% identified Agile methodology as a source of tangible improvements in projects.

This endorsement indicates a strong positive association between Agile practices and positive
project outcomes, emphasizing its effectiveness in real-world scenarios.

These findings underscore the positive impact Agile practices have on project outcomes, as
perceived by professionals actively engaged in project management.

Intent to Continue Using Agile

The strong intent expressed by over 85% of respondents to continue using Agile methodologies
indicates a sustained commitment to practices that emphasize flexibility and collaboration. This
high level of commitment signifies that professionals find value in Agile methodologies and
view them as integral to their future project management endeavors.

Recommendations for Mid-size and Large Companies

The overwhelming recommendation (81%) to use Agile for mid-size and large companies
consolidates the positive sentiment towards Agile methodologies. The recommendation aligns
with the scalability, adaptability, and collaborative nature of Agile, making it a preferred choice
for projects of varying sizes and complexities.

Comparative Analysis

The comparative analysis between Waterfall and Agile methodologies reveals a nuanced
landscape of preferences, challenges, and perceived advantages within the project management
community. The findings indicate that while Waterfall continues to be relevant, its limitations,
especially in terms of flexibility and responsiveness, have prompted a growing interest in Agile
and hybrid approaches.

Hybrid Approach: Unveiling the Optimal Synergy

An essential focus of our thesis is on the hybrid approach, which emerges as a dynamic and
promising solution in optimizing project performance. The findings from the survey shed light
on specific aspects that make the hybrid model particularly suitable in contemporary project
management landscapes.

Flexibility in Adaptation (Hybrid Approach):

The preference for a hybrid approach, as indicated by 44% of respondents, goes beyond a mere
acknowledgment of both Agile and Waterfall methodologies. It signifies a strategic recognition

49
of the need for flexibility in project management. The hybrid model allows organizations to
adapt their methodologies based on the unique demands of each project phase. This flexibility in
adaptation becomes crucial in today's rapidly changing business environments.

Balancing Structure and Adaptability:

One of the key strengths of the hybrid approach lies in its ability to strike a balance between the
structured, sequential nature of Waterfall and the adaptive, iterative practices of Agile. This
balance addresses the inherent tension between the need for a well-defined plan and the necessity
to accommodate evolving requirements. The hybrid model allows project managers to tailor their
approaches, ensuring a mix of predictability and adaptability throughout the project lifecycle.

Optimal Resource Utilization:

The hybrid model, by leveraging both Waterfall and Agile elements strategically, enables
optimal resource utilization. In scenarios where certain project phases benefit from a well-
defined plan and documentation (Waterfall), and others require flexibility and collaboration
(Agile), the hybrid approach provides a nuanced solution. This optimization of resources
contributes to enhanced project efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Risk Mitigation and Control:

The findings suggest that the hybrid model offers a robust solution for mitigating risks and
maintaining control. While Agile's flexibility is invaluable, it can be perceived as a potential risk,
especially in environments where strict governance is essential. The hybrid approach allows
organizations to harness the benefits of Agile while ensuring a level of control through defined
processes, documentation, and structured decision-making—a crucial aspect in optimizing
project performance.

Phased Transition and Change Management:

The challenges reported during the transition from Waterfall to Agile, highlighted by 68.3% of
respondents, emphasize the need for a thoughtful and phased approach. The hybrid model
facilitates a smoother transition by allowing organizations to gradually introduce Agile practices
where flexibility is critical. This incremental approach minimizes disruptions, provides room for
change management, and enables teams to acclimate to the iterative and collaborative aspects of
Agile—an important consideration in optimizing overall project performance.

Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration:

Collaboration with stakeholders is a key success factor in project management. The hybrid model
integrates collaborative elements into the project management landscape, aligning with Agile
principles. Regular feedback loops and iterative adjustments, characteristic of Agile, enhance
stakeholder engagement. Simultaneously, structured aspects borrowed from Waterfall contribute

50
to a clear and documented decision-making process. This dual advantage positions the hybrid
model as an effective means of optimizing stakeholder collaboration.

Tailoring Approaches to Project Needs:

The diverse nature of projects within an organization demands a tailored approach. The hybrid
model recognizes that a one-size-fits-all methodology may not be optimal. For instance, a project
with clearly defined goals and minimal uncertainties may benefit from Waterfall's structured
approach, while projects requiring rapid adaptation to changing conditions may find Agile more
suitable. The ability to tailor methodologies based on project-specific needs enhances the overall
effectiveness of project management practices.

Continuous Improvement and Adaptability:

The hybrid approach, by nature, encourages a culture of continuous improvement and

adaptability. Organizations adopting the hybrid model are better positioned to learn from each
project iteration, incorporating successful practices into subsequent projects. This iterative
learning process aligns with Agile principles and contributes to an ongoing optimization of
project management strategies.

In summary, the analysis phase provides a comprehensive exploration of respondents' awareness,

preferences, challenges, and perceptions related to Agile and Waterfall methodologies. The
insights derived from the data pave the way for a robust discussion that delves deeper into the
implications of these findings for optimizing project performance. The nuanced understanding
gained through analysis sets the stage for informed recommendations and actionable insights in
the subsequent discussion.

51
4.3 DISCUSSION
The comprehensive insights garnered from the findings and analysis presented in the preceding
sections lay the groundwork for a comprehensive discussion on the perpetual debate between
Agile and Waterfall methodologies and the emerging trend of adopting hybrid approaches in
project management. This discussion aims to address key research questions, delve into the
implications of the study's outcomes, and offer recommendations for optimizing project
performance.

Primary Research Insights

Our primary research has been instrumental in uncovering the nuanced preferences, challenges,
and perceptions of project management professionals regarding Agile, Waterfall, and the hybrid
approach. The high level of awareness (78%) among respondents indicates a robust
understanding of diverse methodologies, setting the stage for informed decision-making in the
field.

The preference for a hybrid approach (44%) stands out as a pivotal insight. It goes beyond a
binary choice between Agile and Waterfall, signaling a strategic recognition of the need for
flexibility in project management. This aligns with the dynamic nature of today's business
landscapes, where projects often demand a tailored approach that combines the strengths of both
methodologies.

The challenges reported during the transition from Waterfall to Agile highlight the complexities
organizations face when embracing a more adaptive and iterative methodology. The issue of
frequent changes emerged as a primary challenge, emphasizing the need for a phased transition
and change management strategies. These insights are crucial for organizations considering or
undergoing a methodology shift, offering a realistic perspective on the hurdles they might
encounter.

The positive perception of Agile's efficiency (67%) and its identified role in bringing tangible
improvements (84%) resonate with the principles of collaboration, adaptability, and incremental
progress inherent in Agile methodologies. This aligns with the industry trend towards more
flexible and responsive project management approaches.

The overwhelming intent expressed by over 85% of respondents to continue using Agile
methodologies signifies a sustained commitment to practices that emphasize flexibility and
collaboration. This is a key takeaway for organizations aiming to establish long-term project
management strategies aligned with industry best practices.

Secondary Research Reflections

The secondary research conducted alongside our primary investigation served as a compass,
guiding our exploration through the vast landscape of project management methodologies. It

52
provided a historical context, theoretical frameworks, and industry trends that enriched our
understanding of Agile, Waterfall, and the evolution towards hybrid approaches.

The perennial debate between Agile and Waterfall, as evidenced in secondary literature, often
presents a dichotomy that our primary research has nuanced. It's not a matter of choosing one
over the other but strategically leveraging both in a hybrid model. The secondary research
validated the industry's trajectory towards more adaptive methodologies while acknowledging
the continued relevance of structured approaches.

The analysis of project size and success rates, drawn from secondary sources, complemented our
primary findings. The observation that smaller projects tend to have higher success rates aligns
with the agile principles of shorter feedback cycles and lower risk. This insight provides context
to our primary research, emphasizing the contextual considerations when choosing between
methodologies.

The exploration of the feasibility of combining Waterfall and Agile methodologies, as

highlighted in secondary literature, found resonance in our primary research. The hybrid
approach, endorsed by 44% of respondents, emerges as a practical solution for leveraging the
strengths of both methodologies in different project contexts. This alignment validates the
industry's inclination towards hybridization.

Project Performance Optimization

The primary and secondary research collectively contributes to the overarching goal of our
thesis—optimizing project performance. The dynamics of project management are ever-
evolving, and our research underscores the need for a flexible and adaptive approach that aligns
with the specific requirements of each project.

When is Waterfall Preferred Over Agile, and Vice Versa?

The study's insights reveal that the preference for Waterfall or Agile depends on the specific
characteristics and requirements of a project. Waterfall's structured and sequential approach
aligns well with projects where goals are well-defined from the outset. The clarity in project
goals allows for the creation of comprehensive documentation and a centralized decision-making
process, minimizing errors and providing a sense of control.

Conversely, Agile shines in situations where rapid adaptability and collaboration are paramount.
Agile's iterative nature accommodates projects with evolving requirements, making it suitable
for scenarios where project details are not fully known at the outset. The study reinforces the
industry-wide acknowledgment that these methodologies are not mutually exclusive but serve
distinct purposes based on project dynamics.

Hybrid Approach as the Optimal Solution

53
The discussion on the hybrid approach emerges as the focal point for optimizing project
performance. The strategic integration of Waterfall and Agile elements, as revealed in our
findings, offers a nuanced solution that combines structure and flexibility. This synergy becomes
crucial in meeting the diverse needs of projects within an organization.

An emerging theme from the study is the growing interest in hybrid project management
approaches. The discussion on transitioning from Waterfall to Agile highlights the challenges
faced, with the issue of frequent changes being a significant hurdle. This aligns with the notion
that a rigid shift from Waterfall to Agile might pose challenges due to the fundamental
differences in their approaches.

The hybrid approach, combining elements of both Waterfall and Agile, emerges as a viable
solution to reconcile the strengths of each methodology. The findings indicate that respondents
favor a hybrid approach, recognizing the benefits of flexibility and structure in tandem. This
hybrid model allows organizations to tailor project management practices to the unique needs of
each project, striking a balance between predictability and adaptability. As organizations grapple
with diverse project requirements, the hybrid model offers a middle ground that leverages the
strengths of both methodologies, striving for a balance between predictability and adaptability.

Balancing Structure and Flexibility: The core essence of the hybrid approach lies in its ability
to balance the structured, sequential nature of Waterfall with the adaptive, iterative practices of
Agile. This balance is particularly crucial in projects where certain aspects demand a well-
defined plan, while others necessitate flexibility to accommodate evolving requirements. The
study finds that 44% of respondents favor a hybrid approach, indicating a growing recognition of
the need to tailor project management strategies to the unique characteristics of each project.

Strategic Integration of Waterfall and Agile Elements: One of the key considerations in
adopting a hybrid approach is the strategic integration of Waterfall and Agile elements. Rather
than viewing these methodologies as mutually exclusive, organizations are exploring ways to
integrate them seamlessly. For instance, critical project phases with well-established
requirements may follow a Waterfall model, ensuring a structured foundation. Simultaneously,
more dynamic phases can embrace Agile principles, allowing for iterative adjustments based on
evolving needs.

Flexibility without Sacrificing Control: Flexibility is a hallmark of Agile, enabling teams to

adapt to changing circumstances and customer feedback. However, this adaptability can be
perceived as a loss of control in environments where strict governance is essential. The hybrid
approach seeks to harness the flexibility of Agile while maintaining a level of control through
defined processes. This not only addresses the concerns of stakeholders accustomed to the
predictability of Waterfall but also allows for adaptability in response to project uncertainties.

Tailoring Approaches to Project Needs: The diverse nature of projects within an organization
demands a tailored approach. The hybrid model recognizes that a one-size-fits-all methodology

54
may not be optimal. For instance, a project with clearly defined goals and minimal uncertainties
may benefit from Waterfall's structured approach, while projects requiring rapid adaptation to
changing conditions may find Agile more suitable. The ability to tailor methodologies based on
project-specific needs enhances the overall effectiveness of project management practices.

Mitigating Transition Challenges: While the study identifies challenges in transitioning from
Waterfall to Agile, the hybrid approach offers a phased transition that mitigates some of these
challenges. Instead of a sudden shift, organizations can gradually introduce Agile practices in
project phases where flexibility is critical. This incremental approach minimizes disruptions and
allows teams to acclimate to the iterative and collaborative aspects of Agile.

Enhancing Stakeholder Collaboration: Collaboration with stakeholders is a key tenet of Agile

methodologies. The hybrid model integrates this collaborative spirit into the project management
landscape, fostering improved communication and engagement with stakeholders. The iterative
nature of Agile allows for regular feedback, ensuring that stakeholder expectations align with
project progress. Simultaneously, the structured aspects borrowed from Waterfall contribute to a
clear and documented decision-making process.

Challenges and Drawbacks: A Call for Improvement

The study sheds light on challenges and drawbacks associated with Waterfall, such as
inflexibility and an extensive documentation process. These drawbacks, acknowledged by 38%
of respondents, underscore the need for continuous improvement within traditional
methodologies. While Waterfall's structured nature provides stability, addressing its inherent
limitations becomes crucial in an industry where adaptability is increasingly valued.

Efficiency and Improvements with Agile

The overwhelmingly positive perception of Agile's efficiency (67%) and its identified role in
bringing tangible improvements (84%) align with Agile's principles of collaboration,
adaptability, and incremental progress. Agile's success in delivering projects efficiently resonates
with its emphasis on customer collaboration, responding to change, and iterative development.

The culture of continuous improvement, inherent in Agile methodologies, is echoed in our

recommendations. Organizations embracing the hybrid model are well-positioned to learn and
adapt from each project iteration. The iterative learning process becomes a catalyst for ongoing
optimization, ensuring that successful practices are incorporated into subsequent projects. This
aligns with the ethos of continuous improvement, fostering a dynamic and learning-oriented
project management culture.

Strategic Integration of Waterfall and Agile

Our findings emphasize the strategic integration of Waterfall and Agile elements. Rather than
viewing these methodologies as mutually exclusive, our research suggests that organizations can

55
derive maximum value by leveraging the strengths of each in different project phases. This
tailored approach ensures that the rigidities of Waterfall are complemented by the adaptability of
Agile, leading to a more holistic and effective project management strategy.

Reflections on Waterfall and Agile

While our research leans towards the advantages of the hybrid model, it's essential to
acknowledge the continued relevance of Waterfall and Agile methodologies in specific contexts.
Waterfall's structured nature provides stability and clarity in projects where goals are well-
defined from the outset. Agile, on the other hand, thrives in dynamic environments where rapid
adaptability and collaboration are paramount.

The discussion, informed by both primary and secondary research, positions Waterfall and Agile
not as adversaries but as complementary tools in a project manager's toolkit. By understanding
their strengths and limitations, organizations can make informed decisions about when to employ
each methodology or when to strategically blend them for optimal outcomes.

Recommendations and Future Considerations

As the study concludes, it becomes evident that the choice between Waterfall and Agile, or a
hybrid approach, should be driven by the specific needs of each project. Recommendations
include a thoughtful consideration of project goals, adaptability requirements, and the potential
benefits of a hybrid model.

The ongoing evolution of project management methodologies prompts further exploration into
the impact of these methodologies on software design. While Agile's philosophy has influenced
software development practices positively, concerns about design issues persist. Achieving high
quality in software design may require a more nuanced approach that balances Agile's
adaptability with design considerations.

The study also reflects on project size and success rates, acknowledging that smaller projects
tend to have higher success rates. The feasibility of combining Waterfall and Agile
methodologies is explored, emphasizing the need for a tailored approach that leverages the
strengths of each methodology in different project contexts.

In conclusion, this study contributes valuable insights to the ongoing discourse on project
management methodologies. The nuanced understanding derived from the findings and analysis
positions project managers to make informed decisions, fostering a culture of continuous
improvement and adaptability in the dynamic landscape of project management. The study's
recommendations pave the way for future research endeavors, exploring the evolving
relationship between project methodologies and their impact on project success. The focal point
on the hybrid approach as an optimal solution for project performance optimization integrates
insights from both realms. This reflective discussion goes beyond presenting findings—it unites

56
the collective knowledge gained from rigorous research to provide a roadmap for practitioners
navigating the dynamic landscape of project management.

57
CONCLUDING REMARKS

This comprehensive exploration of project management methodologies, with a focus on Agile

and Waterfall approaches, provides valuable insights and recommendations for project managers
and organizations seeking to optimize project performance. The amalgamation of primary and
secondary research has shed light on nuanced considerations, strengths, limitations, and
emerging trends in the dynamic field of project management.

Synthesis of Primary and Secondary Insights

In weaving together primary research findings and insights from secondary sources, a holistic
picture emerges, illustrating the multifaceted landscape of project management methodologies.
The primary research, focused on the specific context of insurance companies in Saudi Arabia,
illuminates the preference for Agile methodologies. The adaptability and flexibility inherent in
Agile are celebrated as catalysts for favorable project outcomes. However, the industry-specific
focus prompts a cautious approach in extrapolating these findings to other sectors.

Contrastingly, the secondary research paints a broader canvas, highlighting the enduring debate
between Agile and Waterfall methodologies. Despite over two decades of advocacy for Agile as
a solution to the perceived rigidity of Waterfall, the reality persists that many software firms
continue to adhere to the waterfall methodology. This dichotomy emphasizes the importance of
context and project specifics in determining the most suitable approach.

Recommendations and Considerations

Agile's Dominance: The analysis strongly suggests that Agile methodology offers more
favorable project-related outcomes compared to the Waterfall methodology. The flexibility and
adaptability of Agile prove advantageous, particularly in industries like insurance, where projects
often entail evolving requirements. The recommendation is clear—organizations, especially
those in the insurance sector, should incorporate Agile elements into their project management
processes.

Limitations and Considerations: Acknowledging the limitations of the research, it is essential to

note that the findings are primarily based on primary data. The exclusion of comprehensive
secondary data and the limited availability of such data in specific industries, like insurance in
Saudi Arabia, pose challenges in achieving a holistic view. The contextual limitations,
specifically focusing on insurance companies, may restrict the generalizability of the findings to
other industries.

58
Hybrid Methodology as a Strategic Solution: The study emphasizes the importance of a hybrid
approach, considering the integration of both Waterfall and Agile elements. Recognizing that no
single methodology fits all projects, the hybrid model emerges as a strategic solution to balance
structure and flexibility. The findings highlight the potential benefits of adopting a hybrid
methodology, especially in scenarios where a tailored blend of predictability and adaptability is
essential.

Continuous Improvement: The research underscores the need for continuous improvement
within traditional methodologies, particularly in addressing the drawbacks associated with
Waterfall. While Agile is celebrated for its efficiency and incremental progress, acknowledging
and mitigating the challenges of transitioning between methodologies is crucial. The findings
encourage project managers to assess their project goals, adaptability requirements, and potential
benefits of a hybrid model.

Reflections and Future Directions

In reflection, the amalgamation of primary and secondary research has provided a nuanced
understanding of project management methodologies' intricacies. The study recommends a
thoughtful consideration of Agile methodologies, especially in the insurance sector, while
advocating for explorations into hybrid frameworks tailored to specific project needs.

Considering the perpetual debate between Agile and Waterfall, the conclusion resonates with the
wisdom of Frederick Douglass: "If there is no struggle, there is no progress." The dynamic
landscape of project management demands an ongoing struggle for improvement, adaptability,
and a balanced fusion of methodologies.

Looking Ahead

Industry-Specific Application: As outlined in the research findings, for insurance companies in

Saudi Arabia, a strategic shift toward Agile methodologies is recommended, considering the
extensive benefits outlined in the primary research findings. The emphasis is on incorporating
Agile elements to enhance flexibility and responsiveness. Therefore, future research could delve
into industry-specific applications of hybrid methodologies, examining how organizations
successfully implement a blend of Agile and Waterfall based on project characteristics and goals,
and evaluating the successful completion of projects using this approach.

Case Studies on Hybrid Usage: Examining real-world companies employing hybrid

methodologies can offer practical insights into when and how Agile or Waterfall is applied,
contributing to the validation of research findings. The hybrid approach is positioned as a
potential solution to leverage the flexibility of Agile and the stability of Waterfall, tailored to
specific project requirements.

59
Scalability in the Digital Era: As firms navigate the digital landscape, future research may
explore how Agile concepts can be integrated into the traditional waterfall paradigm for large-
scale software delivery. This is particularly relevant as firms strive to deliver software on a
massive scale and adapt to the evolving digital world.

Continuous Adaptation: Recognizing the evolving nature of the digital world, firms are
encouraged to adopt an adaptive mindset. The research suggests that while Agile and Waterfall
have their merits, the ability to adapt methodologies according to project specifics is crucial. The
fundamental tenets of each methodology can be adhered to while allowing for necessary
adjustments.

In essence, this conclusion encapsulates the continuous journey toward project management
excellence. Agile's flexibility is acknowledged, the research underscores the adaptability of
Waterfall as well. The recommendation to incorporate Agile concepts into the current waterfall
software delivery paradigm reflects the evolving digital landscape, positioning firms to deliver
software on a massive scale. It calls for a harmonious coexistence of Agile and Waterfall,
leveraging their respective strengths, while remaining open to innovative hybrid approaches that
align with the diverse and evolving needs of projects.

Hence, this research offers a compass, guiding project managers and organizations toward
informed decisions, continuous adaptation, and the pursuit of excellence in a dynamic and ever-
evolving project management landscape. Also it helps to culminates in a vision of project
management as a dynamic and ever-evolving discipline. It envisions project managers and
organizations not merely as responders to change but as proactive architects of change. The
synthesis of primary and secondary insights, coupled with amplified recommendations and an
anticipation of future trajectories, positions this research as a compass guiding the trajectory of
project management methodologies in the digital era.

60
BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]. Kuhrmann, M., Diebold, P., Münch, J., Tell, P.,Garousi, V., Felderer, M., ... & Prause, C. R. (2017,
July). Hybrid software and system development in practice: waterfall, scrum, and beyond. In Proceedings
of the 2017 International Conference on Software and System Process (pp. 30-39).
[2]. Moraes, A. T. D., Silva, L. F. D., & Oliveira, P. S. G. D. (2020). Systematization of absorptive
capacity microprocesses for knowledge identification in project management. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 24(9), 2195-2216.
[3]. Bass, R. B., Pejcinovic, B., & Grant, J. (2016, October). Applying Scrum project management in
ECE curriculum. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
[4]. Beerbaum, D. (2021). Applying Agile Methodology to regulatory compliance projects in the financial
industry: A case study research. Applying Agile Methodology to Regulatory Compliance Projects in the
Financial Industry: A Case Study Research (April 26, 2021).
[5]. Wachnik, B. (2016). Agile Methodology as a tool for reducing information asymmetry in the
implementation of it projects completed on the basis of the outsourcing strategy. Information Systems in
Management, 5.
[6]. Mohammad, S. M. (2017). DevOps automation and Agile methodology. International Journal of
Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT), ISSN, 2320-2882.
[7]. Batra, D. (2020). Job-work fit as a determinant of the acceptance of large-scale agile methodology.
Journal of Systems and Software, 168, 110577.
[8]. Adenowo, A. A., & Adenowo, B. A. (2013). Software engineering methodologies: a review of the
waterfall model and object-oriented approach. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research, 4(7), 427-434.
[9]. Balaji, S., & Murugaiyan, M. S. (2012). Waterfall vs. V-Model vs. Agile: A comparative study on
SDLC. International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management, 2(1), 26-30.
[10]. Bassil, Y. (2012). A simulation model for the waterfall software development life cycle. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1205.6904.
[11]. Fabris, L. (2019). Projects and the Project Portfolio Management Process: application in a
Consulting Company. Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
[12]. McCormick, M. (2012). Waterfall vs. Agile methodology. MPCS, N/A.
[13]. Thummadi, B. V., Shiv, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2011, August). Enacted routines in agile and waterfall
processes. In 2011 Agile Conference (pp. 67-76). IEEE.
[14]. Mahalakshmi, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2013). Traditional SDLC vs scrum methodology–a
comparative study. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 3(6), 192-
196.
[15]. Rashid, U. (2014). A Methodological Approach: Formal Specification Of Quality Attributes
Modeling Approcahes In The Waterfall Process Model. VAWKUM Transactions on Computer Sciences,
3(2), 1-6.
[16]. Wysocki, R. K. (2011). Effective project management: traditional, agile, extreme. John Wiley &
Sons.
[17]. Dohe, K., & Pike, R. (2018). Integration Of Project Management Techniques in Digital Projects.
Project Management in the Library Workplace, 151.
[18]. Briciu, C. V., Filip, I., & Indries, I. I. (2016). Methods for cost estimation in software project
management. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 106, No. 1, p. 012008).
IOP Publishing.
[19]. Osorio, J. A., Chaudron, M. R., & Heijstek, W. (2011, August). Moving Waterfall to iterative
development: An empirical evaluation of advantages, disadvantages and risks of RUP. In 2011 37th
EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (pp. 453-460). IEEE.

61
[20]. Melegati, J., & Goldman, A. (2016, June). Requirements engineering in software startups: A
grounded theory approach. In 2016 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and
Innovation/IEEE lnternational Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
[21]. Nishijima, R. T., & Dos Santos, J. G. (2013). The challenge of implementing scrum agile
methodology in a traditional development environment. International Journal of Computers &
Technology, 5(2), 98-108.
[22]. Thummadi, B. V., & Lyytinen, K. (2020). How much method-in-use matters? A case study of agile
and waterfall software projects and their design routine variation. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 21(4), 7.
[23]. Pandya, A., Mani, V. S., & Pattanayak, A. (2020, June). Expanding the responsibility of an offshore
team and sustainably increasing business value using SAFe. In Proceedings of the 15th International
Conference on Global Software Engineering (pp. 1-5).
[24]. Bass, J. M. (2015). How product owner teams scale agile methods to large distributed enterprises.
Empirical software engineering, 20(6), 1525-1557.
[25]. Maurer, F., & Hellmann, T. D. (2010). People centered software development: an overview of agile
methodologies. Software Engineering, 185-215.
[26]. Hamed, A. M. M., & Abushama, H. (2013, August). Popular agile approaches in software
development: Review and analysis. In 2013 International Conference on Computing, Electrical and
Electronic Engineering (ICCEEE) (pp. 160-166). IEEE.
[27]. Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016). Agile- Stage-Gate: New idea-to-launch method for
manufactured new products is faster, more responsive. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, 167-180.
[28]. Drury, M., Conboy, K., & Power, K. (2012). Obstacles to decision making in Agile software
development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1239-1254.
[29]. Pace, M. (2019). A correlational study on project management methodology and project success.
Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 9(2), 56.
[30]. Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2018). Agile– Stage-Gate for Manufacturers: Changing the Way
New Products Are Developed Integrating Agile project management methods into a Stage-Gate system
offers both opportunities and challenges. Research-Technology Management, 61(2), 17-26.
[31]. Stoddard, M. M., Gillis, B., & Cohn, P. (2019). Agile project management in libraries: Creating
collaborative, resilient, responsive organizations. Journal of Library Administration, 59(5), 492-511.
AdobeTeam (2022) Project management—agile versus waterfall. Adobe Experience Cloud Blog. https://
busin ess. adobe. com/ blog/basics/ agile- vs- water fall, viewed 23 October 2022 [Online]
Ahmed M, Khan SUR, Alam KA (2023) An NLP-based quality attributes extraction and prioritization
framework in agile-driven software development. Autom Softw Eng 30(1):7
Aitken A (2014) Dual application model for agile software engineering. In: 47th Hawaii international
conference on system sciences, Waikoloa, USA. IEEE, pp 4789–4798
Alam I, Sarwar N, Noreen I (2022) Statistical analysis of software development models by six-pointed
star framework. PLoS ONE 17(4):e0264420 Almeida F, Simoes J (2019) Moving from waterfall to agile:
perspectives from IT Portuguese companies. Int J Serv Sci Manag Eng Technol (IJSSMET) 10(1):30–43
Al-Saqqa S, Sawalha S, AbdelNabi H (2020) Agile software development: methodologies and trends. Int
J Interact Mob Technol 14(11):246–270
Alzoubi YI, Gill AQ (2020) An empirical investigation of geographically distributed agile development:
the agile enterprise architecture is a communication enabler. IEEE Access 8:80269–80289
Alzoubi Y, Gill A (2021) The critical communication challenges between geographically distributed agile
development teams: empirical findings. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 64(4):322–337
Alzoubi YI, Gill AQ (2022) Can agile enterprise architecture be implemented successfully in distributed
agile development? Empirical findings. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 23(2):221–235
Alzoubi YI, Gill AQ, Al-Ani A (2015) Distributed agile development communication: an agile
architecture driven framework. J Softw 10(6):681–694
Alzoubi YI, Gill AQ, Al-Ani A (2016) Empirical studies of geographically distributed agile development
communication challenges: a systematic review. Inf Manag 53(1):22–37

62
Ammad G, Janjua UI, Madni TM, Cheema MF, Shahid AR (2019) An empirical study to investigate the
impact of communication issues in GSD in Pakistan’s IT industry. IEEE Access 7:171648–171672
Ana (2022) Software development statistics. True List. https:// truelist. co/ blog/ softw are- devel opment-
stati stics/, viewed 24 October 2022 [Online]
Arcos-Medina G, Mauricio D (2019) Aspects of software quality applied to the process of agile software
development: a systematic literature review. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 10:867–897
Bishop D, Deokar A (2014) Toward an understanding of preference for agile software development
methods from a personality theory perspective. In: 47th Hawaii international conference on system
sciences, Waikoloa, USA. IEEE, pp 4749–4758
Boersma E (2022) Is there a place for the waterfall methodology in 2021? Plutora.com. https:// www.
pluto ra. com/ blog/ water fallmetho dology, viewed 26 October 2022 [Online]
Chandran K, Das Aundhe M (2022) Agile or waterfall development: the Clementon company dilemma. J
Inf Technol Teach Cases 12(1):8–15
DevFacto (2023) A hybrid software development method. https:// www. devfa cto. com/ blog/a- hybrid-
softw are- devel opment- method, viewed 25 April 2023 [Online]
Dima AM, Maassen MA (2018) From waterfall to agile software: development models in the IT sector,
2006 to 2018. Impacts on company management. J Int Stud 11(2):315–326
Dingsoyr T, Moe NB, Seim EA (2018) Coordinating knowledge work in multiteam programs: findings
from a large-scale agile development program. Proj Manag J 49(6):64–77
Dursun M, Goker N (2022) Evaluation of project management methodologies success factors using fuzzy
cognitive map method: waterfall, agile, and lean six sigma cases. Int J Intell Syst Appl Eng 10(1):35–43
Fagarasan C, Popa O, Pisla A, Cristea C (2021) Agile, waterfall and iterative approach in information
technology projects. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, Oradea, Romania. IOP
Publishing, vol 1169, no 1, p 012025
Friess E (2019) Scrum language use in a software engineering firm: an exploratory study. IEEE Trans
Prof Commun 62(2):130–147
Gill AQ, Henderson-Sellers B, Niazi M (2018) Scaling for agility: a reference model for hybrid
traditional-agile software development methodologies. Inf Syst Front 20(2):315–341
Govil N, Sharma A (2022) Validation of agile methodology as ideal software development process using
fuzzy-TOPSIS method. Adv Eng Softw 168:103125
Gustavsson T, Berntzen M, Stray V (2022) Changes to team autonomy in large-scale software
development: a multiple case study of scaled agile framework (SAFe) implementations. Int J Inf Syst Proj
Manag 10(1):29–46
Haag S, Cummings M (2009) Management information systems for the information age, 9th edn.
McGraw-Hill Inc., New York
Halani KR, Jhajharia K (2022) A quantitative study of waterfall and agile methodologies with the
perspective of project management.In: Contemporary challenges for agile project management: IGI
Global, pp 111–133
Hamilton T (2023) Agile vs waterfall—difference between methodologies. https:// www. guru99. com/
water fall- vs- agile. html, viewed 25 April 2023 [Online]
Hauck JCR, Vieira M (2021) Towards a guide for risk management integration in agile software projects.
In: Yilmaz M, Clarke P, Messnarz R, Reiner M (eds) Systems, software and services process
improvement. EuroSPI 2021. Communications in computer and information science. Springer, Cham, pp
73–87
Hoory L, Bottorff C (2022) Agile versus waterfall: which project management methodology is best for
you? Forbes Advisor. https://www. forbes. com/ advis or/ busin ess/ agile- vs- water fall- metho dology/,
viewed 23 October 2022 [Online]
Hummel M, Rosenkranz C, Holten R (2015) The role of social agile practices for direct and indirect
communication in information systems development teams. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 36(1):15
Käpyaho M, Kauppinen M (2015) Agile requirements engineering with prototyping: a case study. In:
23rd International requirements engineering conference (RE), Ottawa, Canada. IEEE, pp 334–343

63
Kasauli R, Knauss E, Nakatumba-Nabende J, Kanagwa B (2020) Agile islands in a waterfall
environment: challenges and strategies in automotive. In: Evaluation and assessment in software
engineering, Trondheim, Norway. ACM, pp 31–40
Kassab M, DeFranco J, Neto VG (2018) An empirical investigation on the satisfaction levels with the
requirements engineering practices: agile versus waterfall. In: International professional communication
conference (ProComm), Toronto, Canada. IEEE, pp 118–124
Kavlakoglu E (2022) Which project management methodology should you use to manage your next
project? IBM. https:// www. ibm. com/cloud/ blog/ agile- vs- water fall, viewed 26 October 2022 [Online]
Khan AR, Akbar R (2022) Software development process evolution and paradigm shift: a case study of
Malaysian companies. Mehran Univ Res J Eng Technol 41(2):155–171
Khoza LT, Marnewick C (2020) Waterfall and agile information system project success rates: a South
African perspective. S Afr Comput J 32(1):43–73
Kirpitsas IK, Pachidis TP (2022) Evolution towards hybrid software development methods and
information systems audit challenges. Software 1(3):316–363
KnowledgeHut (2023) Agile transformation and its challenges. https:// www. knowl edgeh ut. com/ blog/
agile/ agile- trans forma tion- andchallenges, viewed 24 April 2023 [Online]
Kodmelwar MK, Futane PR, Pawar SD, Lokhande SA, Dhanure SP (2022) A comparative study of
software development waterfall, spiral and agile methodology. J Posit Sch Psychol 6(3):7013–7017
Kumar G, Bhatia PK (2014) Comparative analysis of software engineering models from traditional to
modern methodologies. In: 4th international conference on advanced computing & communication
technologies, Rohtak, India. IEEE, pp 189–196
Leong J, May Yee K, Baitsegi O, Palanisamy L, Ramasamy RK (2023) Hybrid project management
between traditional software development lifecycle and agile based product development for future
sustainability. Sustainability 15(2):1121
Mersino A (2022) Why agile is better than waterfall. Vitality Chicago.https:// vital itych icago. com/ blog/
agile- proje cts- are- more- successful- tradi tional- proje cts/, viewed 24 October 2022 [Online]
Mishra D, Aydin S, Mishra A, Ostrovska S (2018) Knowledge management in requirement elicitation:
situational methods view. Comput Stand Interfaces 56:49–61
Mishra A, Abdalhamid S, Mishra D, Ostrovska S (2021) Organizational issues in embracing agile
methods: an empirical assessment. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 12(6):1420–1433
Morgan JD (2018) Applying 1970 waterfall lessons learned within today’s agile development process.
PM World J 7:1–19
Nerur S, Mahapatra R, Mangalaraj G (2005) Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Commun
ACM 48(5):72–78
Özkan D, Mishra A (2019) Agile project management tools: a brief comprative view. Cybern Inf Technol
19(4):17–25
Pai A, Joshi G, Rane S (2019) Integration of agile software development and robust design methodology
in optimization of software defect parameters. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 10:1043–1051
Poppendieck M, Cusumano MA (2012) Lean software development: a tutorial. IEEE Softw 29(5):26–32
PremierAgile (2023) Agile vs waterfall (traditional) project management. https:// premi eragi le. com/
diffe rences- betwe en- agile- andwaterfall/, viewed 26 April 2023 [Online]
Prenner N, Klünder J, Schneider K (2022) Defining frames to structure agile development in hybrid
settings: a multi-case interview study. In: International conference on software and system processes and
2022), Virtual. ACM, pp 34–44
ProductPlan (2023) The waterfall to agile transition: how roadmaps can keep you on track. https:// www.
produ ctplan. com/ learn/ waterfall- to- agile- trans ition/, viewed 25 April 2023 [Online]
ProjectManager (2023) Agile vs waterfall and the rise of hybrid projects. https:// www. proje ctman ager.
com/ guides/ agile- vs- water fallhybrid-proje cts, viewed 25 April 2023 [Online]
Raza M (2023) Agile vs waterfall SDLCs: what’s the difference? https:// www. bmc. com/ blogs/ agile-
vs- water fall/, viewed 24 April2023 [Online]

64
Richter I, Raith F, Weber M (2016) Problems in agile global software engineering projects especially
within traditionally organized corporations: an exploratory semi-structured interview study. In: 9th
international C* conference on computer science & software engineering, Porto, Portugal. ACM, pp 33–
43
Saarikallio M, Tyrväinen P (2022) Quality culture boosts agile transformation— action research in a
business-to-business software business. J Softw Evol Process 35(1):e2504
Schmalz M, Finn A, Taylor H (2014) Risk management in video game development projects. In: 47th
Hawaii international
Shameem M, Kumar RR, Nadeem M, Khan AA (2020) Taxonomical classification of barriers for scaling
agile methods in global software development environment using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Appl
Soft Comput 90:106122
Signoretti I et al (2020) Success and failure factors for adopting a combined approach: a case study of two
software development teams. In: Morisio M, Torchiano M, Jedlitschka A (eds) Product-focused software
process improvement. PROFES 2020. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 12562. Springer, Cham, pp
125–141
Singer M (2022) 15+ surprising agile statistics: everything you need to know about agile management.
Enterprise Apps Today. https://www. enter prise appst oday. com/, viewed 24 October 2022 [Online]
Sinha A, Das P (2021) Agile methodology versus traditional waterfall SDLC: a case study on quality
assurance process in software industry. In: 5th international conference on electronics, materials
engineering & nano-technology (IEMENTech), Kolkata, India. IEEE, pp 1–4
Soundararajan S, Arthur JD (2009) A soft-structured agile framework for larger scale systems
development. In: 16th annual IEEE international conference and workshop on the engineering of
computer based systems, San Francisco, USA. IEEE, pp 187–195
Srivastava A, Mehrotra D, Kapur P, Aggarwal AG (2020) Analytical evaluation of agile success factors
influencing quality in software industry. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 11:247–257
Stoica M, Mircea M, Ghilic-Micu B (2013) Software development: agile versus traditional. Inform Econ
17(4):64–76
Thesing T, Feldmann C, Burchardt M (2021) Agile versus waterfall project management: decision model
for selecting the appropriate approach to a project. Procedia Comput Sci 181:746–756
The-Standish-Group (2020) Standish group chaos report 2020. The Standish Group. https:// www. stand
ishgr oup. com/ news/ 45, viewed 24 October 2022 [Online]
Thummadi BV, Lyytinen K (2020) How much method-in-use matters? A case study of agile and waterfall
software projects and their design routine variation. J Assoc Inf Syst 21(4):864–900
Wafa R, Khan MQ, Malik F, Abdusalomov AB, Cho YI, Odarchenko R (2022) The impact of agile
methodology on project success, with a moderating role of Person’s job fit in the IT industry of Pakistan.
Appl Sci 12(21):10698
Włodarski R, Poniszewska-Marańda A, Falleri J-R (2020) Comparative case study of plan-driven and
agile approaches in student computing projects. In: 2020 international conference on software,
telecommunications and computer networks (SoftCOM), Split, Croatia. IEEE, pp 1–6
Yadav M, Goyal N, Yadav J (2015) Agile methodology over iterative approach of software development:
a review. In: 2nd international conference on computing for sustainable global development
(INDIACom), New Delhi, India. IEEE, pp 542–547
Yu L, Mishra A (2010) Risk analysis of global software development and proposed solutions. Automatika
51(1):89–98 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.

65