Project Management Method Comparison

JMPM #21 Special Issue: Vol.7 Num.
The evolution of Project Management

(PM): How Agile, Lean and Six Sigma
are changing PM
Vittorio Cesarotti, Silvia Gubinelli and Vito Introna
Department of Enterprise Engineering
“Tor Vergata” University of Rome
Rome, Italy
Abstract
The pressure for speed, technical or design complexity increase interactions and the high
complexity of projects. Conventional techniques quickly become inadequate.
The literature of the last twenty years about project management (PM), suggests that the
evolution of PM Techniques will be driven by theories from Operational Excellence (OE).
OE approaches, techniques and tools (like Lean, Agile and Six Sigma ) enrich PM techniques
and propose a way to reduce wastes and add value in their project performance culture by
encouraging teams to work together in a more transparent and collaborative way. This
contamination would make PM techniques be more effective in managing current projects,
where the context affects the weight-cost-quality triangle.
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the contamination of Lean, Agile and Six Sigma in the
traditional approach to project management. This paper presents a brief literature review
about the contribution provided by Lean, Agile and Six Sigma to traditional project
management and compares them according to general criteria. The innovative contribution is
given by the comparison of the project management approach provided by these operational
excellence methods and the traditional project management. The main fields highlight how the
traditional approaches to PM suggest the steps to carry out, while the techniques acquired by
operational excellence (as Lean, Agile and Six Sigma) give suggestions on “how” to perform
the steps proposed. The merging of the different techniques, based on the context
characteristics, seems a concrete answer to the current problems of the PM.
Keywords: Project Management, Lean Project Management, Agile Project Management,

DMAIC
DECEMBER 2019 DOI NUMBER: 10.19255/JMPM02107

The evolution of project management… JMPM
1 INTRODUCTION
Literature defines a "project" as a temporary, unique, and progressively elaborated work,

undertaking to create a unique product or service. “Every project has a definite beginning and
a definite end, and it is usually divided into phases” (Rosenau & Gitens, 2005)
The first association to support the Project management dates back to 1965: 'IPMA
(International Project Management Association), based in Switzerland. In 1969 was founded
the PMI (Project Management Institute); currently, his guide to the PM, the PMBOK (Project
Management Body of Knowledge), is an ANSI standard and the document that underlies the
new standard ISO 21500 on Project Management. In 1989 the British Government developed
for the management of information technology projects the PRINCE2 (Projects in Controlled
Environments), the standard currently widespread in all countries of Anglo-Saxon origin.
The frameworks promoted by these institutes form the basis of the traditional PM.
Nowadays the PMI (Project Management Institute) is the most widespread association,
(Farashah, JaniceThomas, & Blomquist, 2019). In the rest of the paper, we will refer to the
PMBOK as a symbol of the classical project management framework.
Although classical approaches have been revised over the years, the change in the context of
reference has been sudden and radical. Today, classical project management approaches have
proven to be inefficient. (Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014)
Projects are considered successful if the CSC disposals (Content, Schedule, and Cost) remains
low and to cope with the growing uncertainty of context Project management need to provide
a basis for real control and predictable outcomes (Koskela G. A., 2000). Most of the real-word
development effort is conducted in volatile environments. Nowadays organizations need to
adapt to changing technology, markets, and social conditions. Project management approached
based on the traditional predictive lifecycle development methodologies mismatch with such a
dynamic system.
“Elaborate methodologies, tools, and practices have evolved to manage on out-of-control-
world. Traditional tools fail when linear tasks do not easily accommodate dynamic processes
and when schedules require frequent updating to reflect changing circumstances. Skilled
professionals do not adapt well to micromanagement, and tools and techniques quickly reach
their limits when not used appropriately. Managers realize that increased control does not yield
increased order, excepting their own inability to know everything in advance while
relinquishing some control to achieve greater order.” (Agustine, Payne, & Sencindiver, 2005)
DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 2

The need to set aside old management techniques to establish effective governance of the
project and build internal capabilities to track and monitor the Progress project emerged. One
response to these problems was found in the adoption of operational excellence techniques,
such as Lean and Agile. Since the late nineties, the concepts of Lean project management and
Agile Project management have been widespread and consolidated. In practice, however, few
companies are able to adopt these approaches successfully and despite the heaviness of the old
methods, they feel safer with them and use to prefer them. By the way, many authors propose
integrating PMBOK guidelines with Lean and Agile methodologies into a toolkit. Rebaiaia and
Vieira underline how these techniques "provide a way to excellence in terms of feasibility and
create more flexibility in the realization of projects". (Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014)
This research compares the different approaches to the PM according to general criteria.). To
identify the criteria with respect to which to carry out the comparative analysis of the different
approaches we analyzed existent literature. We carried out an analysis of the literature
concerning both articles describing the individual methodologies and articles that compare one
or more of them. From this analysis, we collected the main characteristics on which the authors
in the literature evaluate the methods. It’s important to note that existent literature provides the
only comparison between Agile and Traditional PM, Lean and Traditional PM. About Six
Sigma, Literature presents an only analysis of the PM approach in the Six Sigma Project.
Instead, this paper provides a joint comparative analysis of all the PM frameworks provided by
Lean, Agile, Six Sigma and Traditional approaches.
In the following section, a description of Traditional, Agile, Lean and Six Sigma approach to
PM is given. In paragraph three the steps of the methodology that led to the definition of the
comparison criteria are described and a description of the criteria is provided. in paragraph four
we presented the comparison of the methods. After that, you can find the conclusions, where
reflections about the possibility to merge the techniques and suggest future areas of
investigation are given.
2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
A project manager has different ways to approach a project (Messemaeker, 2010). Over the past
60 years of project management research, several methodologies have been developed from an
academic or practitioners’ background, but only a few have made it to internationally-
recognized standards (Turner, 2010). Internationally recognized methodologies as PRINCE2
(Projects in Controlled Environments) and framework as PMBOK (Project Management Body

of Knowledge) provides flexible tools that can be easily adapted to specific needs (McHugh &
Hogan, 2010).
As Iivari, Hirschheim, & Klein, (2000), in this paper we use the term “Project management
approach” to identify the set of principles and guidelines that define how specific project is
managed; and “project management framework” to represent operative set of rules, processes,
methods, and templates to be used during the project lifecycle (Iivari, Hirschheim, & Klein,
2000).
Sometimes standard methodology and the organization mismatch, so many organizations tailor
existing methodology or create their own method (McHugh & Hogan, 2010) (Garcia, 2005).
As McHugh & Hogan said, companies are moving away from internally developed to more
broadly recognized methodologies (McHugh & Hogan, 2010).
2.1 TRADITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project Management Institute (PMI) defined Project management methodology as a set of

methods, techniques, procedures, rules, templates, and best practices used on a project (Project
Management Institute, 2008). These guidelines define how a specific project is managed. As
Spundak said, “Other definitions do not differ significantly”. (Špundak, 2014). For more
definitions, we suggest (Špundak, 2014.).
The PM was formalized with the first versions of bodies of knowledge in the 1980s. At this
time, the projects were intended as relatively simple, predictable and linear with clearly defined
boundaries. This believing constitutes the Traditional PM (TPM) approach, in which the
activities are considered easy to plan in detail and teams can follow the plan defined in at the
beginning of the project without many changes. The main goal of TPM is the optimization of
cost and time of the activity initially detailed in the project plan and consequently, finalize
Project within planned time, budget, and scope. For more information about this, we
recommend (Špundak, 2014) and (Masciadra, 2017).
PMBOK is a framework internationally recognized, given by PMI. That provides the
fundamentals of project management, regardless of the type of project. The first edition of
PMBOK, published in 1996, was a collection of processes and knowledge areas generally
accepted as best practice within the project management discipline.

PMBOK describes a process in terms of Inputs (documents, plans, designs, etc.), Tools and
Techniques (mechanisms applied to inputs), and Outputs (documents, products, etc.) and
provides comprehensive guidance for who apply it. It recognizes five basic process groups and
ten knowledge areas identifies as typical of all projects. The five basic process groups are:
1. Initiating: defines and authorizes the project (project charter creation).
2. Planning: define the outcomes/goals for the project by knowledge area.
3. Executing: project plans implementation.
4. Controlling and Monitoring: assesses defined outcomes to planned targets and if
necessary set corrective actions.
5. Closing: structured Process for obtaining the formal acceptance of the product/service
from the stakeholders
The ten knowledge areas are Integration, Scope, Schedule, Cost, Quality, Human Resource,
Communications, Risk, Stakeholders, and Procurement. (Mirzaei & Mabin, 2012) (Project
Management Institute, Inc., 2017)
The traditional approach is more appropriate for projects with clear requirements and objectives
for initial users. By not providing for the involvement of end-users, this approach is appropriate
in case of a low variation of requirements. The traditional approach is also appropriate for
projects where formal documentation is required and is highly valued in the operational routine
projects, which take place in a predictable way and it is easy to verify the outputs. It is also
noted that for larger projects, intended as the number of project team members or the amount
and complexity of clearly defined requirements, or even for durability, the traditional approach
is more appropriate (Špundak, 2014).
Over the years, it has been updated coming up to the sixth edition, incorporating in its
framework agile approaches (Lifecycles and techniques) and some Six Sigma tools.
The last edition of PMBOK includes a paragraph dedicated to new trends in PM processes, such
as approaches and tools from the agile field. This "testifies" the will of the world of PM to
integrate new knowledge within his body.
2.2 AGILE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The term Agile PM (APM) born in 2001 when the "Agile Manifesto" was published. It refers
to a set of approaches and instruments (e.g. SCRUM, Extreme Programming, DSDM, etc.) that
have been developed with particular reference to the management of software development
projects (Highsmith, 2001)

In their 2001 manifesto, Fowler and Highsmith describe values and principles that should drive
a project and stress the importance of adopting an incremental or iterative style of software
development. (Messemaeker, 2009-2010). About this, please see (Highsmith, 2001). APM
embodies the majority of today's methodologies, like Extreme Programming, Crystal
Methodologies, Scrum, Adaptive Software Development, Feature-Driven Development,
Dynamic Systems Development Methodology and others (Messemaeker, 2009-2010).
These methods differ in specific techniques but have in common: short iterative lifecycles,
frequent relations with customers, and constant learning. Among them, Scrum and XP are the
most widely adopted (Elahe & Mahmud, 2014). About Scrum method, we suggest (Permana,
2015) (Fowler, 2018). About XP, we suggest (Beck & Fowler, 2000).
A project that employs agile methodologies is complex adaptive systems (CAS). The CAS-
based Agile Project Management (APM) framework prescribes the six practices for managing
agile development projects: Guiding vision, Agile vigilance, Organic self-organized team,
simple rules, open information and adaptive leadership (Agustine, Payne, & Sencindiver,
2005):
• Guiding vision. Described by Agustine, Payne, & Sencindiver (2005) as follow “Ensure a
shared guiding vision for all team members.[…] Recognizing and nurturing a shared
project vision as an internal model translates it into a powerful influence on team
behavior.” (Agustine, Payne, & Sencindiver, 2005)
• Organic self-organized team from 7 to 9 members: Small and dynamic team composition
supports adaptability to changing external conditions. The optimal internal communication
allows the team to minimize the effect of an interaction penalty (Agustine, Payne, &
Sencindiver, 2005). Scrum's formalism recognizes three key roles: Product owner,
development team and Scrum Master. The product owner represents the stakeholders and
ensures that the team offers value to the business. The Development team is responsible for
the practical advancement of the project. The Scrum Master acts to support the team in
applying the Scrum methodology and prevents external influences from reducing the
effectiveness of the team. (Darwish & Muhammad, 2017)
• Define simple rules to develop projects: XP practices provide simple and generative rules.
If some practices are not being followed, the team analyses and remove the causes. In this
way, the rules become easily implementable and do no restrict the autonomy and creativity
of team members

• Open and free-flowing information between team members. The single element of the team
is enriched by the group's knowledge
• Adaptive Leadership: The excessive presence of structure stiffens the internal dynamics of
the team; on the contrary, the lack of structure throws the systems into chaos. Adaptive
leadership promotes the creation of an adaptable and evolving Team process able to adapt
to different contexts. Collaboration and communication are central aspects and allow teams
to move faster by solving things face to face. The customer is part of the team and
continuous communication with him allows changing the goal of the project is running
(Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014).
• Agile vigilance: In a context constantly changing, the agile manager must adapt the project
on the edge. Without a rigid project structure, supervision takes on a central role to balance,
chaos, risk and project boundaries. (Agustine, Payne, & Sencindiver, 2005)
The agile manager understands the effects of the mutual interactions among a project’s various
parts and steers them in the direction of continuous learning and adaption. Adaptive APM-based
framework includes several practices, like adaptability; fluid organizations, recognition of
external control limits in task prioritization and the focus of problem-solving techniques in
which the individual plays a central role. All members are skilled and valuable stakeholders in
team management. The main troubleshooting mechanism is the team's self-regulating ability
that allows also minimizing up-front planning and stressing instead adaptability to changing
conditions.
As explicitly described in the 2001 manifesto, the agile PM was created for the software world.
In the literature, there are several successful cases concerning the application of the APM to
small projects, in which the collaboration of the team members is facilitated by the possibility
to relate in person. (Paasivaara, Durasiewicz, & Lassenius, 2008) The central role of
interpersonal communication in Agile methods leads them to can not be simply used in Global
software development (GSD) (Lee & Young, 2010) (Fraser & Mancl, 2019). To get benefits of
Agile in GSD and in a distributed project, PM developed distributed versions of agile methods
called, distributed agile development (DAD). Most used are distributed Scrum (DS) and
Distributed XP (DXP). (Paasivaara, Durasiewicz, & Lassenius, 2008)
Passivaara highlight that literature lack of advice for large projects but “it seems that quite many
companies are interested in taking (DAD) into use, or have already started to use it.”

In particular, Lee & Young (2010), highlight successful practices and challenges that have been
overcome by the globalization project and suggest a framework for software globalization
project management using a distributed Agile approach (Lee & Young, 2010). “Nevertheless,
advice on pairing agile software development and GSD, also referred to as is scarce. There are
only a few reported experiences in applying DAD to industrial projects.” (Paasivaara,
Durasiewicz, & Lassenius, 2008)
2.3 LEAN PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The first definition of LPM is given already in 1997; over the years, Lean has focused on the
concept of value within the projects. The Lean philosophy is therefore seen as a complementary
element to the existing PM techniques, which focuses on eliminating waste and creating the
value (Cruz-Villazon, 2018). Reuch defines lean as an engine for innovation in PM standards
(Reusch, 2013).
The management of a project is said "Lean " when the systems are structured to deliver the
product, maximizing the value and minimizing waste. The management of Lean projects differs
from traditional project management in the objectives pursued, in the structure of its phases, in
the relationship between the phases and the participants at each stage.
Lean methods reorganize the common structure of knowledge in PM and focus on relationships,
shared knowledge, and common goals. The main results consist of significant improvements in
schedule and waste (time and resources) reduction. The greatest results stand on complex,
uncertain and quick projects (Ballard & Howell, 2003).
Lean philosophy finds its first applications in production systems. Similarly, the projects
concerning production systems first adopted LPM. As shown by Cruz-Villazon most of the
documented application of LPM is in the field of Construction (60%), 25% is about general
type of project, 10% in software projects and the remaining part in healthcare (3%), mining
(1%) and aerospace projects (1%) (Cruz-Villazon, 2018).
Lauri Koskela (1992) first alerted the construction industry to the revolution in manufacturing,
challenging it to explore and adopt these new concepts and techniques under the name ”Lean
Construction”. In 1993, he hosted the first conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC). The IGLC, as said by themselves, is “dedicated to the development of a
theory of production and production management, with the project as the most fundamental
system for designing and making things”.

Koskela intends the project as a system of temporary production supplied in terms of materials,
information and resources from multiple and durable production systems. Every production
system integrates the design and the realization of a product. The project, like the Management
of production, is understood in terms of design, operation, and improvement of production
systems. The operation is about planning, control, and correction. The correction may entail the
change of the means used or the objective pursued. (Koskela, Ballard, Howell, & Tommelein,
2002)
2.3.1 LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM (LPDS)
In the field of project-based production systems and their management, the Lean Production
Delivery System (LPDS) gives tools and roles.
Production Systems recognize three fundamental goals: Deliver product, Maximize value and
Minimize waste (Koskela G. A., 2000). Consequently, principles for production system design
include Structure work for value generation; Understand, analyze and expand customer
purposes; Increase system control (ability to realize purpose). (Ballard et al. 2001). Lean's
production system focus translates into LPDS’s goals on transformation, flow, and value.
“Downstream player is involved in upstream decisions and stakeholders interest are aligned,
that allows to perform the activities at the last responsible moment. All the product life cycle
stages are considered in design and buffer are sized and located to absorb system variability.
Learning activities are an integral part of the project” (Ballard & Howell, 2003).
Traditionally, Projects have been understood in terms of phases. Some of the key differences
between traditional and lean project delivery concerns the definition of phases, the relationship
between phases and the participants in each phase. The phases of LPDS are:
1. Project definition.
2. Lean Design
3. Lean Supply
4. Lean Assembly
(Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014)

Figure 1: Triads of the LPDS (Ballard & Howell, 2003)
PROJECT DEFINITION. In this phase, the project is represented as a process of aligning Ends,
Means, and Constraints (location, cost, time). Through a conversation with Customers and
stakeholders, the team achieves purposes and values, design concepts, and design criteria.
(Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014) (Ballars, 2008). Project definition develops through sequential
phases: starts with business planning proceeds to business plan validation if the initial plan
appears to be feasible, and ends with a decision by the client to fund or not fund a project.
Agreeing with the definition of the project with the customer does not seem to be a common
practice. The experienced PM's often complain that customers start dictating means rather than
revealing the purpose, and rarely reveal what they are willing to spend to get their purposes.
AEC Professionals (Architects, engineers, and builders) are usually asked to provide the means
required by customers, without having any role in the customer's purpose and value
specification. Citing Ballars “In the Lean project delivery system, it is assumed that the project
delivery team's work is not just to provide what the customer wants, but to first help the
customer decide what they want”. In LPDS, the team exposes to customers alternative means
to accomplish their own goals in addition to those previously taken into account and helps them
to understand the consequences of their Desires. This process inevitably changes all variables:
end, means, and constraints (Ballars, 2008).

LEAN DESIGN. The gate between Project Definition and Lean Design is the alignment of
values, concepts, and criteria. Stakeholders dedicate the interactions to developing and aligning
product and process design at the level of functional systems. A project can return to the project
definition if the continuous research of value reveals opportunities consistent with the
constraints of customers and stakeholders.
The Lean design differs from traditional practice by adopting the "set-based" strategy, in which
the interdependent specialist has freedom of action within the limits of the set of alternatives
currently under consideration. On the contrary, traditional practices involve the initial selection
of activities and become ineffective when there is no alignment between the team members. In
this way, the paradigm goes from "carry out the activity as soon as possible" to "make decisions
within the lean time for the realization of alternatives."
LEAN SUPPLY. It consists of detailed engineering, fabrication, and delivery. It includes also
initiatives as reducing the lead time for information and materials, especially those involved in
the supply of engineered-to-order products, which typically determine the pace and timing of
project delivery. Prerequisites are a product and process design.
LEAN ASSEMBLY. It begins with the delivery of material and the relevant information for
their installation. The systematic use of feedback loops between supplier and customer
processes is symbolized by the inclusion of Post-occupancy evaluations between projects to get
a full description of the implementation of LPDS we recommend (Ballars, 2008).
As with other approaches to the PM, even in the LPDS the management of costs and risks plays
a key role. About cost management, LPDS introduces within the phases the Target Costing, a
method “for modeling product and process design to deliver customer value within constraints”
(Ballars, 2008). This method is the application to the projects of the Improvement Cycle (IC),
a production-oriented business management philosophy that self-imposes the necessity as an
engine of continuous improvement and innovation. Process improvement is achieved by
reducing variation through experiments (intended as a deviation from standards) and by acting
on the root causes of breakdowns (Ballars, 2008).
The risk is managed through buffers dimensioned to perform their functions within the system,
primarily against variability. The job of buffers is to absorb variation. One variation is reduced,
the next step is to match buffers to actual variation. Lacking the ability to act at the level of the
entire production system, the traditional approach must build buffers against the variability and

risk at the beginning of the project. Buffers can take the form of information, drawings,
materials, work in progress, space or time (Ballard & Howell, 2003)
2.4 SIX SIGMA (SS)
Six Sigma is a data-driven methodology for improving products, processes, focalized on the
elimination of defects. Jainendrakumar referring to 3th edition of PMBOK said “PMBOK
applies Six Sigma data-Driven Techniques, Improved Scope Management, Improved Quality
Planning and Control; Large Project Orientation Focused on Coordination and Management
(in addition to Results), Management and Control Methods lays Foundation for Planning,
Organizing, Managing, and Controlling Projects. Some of the Quality Control Tools and
Techniques used in PMBOK are also used in Six Sigma.[…] Six Sigma as Systematic Data-
Driven Methods Incorporate PM Concepts and uses PMBOK Planning, Organizing, Managing,
and Controlling Methodologies” (Jainendrakumar, 2008).
The six sigma projects are usually implemented to fix an existing product or process that don’t
meet customer specification or the performance required by the company. Six Sigma method
can be also applied for the design of new products or services; in this case, it is called. Design
for six sigma. Both the application of six sigma are implemented by phases.
Six Sigma projects develop through the DMAIC framework. DMAIC is the acronym for the
main phases of the six sigma project: Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve, Control.
In the DEFINE phase team is formed, the leader and customer set context and objective of the
effort. Project charter, CTQs and Business process maps are the main deliverables. Identified
the customer requirements and project boundaries, in the MEASURE phase team identify key
measures and implement data collection activities. The collected data are analyzed in the
ANALYZE phase. In this phase, statistic tools are implemented. In the IMPROVE phase, the
team shows the results of the Analyze step to stakeholders involved in the process to modify.
In this phase, Team and Stakeholder generate and validate possible solutions. In the last phase,
CONTROL, Team define plans and procedures to ensure sustained improvements
(Jainendrakumar, 2008). Throughout all the stages of Six Sigma, effective communication
plays a central role. A communication plan is undoubtedly important to highline responsibilities
and escalation rules. The Team Leader, usually a Six Sigma Black Belts or Six Sigma Green
Belt, needs to recognize the stages of team development and choose targeted approaches for
optimizing performance at each stage.

This framework is also used for Lean Six Sigma (LSS) projects. LSS is a methodology that
integrates Six Sigma and Lean using DMAIC cycle as a conjoint continuous improvement
framework (Tenera & Carnero Pinto, 2014). DFSS approach still lacks a single methodology
(Hoerl, 2004). For the DFSS project implementations, there are several methodologies and is
not a better approach at all. In literature, the most used approach is DMADV(define measure,
analyze, design, verify), IDOV (identify, design, optimize, verify), and DIDOV (Define,
identify, design, optimize, verify). (Patil, Andhale, & Paul, February 2013). (Asad, 2006)
In this search, for simplicity, we will talk about the SS methodology referring only to the
DMAIC. It is worth noting; that in this research what we refer to DMAIC can also be reported
for the DFSS frameworks and to LSS projects.
Both SS and PMBOK require project charter, milestones, a stakeholder management system
and a cost-resource-schedule management system. Even Jainendrakumar (2008) stand: “Six
Sigma has a solid control phase (DMAIC: Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) that
makes specific measurements, identifies specific problems, and provides specific solutions that
can be measured[…] Six Sigma – strongly concentrated on preventing defects instead of
attempting to detect them after they occur. PMBOK also suggests prevention is better than
repair.” (Jainendrakumar, 2008). The sixth edition of PMBOK introduces SS and LSS as
quality improving method. (Project Management Institute, Inc., 2017).
3 COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION
3.1 METHODOLOGY
For the comparative analysis of the different approaches the main steps taken were:
1. Literature review
2. Characteristic identification
3. Comparative analysis
The literature review was carried out by selecting paper from ScienceDirect, Scopus, IEEE,
Google Scholar. The keyword for the selection was: Lean and Agile Project Management,
Lean Project Management, Agile Project Management, Six Sigma and Project Management,
Traditional Project Management, Comparative analysis.

By reading the title of the papers, only the papers describing the methodologies and a
comparative analysis of them were selected.
Of the selected articles, by the reading the abstracts allowed us to make a further selection.
On the basis of the selected literature, through the full reading of the articles, we collected the
characteristics according to which the methodologies and criteria presented in the comparative
analyses are described, and consequently, we defined the comparison criteria.
Referring to the selected literature, a comparative analysis was carried out. For the sake of
brevity, in order not to deviate the focus from what is the integrated analysis of the
methodologies, only the sources considered most representatives for the purposes of the
conclusions drawn were reported in this research.
In this paragraph, the different techniques are compared in regard to the criteria, which represent
the main aspects of project management.
• Project management structure: Approach, team Dimension, Internal communication,
Leadership style
• Stakeholder policy, focusing on the role of customer
• Main boundaries: Time, Risk &Cost through control delivery, rework, cost, risk
• Main application
3.2 PERSPECTIVE VS. ITERATIVE APPROACH
The analysis of the operating modes of LPM, APM, SS, and PMBOK allows identifying two
different approaches to process management: the prescriptive approach and the iterative (or
time-boxing) approach.
The "prescriptive" approach involves the definition of tasks to perform sequentially. This task
defines the life cycle of a project, structured as a sequence of phases in prescriptive. The role
of the Project manager focalizes on timekeeping of the activity due to the defined sequence.
The rigid definition of activities in the sequential "prescriptive" approach, leads to privileges in
the prevention of changes in the project and the deliverables. The planning and estimation of
costs and times are a consequence of the specifications of the deliverables. This structure
characterizes traditional PM and Six Sigma PM approach.

Instead, the iterative logic is to get to produce as quickly as possible the deliverables and then
finish them through successive cycles of improvement. The requirements and solutions mature
in the course of work through the collaboration of the development team with the client.
This approach focuses on contractual times and costs and handles them with a Timeboxing
logic. In this way, it adapts the design scope according to the small development speed. This
guarantees the flexibility of the project and consequently the maximization of the value
delivered in the agreed time and costs. The requirements and solutions mature in the course of
work through the collaboration of the development team with the client. During the
development of the project, the team collects and manages any change needs within new
releases or product versions. (Beck et all., 2001). The iterative and evolutionary approach in
project management characterizes Agile and Lean methodologies.
Within these approaches, the processes of defining the scope, WBS creation, and scope
verification are iteratively repeated according to customer specifications.
It lends itself very well to manage projects such as software development or research or
engineering phases.
Table 1: Strengths and Weaknesses of the Perspective and Iterative approaches (Adapted From HumanWare,
2019 )
Approach Strengths Weaknesses

Prescriptive Approach. • The definition of a rigid • Inflexible deliverables;
sequence of activities, already • Planning and analyze activity
in the initial phases, simplifies is time expensive and can
the role of the project manager, delay the implementation;
who plays the role of • “Once formalized, the
timekeeper; requirements can only be
• Defined and formalized modified through specific
requirements and escalation procedures”
documentation; (HumanWare, 2019);
• Accurate initial risk analysis • The customer is involved only
and preventive activities; in the final evaluation of the
• The level of formalization does product.
not require staff highly skilled;
• The schedule plan of each
phase allows easy monitoring
and control.
Iterative Approach • Hight flexibility; • Difficult assessment of risks
• Rapid initialization and and project costs in the early
incremental development; stages;
• New requirements and changes • The lack of formal
are managed quickly; documentation can lead to
• Active collaboration whit misconceptions into the team
customer in the development and can create problems of
• Frequent test and revision use by the project manager or
times of the requirements. by the user or government

• Requires highly qualified

customer staff;
• Time expensive for the
customer. A continuous
involvement is required;
• “The horizon is focused on
the short term is there is,
therefore, the risk that the
long term perspective will be
lost” (HumanWare, 2019)
(HumanWare, 2019)
It is worth noting, that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. (HumanWare, 2019). In
adopting the agile approach, It is recognized as an error abandoning the areas of knowledge and
project management processes as described in the PMBOK standard (Project Management
Institute, 2009).
The latest version of PMBOK reports different approaches to the project life cycle (both
predictive and other). An iterative approach such as Agile or Scrum can be applied where this
is compatible with the release of the corresponding deliverables and with the objectives of the
project. (Project Management Institute, Inc., 2017) (HumanWare, 2019)
When the requirements are well defined and documented, an entirely "prescriptive" approach
is preferable. In the case of changing needs and specifications it is preferable to adopt iterative
approaches but within a system of the overall governance of the project structured according to
the expected by PMBOK (HumanWare, 2019)
3.3 TEAM DIMENSION, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND LEADERSHIP STYLE
The analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches highlights how the
different approaches require the project team's different features. In the prescriptive structure,
the team does not need a deep knowledge of the dynamics of Project management. The activities
are organized by the PM according to the downstream planning. According to PMBOK “the
project management team is responsible for determining what is appropriate for any given
project” (Jainendrakumar, 2008). The management of large project groups is facilitated by the
unpacking of the activities. On the contrary, the adoption of the iterative approach brings with
it the centrality of the feedback. Both Lean and Agile focus on people, on inspecting and
adapting in order to improve the work-product and efficiency in producing it. As Rebaiaia and
Vieira (2014) stated, “feedback is critical–from people, from customers, from stakeholders, and

from the product itself” (Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014). To be able to effectively manage the team
members, they need to be aware of the project management dynamics. Agile techniques
explicitly define the roles to administer within the project. According to with APM, SS is
implemented through the small team (typically 4-5) and Champions, Master Black Belts, and
Green belts, usually the role of the project manager is in the head of GB (Zhang, Ifran, Khattak,
Zhu, & Hassan, 2012).
3.4 STAKEHOLDER POLICY AND ROLE OF CUSTOMER
In the traditional approach, stakeholders and customers define the scope, budget, and
boundaries of the project. The team can only move and optimize the performance of the process
moving inside the boundaries dictated in the early stages of the project. The agile manager
understands the effects of the mutual interactions among a project’s various parts and steers
them in the direction of continuous learning and adaption. Contrarily to the linear PM approach,
in which the team dimension depends on goal and budget, in APM the team is small and
dynamic. This team composition supports adaptability to changing external conditions. Scrum's
formalism recognizes three key roles: Product owner, development team and Scrum Master.
The team also requires continuous feedback to the customer and no prevision is made in the
early stages. Also in LPM, the customer takes part in project development. Indeed, a
downstream player is involved in upstream decisions and stakeholders interest are aligned, that
allows performing the activities at the last responsible moment.
Compared to the above methodologies, Six Sigma involves the customer both in the initial
phases and in the validation of the intermediate deliverables. In the Define phase, the client is
involved in the creation of the project charter. In the course of the project, the team involves
stakeholders based on the process issues they need to solve. Leadership has been identified as
a critical success factor for Lean Six Sigma deployment in organizations. As said by Laureani
& Antony (2015) SS projects are “a transformational journey for an organization and they
radically change the way things are done; it is necessary for the leader to be visibly at the
forefront of this journey, personally leading the charge and being identiﬁed with it. It is not
only the top executive leaders: ensuring top-performing people in all business units and
geographies are engaged in the programme is key to achieving visibility.” About this please
see (Buti Al Shamsi, 2013) (Laureani & Antony, 2015).

3.5 TIME, RISK AND COST: THROUGH CONTROL DELIVERY AND REWORK
The two approaches can also be analyzed through the costs of the overall project planning and
the management of project changes.
In the case of a traditional approach, the cost of project planning depends on the stages of the
project. In the early stages, are consistent and then, when an organization acquired certainty
tends to decrease. In the iterative approach, they remain sustained until at the end, because the
succession of versions and releases obliges to a continuous revision of the initial objectives. In
the case of configuration management and modifications, the traditional approach responds to
the introduction of changes to the project specifications increasing costs, in particular in the
implementation phase, while tending to stabilize. Otherwise, the iterative approach incentives
the changes, this could increase the rework resulting in increased times and costs. The lean
approach to avoid this problem introduces the target costing in every gate of the project (Ballars,
2008).
The differences between the structures of the two approaches inevitably imply different risk
management. The concept of risk is closely related to the management of the unexpected.
Therefore, control activities, and consequentially rework, assume a central role.
In the prescriptive approach, the risks are target costing of the project and the changes in the
project objective are not contemplated. According to SS, which is strongly concentrated on
preventing defects instead of attempting to detect them after they occur, “also PMBOK also
suggests prevention is better than repair.” (Jainendrakumar, 2008). Contrary to what happens
in the traditional approach, in Lean (and in Six Sigma approach too) control is an iterative
activity accompanying all phases of the project. The purpose of the control, in this case, is to
identify the reasons for non-completion and to define the actions to prevent a recurrence. As a
result, planning under Lean is the gradual reduction of uncertainty to reduce the presence of
unanticipated constraints (Koskela, 2000). Six Sigma implement both initial and iterative
approach of control. In LPM and APM, adaptability is the key characteristic, even more,
important than predictability, states (DeCarlo, 2004). In fact, LPM manages risks using
buffers to absorb variation. Buffers can take the form of information, drawings, materials,
work in progress, space or time. The team iteratively reduces variation and matches buffers to
actual variation through learning activities. The continuous rework and buffer sizing, allows
team members to perform the activities at the last responsible moment. By cons, Agile
methods do not suggest specific activities to manage risks and only Scrum and XP have

activities to control impediments. Agile Methods reduce risks through multiple iterations
(Sprint) and continuous feedback.
Otherwise, the traditional approach, sixes the risk only at the beginning of the project. For these
reasons, it is good that the overall governance modalities of a project remain structured
according to the "Prescriptive" logic and only a few phases are managed with iterative
development or prototypes. (HumanWare, 2019)
3.6 MAIN APPLICATION
Traditional PM is typically implemented in projects that include operational routine projects in

a predictable way and verified how to accomplish the project's objectives, such as typical
construction or engineering projects (Špundak, 2014).
Otherwise, the main fields of application of the LPM are of the construction field, which
constitutes a consolidated branch of the PM. As described by Cruz-Villazon, other applications
can be found in the general field of business projects, software development, healthcare, mining
and aerospace (Cruz-Villazon, 2018).
About APM, the main application would be a small software development project, most often
within a single organization. Since the last decade, companies have begun to implement agile
techniques even for large global projects (Paasivaara, Durasiewicz, & Lassenius, 2008).
Six sigma has been first applied in manufacturing. In recent years, it was applied also in the
finance sector, typically for improving the accuracy of allocation of cash to reduce bank
charges, automatic payments, improving the accuracy of reporting, reducing documentary
credits defects, reducing check collection defects, and reducing variation in collector
performance. Other applications are in the engineering, construction, and healthcare sector. As
noted by Sharma, Bhardwaj, and Kumar “Six sigma principles and the healthcare sector are
very well matched because of the healthcare nature of zero tolerance for mistakes and potential
for reducing medical errors. Some of the successfully implemented six sigma projects include
improving timely and accurate claims reimbursement, streamlining the process of healthcare
delivery, and reducing the inventory of surgical equipment and related costs (Sharma,
Bhardwaj, & Kumar, 2010). About other implementation areas of SS and Lean Six Sigma,
please see (Zhang, Ifran, Khattak, Zhu, & Hassan, 2012)

Table 2: PM Approach comparison

Topic of
Traditional Agile Lean Six sigma
analysis
Lifecycle
Prescriptive Timeboxing Timeboxing Prescriptive
Approach
Varies,
Small and
Team dimension depending on Small and dynamic team Small team.
dynamic team
the project
Internal Fragmented Free open access Free open access
Free open access to information
communication Information. to information to information
PM as
coordinator.
Adaptive Conductive
Leadership style Internal conflicts Adaptive leadership
leadership leadership
managed by
escalation.
Customer is
Customer define Continuous
Customer is involved in project involved in
Role of project goal, feedback from
development. Downstream Define and
customer and budget and time the customer.
player is involved in upstream Control stages.
stakeholder in the early Stakeholder
decisions and stakeholders Stakeholders
policies stages of the interest are
interest are aligned contribute to the
project. aligned
solution creation
Related to initial
Short sprint and Iterative control. Activities are Initial analysis
analysis and
Control Delivery continuous done at the last responsible and iterative
baseline
feedback moment control
description
Try to avoid Try to avoid

Continuous
rework with rework with
Rework rework is Continuous rework is accepted
preventive preventive
accepted
analysis analysis
Reduced
through multiple
iterations Managed using buffers to
Estimated in the (Sprint) and absorb variation. Activities are Estimated in the
Risk
early stages continuous done at the last responsible early stages
feedback. Lack moment
of explicit
guideline
Consistent in the Consistent in the
early stages. early stages.
Highly Highly
dependent on the Sustained during dependent on the
Cost goodness of the project Target costing method goodness of the
predictions development predictions
made and made and
context context
variability variability
Manufacturing,
Construction, Construction, Software
Main application Software Finance,
Engineering development, Healthcare
Healthcare

4. METHOD INTEGRATION area of interest concerns the understanding of the use cases and
the ways of integration. (Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014) (HumanWare, 2019).
4.1 PMBOK, LPM AND APM
“The association between Agile and Lean is considered as a new competitive strategy concept
and is claimed to be “the next wave of life-cycle process […] However, how to develop an
engineering strategy based around PMBOK, Agile and Lean is not fully clear and the
application of a unified framework associating them is needed than ever” (Woods, 2010).Hibbs
(2009) proposed the terminology "Scrumban" to combine the concepts of scrum (Agile) and
Kanban (Lean) (Curt Hibbs, 2009). Scrumban is believed to be suitable for maintenance
projects or projects where historically there have been numerous requests for rework by the end
customer. “Scrumban” for example is an association of concepts proper to Scrum (Agile) and
kanban (Lean) (Curt Hibbs, 2009).
Retrospective studies show that a part of the Agile community has begun to look at Lean
approaches to combine with XP and Scrum. The union of lean and agile is winning in the
Distributed and global software development project, in which the approach to group
management and lean communication techniques allow to overcome the limits of Agile, which
is fallacious in communications in large groups. (Razzak, 2016). Eg. As described by Woods
(2010) “SAP is expanding the application of Agile methods to the entire product creation
process using a Lean framework that includes empowered cross-functional teams, continuous
improvement process and managers as support and teachers”(Woods, 2010).
About Lean plus Agile PM, Parnell-Klabo (2006) proposed a guideline and some examples of
combined Lean and Agile application (Parnell-Klabo, 2006).
The literature divides between those who consider Lean as another Agile method and who
consider it as a method category in itself rather than an instance of Agile methods. Instead,
Rebaiaia recognized how to employ a hybrid of Lean and Agile development methods allows
achieving “Its customers get to market 50% faster and are 25% more productive” and
suggested creating a special branch of Lean PM Practices about lean-agile approach (Rebaiaia
& Vieira, 2014).
The awareness that switching from Agile to Lean or associating Agile and Lean gives more
clarity to the PLM process, increases customer-centricity and organizational management of

the teams (Woods, 2010) (Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014). Many authors consider the lean as the
natural evolution of agile and as the best way to introduce the concept of continuous
improvement, both from the point of view of the product and the process in use. About Lean-
Agile integration, please see (Woods, 2010).
Rebaiaia & Vieira, try to demonstrate that the combined effect of PMBOK recommendations,
Lean and Agile methods could improve the visibility of the project management processes for
making tangible profits in term of organization, dynamic cooperation, delays, and resources
optimization. LPM and APM complement each other most are in the breadth of their world-
view. Agile usually focuses very much within the software development team or organization,
while Lean focuses on the entire system as manufacturing in the presence of workers, partners,
customers, external stakeholders as possible. By cons, Agile and Lean methods both tend to
focus on unstructured phases. In this sense, integration with the PMBOK could lead to the
management of the project. So combining PMBOK, Agile and Lean can further enhance their
usefulness (Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014). In the last PMBOK edition, PMI suggests an Agile
approach referring to Agile Release Planning (ARP). As described in PMBOK, ARP provides
a high-level summary timeline of the released schedule and determines the number of iterations
or sprints in the release. (Naveed, et al., 2017) (Project Management Institute, 2009).
Despite the evident advantages given by the joint application of these techniques, as stated by
Rebaiaia & Vieira (2014) “few companies are able to take on these project management
approaches immediately and adopt them successfully over a short period– a full transition
often taking a few years. The problem is due to the fact that despite the heaviness of the old
methods, they feel safer with them and very familiar with”. At the operational level, the
addition of the traditional PM, allows overcoming the physiological barrier (ie resistance to
change), which traditional companies encounter in the first implementation of lean activities.
4.2 PMBOK AND SIX SIGMA
As exposed by Tenera & Carnero Pinto (2014), SS and PM are recognized as naturally
integrable. A correspondence between PMBOK phases and DMAIC can be easily identified,
about this, please see the following table. (Project Management Institute, 2009).
Rebaiaia & Vieira quoting Lea Steve Pham, PMP, emphasizes how PMBOK and Six Sigma are
two mirror images and that without the techniques of project management The Six Sigma
techniques alone will not guarantee the success of the project (Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014).

Chittoor defines the combination of Six Sigma techniques and the project management
methodologies as the way to go for companies focussing on continuous improvement (Chittoor,
2012).
We recommend (Tenera & Carnero Pinto, 2014) to have an in-depth description of the topic
PM, SS, and LSS.
Table 3 Suggested harmonization between PMBOK and LSS Lifecycle (Project Management Institute, 2009)
In particular, Puga, Soler, and Wagner (2005) proposed the DMAIC as a framework for
identifying data-driven solutions and opportunities and PM standards as formal procedures for
implementing the solutions found. Rever (2010) also stresses how to include DMAIC stages in
projects would help project managers become more effective. Always Tender, underlines how
the SS can enrich the PM of statistical instruments and deep knowledge of the process. This
would improve future results through solid steps for process improvement. (Tenera & Carnero
Pinto, 2014)
The 6th edition of PMBOK includes SS and Lean SS as a quality improvement method and
highlighting how these methodologies can improve both qualities of the final product and
quality of project managing. (Project Management Institute, Inc., 2017)
Table 4: Summary of Project management methodologies merging
Methodologies Main Uses Advantages Limits

Lean + Agile • Maintenance projects; • Increases customer- • Highly skilled staff
• Projects where centricity and organizational needed;
historically there have management of the teams; • Lean corporate
been numerous • Could improve the visibility culture needed.
requests for rework by of the project management
the end customer; processes for making
• Continuous tangible profits in term of
improvement projects; organization, dynamic
• Product innovation in cooperation, delays, and
a compressed time: resources optimization;

• New product • Avoids all communication

development and problems
process design; • Gives to the project a global
• Distributed and global structure, to manage the
software development work with value streams,
project. focus, and boundaries
Lean+Tradition • Construction projects • Increases the release • Lean corporate
al PM • Projects where frequency of value-add culture needed
historically there have code; • Time expensive for
been numerous • Supports team the customer. A
requests for rework by empowerment continuous
the end customer; • Avoids all communication involvement is
problems required
• Traditional PM
facilitates the first
implementation of
lean/agile
techniques in a new
lean company
Agile + • Software development • Traditional PM allows • Highly skilled staff
Traditional PM projects focussing on unstructured needed;
• Product innovation in projects
a compressed time
Six Sigma+ • Continuous • Data analysis increase • Planning and analyze
Traditional PM improvement projects project managers activity are time
• High budged and effectiveness; expensive and could
large six sigma • The statistical tool allows a delay the
project deeper knowledge of the implementation;
process.
• Traditional PM improves
future results through solid
steps for process
improvement.
• It improves both the
qualities of the final product
and the quality of project
managing.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
In the first paragraphs, we described a review of the different approaches to the PM and how
these have influenced traditional management. In a context of flexibility, the PMBOK
guidelines, Lean and agile methods are the best solutions to adapt to this new way of managing
projects and avoiding all communication problems (Rebaiaia & Vieira, 2014). Over the years,
PMBOK has begun to integrate these methodologies within its framework. This testifies that it
is concrete and recognize the need to evolve the traditional approach. In the sixth edition, it
incorporates in its framework agile approaches (Lifecycles and techniques) and some Six Sigma
tools. The last edition of PMBOK includes a paragraph dedicated to new trends in PM processes
like Agile.

Among these methodologies, there is no universally better than the other. The choice of which
to implement depends, as described, on the context.
The individual methodologies have peculiar characteristics which, when combined together,
make it possible to overcome the limits of the individual methodologies. Eg the lean approach
favors communication within the team and facilitates work in large teams, therefore if
associated with the APM it allows to overcome the limitations of the exclusive implementation
of this technique to only small teams. An example of this application is the joint use of these
two techniques in the Distributed and global software development project. Both the LPM and
APM techniques are winning in projects that foresee a strong uncertainty in the initial
specifications. The iterative approach that puts the customer at the center, allows for greater
flexibility and greater compliance with the concept of value for the customer. On the other hand,
both of these methods are unstructured and can benefit from the structure provided by
traditional techniques. The combination of traditional and Six Sigma methodology is more
natural. In this case, the traditional approach can occur in SS projects both in the initial phases
of project definition and in the definition of the plan of solutions to be implemented. The union
between the stage-gate approach provided by the DMAIC framework and the traditional project
management simplifies the management of large projects, as in the case of a redesign of product
lines or redesign of entire processes.
The focal point, therefore, is the analysis of the possible integration areas of these
methodologies. The creation of hybrid approaches, which include a phase of context assessment
in order to identify which techniques are best suited to be included, constitutes interesting future
developments.
The analysis provided in the preceding paragraphs makes it possible to identify when it is
advantageous to implement one technique rather than the other and how the combination of one
or more of these may be more effective than the single implementation of one of them.
The analysis provided does not include a detailed review of the authors and cases in the
literature. this limit could be overcome with future research concerning both systematic
reviews and the analysis of cases reported in the literature that refer to integrated approaches.

REFERENCES
Agustine, S., Payne, B., & Sencindiver, F. a. (2005, December ). Agile Project
Management: Steering from the edges. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48 No.12,
pp. 85-90.
Asad, U. C. (2006). Comparative Study of DFSS in Product and Service Innovation .
Proceedings Asian Network for Quality Congress 2006 Singapore,. ANQ, Singapore.
Ballard, G., & Howell, A. G. (2003). Lean project management. Building Research and
Information, Vol.31 No. 2, 119-133.
Ballars, G. (2008). Lean Project delivery system: An update. Lean Construsction Journal, 1-
19.
Beck, K., & Fowler, M. (2000). Planning Extreme Programming. Addison-Wesley Longman
Publishing Co., Inc.
Buti Al Shamsi, T. (2013, January). Leadership characteristics for Lean Six Sigma. SSRN
Electronic Journal, pp. 1-10.
Chittoor, R. (2012, May 28). Six Sigma and Project Management. Retrieved from Project
Management, ultimate references for Project Managers: https://project-
management.com/six-sigma-and-project-management/
Cruz-Villazon, C. (2018). Two decades of studying the impaact of lean in project
management: A systemantic Litarature Review of scientific Journal. Research and
edication in project management, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Research and Education on Project Management - REPM 2018. Editors: Jose Ramòn
Otegi, Nerea Toledo and Ianire Taboada (pp. 53-56). Bilbao : Asociacion Espanola de
Direccion e Ingenieria de Proyectos.
Curt Hibbs, S. J. (2009). The Art of Lean Software Development: A Practical and
Incremental Approach, 1 edition . O'Reilly Media.
Darwish, N. R., & Muhammad, M. A. (2017). Success Factors of Scrum Team: A
Systematic Survey. Software Engineering and Technology, Vol 9, No 4 .
DeCarlo, D. (2004). eXtreme Project Management Using Leadership, Principles, and Tools
to Deliver Value in the Face of Volatility. Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint.
Elahe, M. F., & Mahmud, S. H. (2014, November-December). Efficiency of scrum the
most widely adopted method for agile software development. IOSR Journal of
Computer Engineering, Volume 16, Issue 6, Ver. IV, pp. 70-73.
Farashah, A. D., JaniceThomas, & Blomquist, T. (2019, January). Exploring the value of
project management certification in selection and recruiting. International Journal of
Project Management, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp. 14-26.
Fowler, F. (2018). Navigating Hybrid Scrum Environments: Understanding the Essentials,
Avoiding the Pitfalls. aPress 1st ed. edition .
Fraser, S. D., & Mancl, D. (2019, January). Agile Culture: A Panels Report from XP 2017.
ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 43(4), pp. 21-23.
Garcia, S. (2005, September/October ). How Standards Enable Adoption of Project
Management. IEEE Software, Vol. 22, pp. 22-29.
Highsmith, F. &. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Retrieved from
agilemanifesto.org: https://agilemanifesto.org/iso/en/manifesto.html
Hoerl, R. (2004). One perspective on the future of Six Sigma. International Journal of Six
Sigma and Competitive Advantage , 1 (1), 112–119.

HumanWare. (2019). Metodologia Agile e PMBOK: Waterfall e Metodo Iterativo. Retrieved

from humanware on line: http://www.humanwareonline.com/project-
management/center/pmbok-agile/
Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. (2000, December). A Dynamic Framework for
Classifying Information Systems Development Methodologies and Approaches.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 17 (3), pp. 179-218.
Jainendrakumar, T. D. (2008, April). SIX SIGMA vs. PMBOK Complementary and
Mutually Supporting Methodologies for Handling Projects. Retrieved from PM World
Library: https://pmworldlibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Jainendrakumar-six-
sigma-vs-pmbok-Featured-Paper-April2008.pdf
Koskela, G. A. (2000). Reforming Project management: The role of lean construction. 8th
annual Conference of the International Group of Lean Construction.
Koskela, L., Ballard, G. M., Howell, G., & Tommelein, I. (2002). The foundations of lean
construction. Design and Construction: Building in Valu2, pp. 211-226.
Laureani, A., & Antony, J. (2015). Leadership characteristics for Lean Six Sigma. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28 (3-4).
Lee, S., & Young, H. (2010). Distributed agile: project management in a global environment.
Empire Software Engineering, Vol.15, pp. 204-217.
Masciadra, E. (2017). Traditional Project Management. In B. A. Handzic M., (eds)
Knowledge and Project Management. Knowledge Management and Organizational
Learning, vol 5. (pp. 3-23). Springer, Cham.
McHugh, O., & Hogan, M. (2010). Investigating the rationale for adopting an
internationallyrecognised project management methodology in Ireland: The view of
the project manager. International Journal of Project Management , pp. 1-10.
Messemaeker, J. D. (2009-2010). Adoption of structured project management
methodologies: a project manager's gain? Paper master thesis: FACULTEIT
ECONOMISCHE, SOCIALE EN POLITIEKE WETENSCHAPPEN & SOLVAY
MANAGEMENT SCHOOL.
Mirzaei, M., & Mabin, V. J. (2012). Project Management: A Comparison of Three Popular
Approaches. 46th Annual Conference of the Operations Research Society of New
Zealand.
Naveed, A., Mimani, E., Blash, G., Saetrum, J., Gupta, K., Yarbrough, O., . . . Anand, V.
(2017). What is New in PMBOK® Guide 6th Edition – An In-Depth Comparison.
Paasivaara, M., Durasiewicz, S., & Lassenius, C. (2008). Distributed Agile Development:
Using Scrum in a Large Project. IEEE International Conference on Global Software
Engineering, 87-95.
Patil, V. S., Andhale, S. R., & Paul, I. D. (February 2013). A Review of DFSS:
Methodology, Implementation and Future Research. International Journal of
Innovations in Engineering and Technology; Vol. 2 Issue 1, 369-375.
Permana, A. P. (2015, September ). Scrum Method Implementation in a Software
Development Project Management. International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications 6(9), pp. 198-204.
Project Management Institute, Inc. (2017). PMBOK® Guide – Sixth Edition. Project
Management Institute; .
Project Management Istitute. (2009). A suggested harmonization of DMAIC with PMBOK
project life cycles . PMBOK, 4th Edition.

Rebaiaia, M.-L., & Vieira, D. R. (2014, February ). Integrating PMBOX Standards, Lean
and Agile Methods in Project Management Activities. nternational Journal of
Computer Applications, pp. 40-46.
Reusch, P. J. (2013). How to develop lean project management? Intelligent Data Acquisition
and Advanced Computing Systems (IDAACS), IEEE 7th International Conference on
Vol. 02 (pp. 547-550). Berlin, Germany: IEEE.
Rosenau, M. D., & Gitens, G. D. (2005). Succesfull Project Management: A step by step
approach with Practical Examples, Fourth Edition . Widley.
Sharma, S., Bhardwaj, D., & Kumar, V. (2010). Six Sigma Approach: Application,
Benefits and Scope. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotic
Research.
Špundak, M. (2014). Mixed agile/traditional project management methodology – reality or
illusion? 27th IPMA World Congress (pp. 939-948 ). P r o c e d i a - S o c i a l a n d B
ehavioralSciences119.
Tenera, A., & Carnero Pinto, L. (2014). A Lean Six Sigma (LSS) Project management
improvement model. 27th IPMA World Congress (pp. 912-920). Procedia social and
behavioral sciences,119.
Turner, J. (2010). Evolution of Project Management Research as evidenced by papers
published in Internationa Journal of Project Management. International Journal of
Project Management (28)1, 1-6.
Woods, D. (2010, 11 01). Why Lean And Agile Go Together. Retrieved from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/11/software-lean-manufacturing-technology-cio-
network-agile.htm
Zhang, Q., Ifran, M., Khattak, M. A., Zhu, T., & Hassan, M. (2012). Lean Six Sigma:
Literature Review. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,
Vol.3, No.10, 599-605.

APPENDIX
Tabella 5: Acronyms summary table
ARP Agile Release Planning

DXP Distributed XP
IDOV Six Sigma Framework, acronymous of identity, design, optimize, verify
AEC Architects, Engineers, and Builders
APM Agile Project Management
CAS Complex Adaptive Systems
CTQ (characteristic) Critical to Quality
DAD Distributed Agile Development
DFSS Design for Six Sigma
DIDOV Six Sigma Framework, acronymous of Define, identify, design, optimize, verify
DMADV Six Sigma Framework, acronymous of define measure, analyze, design, verify
DMAIC Six Sigma Framework, acronymous of Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve,
Control
DS Distribute Scrum
GSD Global Software Development
IGLC International Group for Lean Construction
LPDS Lean Production Delivery System
LPM Lean Project Management
LSS Lean Six Sigma
PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge
PMI Project Management Institute
SS Six Sigma
TPM Traditional Project Management
XP Extreme Programming
Author’s Contact:
Email: silvia.gubinelli@uniroma2.it
Via del Politecnico, 1, 00133, Rome – Italy

Copyright of Journal of Modern Project Management is the property of Editora Mundo and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Project Management Method Comparison

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Management Method Comparison

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Management Method Comparison

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JMPM #21 Special Issue: Vol.7 Num.

The evolution of Project Management

Keywords: Project Management, Lean Project Management, Agile Project Management,

DECEMBER 2019 DOI NUMBER: 10.19255/JMPM02107

Literature defines a "project" as a temporary, unique, and progressively elaborated work,

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 2

2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 3

2.1 TRADITIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Project Management Institute (PMI) defined Project management methodology as a set of

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 4

2.2 AGILE PROJECT MANAGEMENT

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 5

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 6

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 7

2.3 LEAN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 8

2.3.1 LEAN PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM (LPDS)

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 9

Figure 1: Triads of the LPDS (Ballard & Howell, 2003)

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 10

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 11

2.4 SIX SIGMA (SS)

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 12

3 COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 13

3.2 PERSPECTIVE VS. ITERATIVE APPROACH

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 14

Approach Strengths Weaknesses

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 15

• Requires highly qualified

3.3 TEAM DIMENSION, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION AND LEADERSHIP STYLE

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 16

3.4 STAKEHOLDER POLICY AND ROLE OF CUSTOMER

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 17

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 18

3.6 MAIN APPLICATION

Traditional PM is typically implemented in projects that include operational routine projects in

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 19

Table 2: PM Approach comparison

Try to avoid Try to avoid

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 20

4.1 PMBOK, LPM AND APM

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 21

4.2 PMBOK AND SIX SIGMA

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 22

Table 4: Summary of Project management methodologies merging

Methodologies Main Uses Advantages Limits

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 23

• New product • Avoids all communication

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 24

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 25

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 26

HumanWare. (2019). Metodologia Agile e PMBOK: Waterfall e Metodo Iterativo. Retrieved

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 27

DECEMBER 2019 | JOURNALMODERNPM.COM 28

Tabella 5: Acronyms summary table