Impact of Agile Methodology Use on Project Success,

Mediating Role of Project Complexity And Moderating Role

of Managerial Support

By

Asim Riaz
MPM161007

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

CAPITAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
ISLAMABAD
2017

i
 Impact Of Agile Methodology Use On Project Success,
Mediating Role Of Project Complexity And Moderating Role
Of Managerial Support
By

Asim Riaz

MPM161007

A research thesis submitted to the Department of Management Sciences,

Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

CAPITAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
ISLAMABAD
2017

ii
 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
ISLAMABAD
Islamabad Expressway, Kahuta Road, Zone-V, Islamabad
Phone: +92 51 111 555 666, Fax: 92 51 4486705
Email: info@cust.edu.pk, Website: http”//www.cust.edu.pk

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

Impact of Agile Methodology Use on Project Success, Mediating role of

Project Complexity and Moderating role of Managerial Support
By

Asim Riaz

MPM 161007

THESIS EXAMINING COMMITTEE

S No Examiner Name Organization

(a) External Examiner Dr. Hassan Rasool PIDE, ISB
(b) Internal Examiner Dr. Sajid Bashir CUST, ISB
(c) Supervisor Dr. Shazia Akhtar CUST, ISB

________________________________

Dr. Shazia Akhtar

Thesis Supervisor
Sep, 2017
______________________________ ___________________________
Dr. Sajid Bashir Dr. Arshad Hassan
Head Dean
Department of Management Sciences Faculty of Management and Social Sciences
Dated : Sep, 2017 Dated : Sep, 2017

iii
 Certificate

This is to certify that Mr. Asim Riaz has incorporated all observations, suggestions and
comments made by the external evaluators as well as the internal examiners and thesis
supervisor. The title of his Thesis is: Impact of Agile Methodology Use on Project
Success, Mediating role of Project Complexity and Moderating role of Managerial
Support.

Dr. Shazia Akhtar

(Thesis Supervisor)

iv
 Acknowledgment

All the deepest sense of gratitude to Almighty Allah, the most compassionate and

merciful who is omnipotent and omnipresent, and has divulged His knowledge to man.

Alhamdulillah.

I am highly obliged and extend sincere gratitude to all my teachers, colleagues and

friends, who not only helped me but motivated me throughout my thesis preparation and

kept my moral high for the completion of this Thesis.

Likewise my parents and friends proved to be very supportive during every task that I

had to do for completing my research work. I am very thankful to my most favorite

supervisor Dr. Shazia Akhtar who guided me very well to complete my research thesis

and helped me out whenever I was stuck in some difficulty. I would also like to thank

some lovely people in my life My Parents (Dy. Prosecutor Riaz Ahmed Ranjha (Adv.

H/C) and my beloved Mom),all friends,my sisters Dr. Zunaira Riaz,

Adv. Humaira Riaz, brother Dr. Qasim Riaz.

(Asim Riaz)

v
I Would Like To Dedicate This Work To My Parents & My Siblings.

vi
 Abstract

This research is conducted to analyze the impact of Agile methodology usage on Project

success along with Project complexity acting as a mediator and Managerial support

acting as a moderator in the study.This research was particularly carried out to

investigate the agile mechanism implementation and usage which was usually followed

in software industry so the data was collected from software project industries running in

Pakistan. Results show that Agile methodology usage significantly impacts the success

of projects and Project complexity acts on as a mediator in the relationship moreover

Managerial support is approved to act as a mediator in the described relationship. It has

been concluded from the proposed study that complexity has a negative relation with the

project success but in case of agile methodology implementation, managerial support is

used as a catalyst to overcome the complexity in order to achieve the desired success of

the project.

Keyword: Agile methodology use, Project complexity, Managerial support, Project

success

vii
 Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Gap Analysis .................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Research Question .......................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Research Objective.......................................................................................................... 5
1.6. Significance Of The Study ................................................................................................ 6
1.7. Supporting Theory........................................................................................................... 7
1.7.1. Game Theory ........................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................. 10
LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................................. 10
2.1. AgileMethodologyUsage And Project Success .............................................................. 10
2.2. Agile Methodology Usage And Project Complexity ...................................................... 13
2.3. Project Complexity and Project Success ....................................................................... 16
2.4. Project Complexity Mediates The Relationship Between Agile Methodology Use And
Project Success .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.5. Management Support Moderates The Relationship Between Project Complexity And
Project Success. ......................................................................................................................... 21
2.6. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 23
2.7. Research Model ............................................................................................................ 25
CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................. 26
METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 26
3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 26
3.2. Research Design ............................................................................................................ 26
3.3. Types Of Study .............................................................................................................. 26
3.4. Study Setting ................................................................................................................. 26
3.5. Time Horizon ................................................................................................................. 27
3.6. Unit of Analysis.............................................................................................................. 27
3.7. Population ..................................................................................................................... 27
3.8. Sample ........................................................................................................................... 27
3.8.1. Sample Characteristics: ............................................................................................. 28
3.8.2. Table of Gender (RepresentsGender Percentage ) ................................................... 28

viii
 3.8.3. Table of Age (Respondent’s Age Distribution) .......................................................... 28
3.9. Qualification .................................................................................................................. 29
3.9.1. Table of Respondents Qualification .......................................................................... 29
3.10. Work Experience ....................................................................................................... 30
3.10.1. Table of Experience of Respondents ......................................................................... 30
3.11. Measurments ............................................................................................................ 30
3.12. Instrumentation ........................................................................................................ 31
3.12.1. Agile Methodology Use ............................................................................................. 31
3.12.2. Project Success .......................................................................................................... 32
3.12.3. Managerial Support................................................................................................... 33
3.12.4. Project Complexity .................................................................................................... 33
3.13. Reliability ................................................................................................................... 34
3.14. Pilot testing ............................................................................................................... 34
3.14.1. Table of Analysis of reliability ................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................. 35
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 35
4.1. Control Variables ........................................................................................................... 35
4.1.2. Table of Reliability Analysis ....................................................................................... 36
4.2. Results ForHypothesized Variables ............................................................................... 37
4.3. Descriptive Analysis....................................................................................................... 37
4.3.1. Table of Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................... 37
4.4. Correlations Analysis ..................................................................................................... 38
4.4.1. Table of Correlation Analysis..................................................................................... 38
4.5. Regression Analysis ....................................................................................................... 39
4.6. Hypothesis Summary .................................................................................................... 42
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................. 43
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 43
5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 43
5.2. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 47
5.3. Theoretical and Practical Implication............................................................................ 48
5.4. Limitations Of Research ................................................................................................ 49
5.5. Future Research Directions ........................................................................................... 51
6. Reference .......................................................................................................................... 53

ix
7. Appendix ................................................................................................................................... 85

x
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1.Background

The most emerging trend in the software firms is the use of agile methodology to

conduct development of the software projects. This word was first time used in history in

2001 (Beck et al. 2001).It is something totally different from the traditional project

management approaches, This word was coined as the evolutionary project management

technique (Gilb, 2007).Many of the software development project companies are moving

toward the use of agile methodologies usage to conduct their software projects because it

is the most effective way and most efficient way and technique to collaborate with the

customers. There are still many of the software projects which fail because there are

many hidden aspects which still need to be identified. There are many aspects which lead

to the success of the project as teamwork showed that project success is based on the

concept of learning, work satisfaction and effective positive approaches. Traditional

teams are performing well but the agile teams are leading the project with quality and

success (Lindsjorn et al. 2016).

Most of the software companies are moving toward using agile methods but the rate of

IT projects failure is still high because most of the agile unhidden aspects still need to be

explored. The use of agile methodologies and practices showed a very effective and

improved quality of projects specially the software development side of the projects, the

use of agile methodologies allows and supports the project managers to improve the

lacks of the project by reviewing it again & again during the project. It supports in terms

of focusing on the main goal and need of the project (Maruping, Venkatesh, &Agarwal,

1
2009).It is much important to track the requirements of the customers in order to deliver

the appropriate and right quality of items for future projects and project success.

Checking up the taste of the customer is highly dependent on the success of project, agile

methodology use plays an important role in projects quality which includes the stability,

functionality and the reliability of the data collected from developers (Tsai, Ho, Chang,

& Jiang, 2016). Agile methodology is fast growing and focusing the internet software

industry specially the application environment, and the new agile methods are

implemented, which needs to be discussed currently (Abrahamsson, Salo,

Ronkainen&Warsta, 2002).This shows that agile methodology still needs empirical

evidence in many aspects. In many of the previous researches agile methodology was

found to have great influence on the success of the project. Agile scaling method defines

the path that are required for the different challenges which are faced by the developers,

in this way our study use agile methodologiesto achieve project success (Ambler, 2009).

Projects have their own specifications and complexities which need to be lessen to

execute the kind of project required by the customers. By working on the causes which

cause project complexity increases the chances of success of the project (Gidado,

1996).One of the method to reduce the complexity of the project is to use agile methods

because they show one to one collaboration with the customers. Complexities in the

software development projects are handled by using agile techniques (Mishra & Mishra,

2011). Still there is a need to study how project complexity impacts the success of the

project and how the complexity of the project can be reduced.

The success of the project doesn’t solely depends on the methodology that we have used,

it also depends on many other factors as well including the project manager support.

Project management methodology and project success are based on the same line and the

2
directions as provided by the project manger (Joslin& Müller, 2015).The basic thing in

information system development is to exploit and gain benefit from the top managers to

successfully implement the management information systems (Jarvenpaa& Ives, 1991).

If the projects are complex we need top management support to deal with the project

complexity that is why we have used managerial support as moderator in our model.

1.2.Gap Analysis

Agile project methodology is emerging trend among the project methodologies and

techniques many of the topics still need some empirical evidence in a latest study

conducted by Serrador and Pinto (2015) the impact of agile methodology use was

studied on the project success including how planning impacts the agile methodology.

Few studies have found the complexity in organizations there is still a need of evidence

to highlight the impact of project complexity in organizations using agile

methodology.Larman (2004) states that many of the agile methodology techniques and

approaches have many more outcomes which need further research.

Most of the organizations are still using traditional project management approaches and

some are using mixed methodologies i.e. hybrid methodologies and few are moving

toward agile methodology use approach. Those using agile methodology approaches are

evidencing high success rate yet and are attracting the other sectors as well to move

toward agile methodology usage. As according to agile governance theory there are so

many untouched areas considerednecessary to explore for the agile success (Luna,

Kruchten, & de Moura, 2015).

Agile practices are not being just followed by IT professionals but it is also being used in

many other fields of business and accountings and still need to connect with the project

3
management methodologies linked to agile methodologies as recently (Anderson et al.

2005) illustrated the link between traditional and agile methodologies.. Because there is

no perfect methodology (Schwaber, 2006) for further investigation in this particular area.

Projects have their own specifications and complexities which need to be lessen to

execute the kind of project required by the customers. By working on the causes which

cause project complexity increases the chances of success of the project (Gidado,

1996).One of the method to reduce the complexity of the project is to use agile methods

because they show one to one collaboration with the customers and it was recommended

for the future research that there is still need to study that how project complexity

impacts the success of the project.

There is need to search for those empirically, there is no such research found in extent

literatureproviding evidence on the role of management support between agile

methodology use and project success. Previously it is studied among organizations other

than project based organizations using agile methodology use. So this study will show

how management support impacts the relationship of agile methodology use on the

success of the project.

1.3.Problem Statement

Agile success is an important aspect of project management; it addresses and gives a new

and effective direction to all those failed methodologies and practices traditionally

followed for the project success. Still there is a question mark that which projects mostly

succeed the one following the traditional methods or the one following the latest agile

methodology. Many consider the agile methodologies to be the best to be followed but

what lacks is the empirical evidence to this approach and many unhidden aspect related

the methodology. The current study focuses on project manager to adopt the agile

4
methodology for fruitful outcomes. The aim of the study is to find out agile methodology

impact on project success which is highly ignored and less explored area in the current

literature, secondly also aim to check the mediated mechanism of project complexity,

along the rapid exploration of this topic the studies generally ignore how agile

methodology usage is influenced by the complexity of the project, finally the study also

aim to solve the problem in the current literature to check the moderating role of

manager support between project complexity and project success.

1.4.Research Question

On the basis of stated problems, the present study is intended to find answers for some

questions, brief summary of the questions are as follows:

Question 1:How agile methodology usage impacts the success of the project?

Question 2:Does project complexity mediates between agile methodology usage and

project success?

Question 3: Does management support play a role of moderator between the relationship

of project complexity and project success?

1.5.Research Objective

Generally objective of the study is to develop and test projected model to explore the

relationship between agile methodology, project complexity and success of agile

projects. The Management support is further considered as the possible moderator for the

relationship of the mentioned variables in the research model (agile methodology use,

project complexity, agile success).

The precise objectives of the study are stated below:

5
 1. To explore the relationship between role of information system

development complexity and agile methodology usage.

2. To explore the mediating role of project complexity between agile

methodology use and success of the software development projects.

3. To examine the moderating effect of management support on the

relationship of project complexity and success of the project.

1.6.Significance Of The Study

This study will not only help the practioners of the project industry but it will also

provide empirical evidence related to the use of agile methodology. It will give a new

sight to the practioners of the industry that is it really important to use agile methodology

for the successful completion of the project and how it effects the customers of the

industry as agile methodology provides one to one evidence on perfect collaboration

with the customers. It will provide answer to the questions that which are those important

aspects of agile methodology that the traditional project management approaches should

be given less important over the emerging agile methodology usage. Why the project

industry should use agile approaches to move toward achieving success in the industry.

Along high-lightening the impact of agile methodology usage it will help project

managers to understand about what is their role in successful implementation of the agile

methodology and how they can support their subordinates and the project team to

influence the success of the project by improvising these methods. This research will

help understand the project industry the underlying aspects of the agile methodology

usage and how management support can help understand the project and reduce the

complexity of the project.

6
This study will give a new direction toward agile project management by investigating

the buried aspects and ways to do and conduct a project successfully. It would be

worldwide beneficial research because most of the traditional approaches are now being

considered outdated and many of the projects have failed these days and the failure rate

of IT projects is more than the other infrastructure and development projects (Yeo,

2002). Most of the Pakistani projects have failed or they face cost overrun therefore to

investigate the underlying cause is very important objective of this study.

This research will also provide evidence on how complexity of the project affects the

agile methodology usage and what is the impact of reduction of complexity on the

success of the project. Because the emerging IT projects are far more complex than the

traditional projects. It will help project manager’s to understand the importance of

reduction of the complexity of the projects in order to achieve long term success in the

industry

It will help the emerging project management professionals who are working in project

industry of Pakistan and who want to start the new projects in the country because the

researches which are conducted outside Pakistan differ in contextual aspects and

economic conditions as compared to our country we need more solid solutions toward

the project industry to improve our economic conditions.Therefore, history shows that

most of the projects in Pakistan happen to face cost overrun, schedule delays and poor

quality or shutdown of the projects so this study will help provide the systems and

methods which could cover and improve all these problems of the industry

1.7.Supporting Theory

Several underpinning theories support the model of this research paper like agile

governance theory, agile theory of general relativity, theory of constraints,Archives.

7
Theory of coordination in agile software projects, Chaos theory in software projects and

game theory. The best fit to this research model is game theory which covers all the

variables studied in this research paper.

1.7.1. Game Theory

Game theory is generally related to the cooperation and interaction of the different items

this theory was presented by (Neumann, 1928).Game theory is mainly used in human

interactions, human behavior, economics, political science, and psychology, as well

as logic, computer science and biology (Myerson, 1991).Agile methodology use, is also

related to timely collaboration with the customers, if interaction with the customers is

timely it would lead to the success of the project. If there would be management support

and the developers will collaborate with each other they would result in significant

development of the project by using agile methodology. Game theory provides tools to

meet the complex interactions and to respond to the customers.

From many years agile methodology is being used to understand the complex situations

agile methodology is being applied in telecommunication network from past few years. It

helps to understand the independent adaptations and complex scenarios (Srivastava et al.

2005).

Problems of the networks are solved by game theoretical approach power

control,cooperation and channel access Min (2008) with the help of continues

collaboration and power control which can be achieved by the management support can

lead to the success of the project especially in the software development projects.

Mostly the software projects are bounded by complex software networking and

communication with the customers this complex networking is met by using game theory

8
as the game theory works on collaboration it can be any way round through sharing

(Andrews &Dinitz, 2009).So this theory covers all the aspects connecting agile

methodology use with the success of project relating how collaboration and management

support can help in achieving the success of the project by reducing the complexity of

the projects.

9
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Agile Methodology Usage And Project Success

More than 30 years are passed on the research of the software development projects but

the recent years showed that agile methodology of software development is a key, ruling

and dominant methodology which is being used and came out to be a success in

performing excellence of the project (Stankovic, Nikolic, Djordjevic& Cao, 2013).

Studies showed that there is a gap where data analysis and work should be done with the

concept of use of development agility and the factors and conditions which are linked

with the project success. During the analysis and collecting of information it was

indicated that organizational culture and empowerment of the project team is the back

bone to project success (Sheffield &Lemétayer, 2013). Industry is moving toward the

agile methods because the nature of the project industry is moving towards more

customer focused, there is a possibility of well structured problems which are having

clear objectives which are to be solved but there comes a problem with uncertain user

requirements (Avison& Taylor, 1997).

Agile methods were evolved to cover the risks involved in the projects and respond to

changes in the market so this leads to the success of the project. Similarly measurable

tests are required to analyze the successful production of the agile software development

projects (Beck, 2000). Likewise it was identified that managers become informative

about a particular aspect related to the project so that you could make more informed

decisions as it is found that processes, systems and people are correlated with each other

for successful implementation of the project (D. Phillips, 1998).

10
According to Serrador& Pinto (2015) agile methodology is being widely used in the

software development industry and other industries as well because it is a shift and a

counter alternative to the traditional project management approaches like waterfall which

are required for the successful implementation of the complex projects so by these facts

it is found that agile methodology usage leads to the success of the project.

It is very important technique in the industry which is directly related to the variations in

the market because it’s the only method of project management in which we collaborate

with the customers at each iteration so that we could share information. Organizations

should carefully recognize the need to implement the agile methodology (Nerur,

Mahapatra&Mangalaraj, 2005). As most of the software development projects are highly

customer focused and responsive, agile method is the collective approach to produce

beneficial results by interacting with the customers and agile team and modifying the

plan according to those customers demand (Highsmith, 2003).

Agile methods also help to review the codes of software development projects (Beck,

2000). Code reviews serve the purpose of successfully employing the agile methodology

through communication related to the software being developed. Agile methods not only

focus on the excessive interaction with the customers they also help to identify the goals

needed to achieve success in projects. The iterative behavior of the agile methodology

technique helps to collaborate with the customers at each step so that we could remain in

constant touch with the requirements of the customers (Mann & Maurer, 2005).

Counter arguments suggest that when teams are working in large parallel teams then it

becomes impossible to apply one of the agile methodology i.e. scrum. Most of such

projects fail so in such mega projects most of the time traditional project management

approaches are considerd. On the other hand it’s found to be very successful technique in

11
small agile practices (Paasivaara, Lassenius & Heikkilä, 2012). Similarly it is narrated

that it is not a very easy task to implement the agile methodology in agile software

projects. Execution of the agile methodology in the organization should be carefully

implemented along with the mixture of traditional project management method for

succession of the projects (Boehm, 2002).

Moreover agile methodology can be implemented in other industries as well. Because of

the innovative and complex nature of the projects they should not be executed by the old

traditional agile methodology processes because they are outdated for the success of the

projects. So opportunities should be analyzed in the industry to implement the agile

methodology technique for successful delivery of the project (Conforto et al. 2014).

Agile methodology helps to satisfy the team, customers and the overall stakeholders of

the project industry. This methodology helps to improve the delivery time to launch the

projects but they are not directly linked to the success of the projects (Budzier &

Flyvbjerg, 2013).Whether if the project industry fails to identify those methods which

are required to understand the agile methodology usage the project certainly fails

(McAvoy & Butler, 2009).Another view suggests that there is not much difference

between the use of agile methodology and the organizations which use traditional project

management approaches. The success rate and the time of delivery to implement the

projects is not much different setting because the failure rate in both cases is not well

differentiated (Magazinius & Feldt, 2011).

Literature deny the list of association of agile methodology use with project success or

build an argument that due to mixed results in the precious literature we want to

experimentally list this relationship in the current context etc. (Coram & Bohner, 2005)

12
There is difference of opinion highlighted in the literature previously found so in this

paper we will analyze agile methodology is successful in software industry. So from the

above literature we can propose that

H1: Agile methodology usage is positively and significantly associated with project

success.

2.2. Agile Methodology Usage And Project Complexity

A systematic evaluation of complexity drivers and their subsequent demand placed on

the resources of the organization for each activity of the project needs to be conducted,

for this purpose a novel approach based on a resource-oriented process cost calculation

method has been developed. The approach includes a consideration of uncertainties

regarding the complexity impact and definition of a capacity to tolerate complexity,

Schuh et al. (2017).

Project Complexity is directly associated to the success and failure of any project and it

is increased in case of not proper handling the project performances and the executions

of the task distributed or the tasks which will be implemented in near future. The project

complexity varies in different terms that can the technical complexity or the management

complexity; it includes the number of technologies involved and the familiarity of team

with technologies or it can be technical interfaces, and in management complexity the

project staffing and management or some other change related issues or external issues

are related to the project can affect the project proceedings and operations.

Project Complexity contains the elements like the function of variations and the number

of varied, and then the number of interrelated elements, tasks or specialists and the

complexity involved in it (Baccarini, 1996; Miller and Hobbs, 2005).

13
Agile methods also depends and directly associated to the customer involvement, and it

is very important for achievement of goals of the project and getting the feedback from

the customers / stakeholders, this is necessary as feedback to progressive operations are

in functional mode and will be moving there through its life cycle. Agile methods allow

the stakeholders an easy and frequent stakeholder interaction by implementing this

methodology, Mann and Maurer (2005).

Agile methodologies use is done through the planning and spreading across the entire

development phase of the project in which at different places we gather the information,

Boehm (2002).

If we look in the current project and the success rate of projects then we see a interesting

results where agile project management methods are getting very popular in some

continuous changing environment / tasks / requirements either related cost, date, or some

requirements associated with it, Magazinius and Feldt (2011). He also said that while

examining the two different companies , one company which was using and the other

company which was not using and have not adopted the agile methodologies are reported

with no a big difference and the success in meeting time and budget goals and the causes

of failure was not significantly different from one and other firm. Another important

thing was he noticed that with the passage of time new techniques and methods are

started in firms for the implementation of projects and achieving the goals and

completing the needs and requirements of the project.

Project success contains a large amount of dealing of project complexity and

intentionally fulfilling the all needs of the project accordingly which includes the time,

cost, and performance, Kloppenborg et al. (2009). Project efficiency and overall project

success is directly associated and they have a strong relationship, (Serrador and Turner,

2015). Fundamentally we can measure and evaluate the complexity between the two

14
possibilities to measure or evaluate, there are two ways of doing it; the first option is

Direct option and second is the indirect option, which are related with using a measured

value which can tell the complexity and the other is using economic effects of

complexity respectively, Schuh (2017).

We can measure the project complexity by viewing the history of the different related in

nature project and analyzing them on ground realities and checking them with core

values of understanding and fulfilling the needs and requirements of the project with the

help of combining the agile methodology use and project complexity respectively and

accordingly to the nature of the project.As project complexity differs from project to

project most of the projects these days are more complex literature shows that many of

the uncertainties, complexity and changes in the information technology project can be

reduced by using the agile methodology in software development projects

(Dybå&Dingsøyr, 2008).Because software development projects require rapid feedback

from the customers so that their requirements could be met successfully. Agile

methodology helps in collaborative understanding of the customer’s requirements.

Availability of the rapid feedback available by using agile methodology can reduce the

distance of developing the software project (Holmström, Fitzgerald, Ågerfalk &

Conchúir, 2006).

Agile methodology provides the techniques and methods to reduce the complex software

projects as the basic hindrance toward the success of such projects is project complexity.

The software industry is moving toward agile which could make the complex situations

simpler to handle, Problems can be easily solved by breaking down the problem and by

true task distribution (Nayak & Patra, 2001). Complexities in the agile software

development projects are handled by using agile techniquesn(Mishra, & Mishra, 2011).

15
These techniques are one of the best suited to handle the complex project situations as

Lindvall et al. (2002) states that agile method is among the most appropriate method of

reducing the complex statements of the project. So literature shows how complexity can

be reduced by using agile methodology techniques. Thus following hypothesis can be

proposed from the above studies

H2: Agile methodology is positively related to project complexity

2.3.Project Complexity and Project Success

Complex systems are difficult to understand and to work with. If we talk about the

project industry most of the information technology projects fail due to complexity and

technology specifications which are complex and complicated to understand. Most of the

projects have met failure just because of the complexity of the project. Project

complexity is negatively associated with the success of the project (Tatikonda &

Rosenthal, 2000).

There is a need to work on those causes which could make the project more complex and

in result lead to failure. Complex projects are those where we know that project goals

implementation strategies etc are not certain and they are difficult to understand here

these complexities actually leads to the failure of the project, by working on the causes

which cause project complexity increases the chances of success of the project (Gidado,

1996).

There is not just need of governance to implement and execute the project the

governance should also be provided by the top managers and the top executives to

understand the complexity of the projects so that team could understand what they are

going to do and if the project managers are able to deal with the complexity of the

16
project they can achieve success (Thomas & Mengel, 2008) so there is a need to deal

with the complexity and reduce it in every possible way.

The most difficult situation in the projects is to handle the complex projects which are

adding significant challenging scenarios for the project managers and this complexity is

increasing because of the dimensions of the project if we handle the dimensions of the

complexity faced in the projects we can achieve success. Dimensions of project

complexity improve project success (Xia & Lee, 2004).

Projects mostly have characteristics of novelty and complexity which are necessary to be

tackled in order to achieve the desired project goals, as through applying these

characteristics of novelty and complexity individual project goals can be measured

through measuring technical performances of the employees by letting them tackle the

complexity along with novelty which directly leads towards project success if all the

process has been done through effective monitoring of performance during dealing with

complexity (Tatikonda & Rosenthal, 2000).

Research has revealed that project complexity has been the focal point of attention

because it initiates the bottle neck consequence in the project and previously there was

not a specific solution for that project complexity so it was neglected or subjectively

assumed in order to overcome it, hence project complexity is one the major elements of

the project characteristics which is needed to be properly overlooked in order to maintain

cost and time baselines along with competing the market trends which clearly states that

complexity can directly influence the project success (Gidado, 1996).

According to complex nature of latest projects with innovation and creativity, it has been

concluded that conceptually the complexity of the project has a negative relation with the

17
project performance which in return affects the project success in a negative way as

complexity increase the competition and complication even in the minor phases of the

project especially during managing transaction relating costs to manage the project

complexity and also by facilitating the collaborative interaction, empirically project

complexity influence the project outcomes to achieve success in the organizational

network (Moore, Payne, Autry, & Griffis, 2016).

Research also has concluded that project complexity can have integrated consequences

through direction, communication and control, which have been widely utilized to

manage the project management process but influence the project goals in a negative

manner but in order to understand the upper and lower levels of complexities

effectiveness and efficiency of project manager is needed because project complexity is

very crucial problem as it is closely related to the performance parameters of project

team in a project management process while generalizing the process of achieving

project success (Abdou, Yong, & Othman, 2016). Hence, from the above discussion it is

proposed that

H3: Decrease in project complexity is positively associated with the success of the

project.

2.4. Project Complexity Mediates The Relationship Between Agile Methodology

Use And Project Success

“Project complexity is the property of a project which makes it difficult to understand,

foresee and keep under control its overall behavior, even when given reasonably

complete information about the project system.” (Baccarini, 1996; Edmonds, 1999;

Marle, 2002; Austin et al., 2002; Vidal et al.,2008).In the dimensions of Project planning

and execution; the Project complexity is most important to focus on (Baccarini,

18
1996).The failure rate of the complex information technology projects is surprisingly

high and many of the software development projects fail due to the complexity of the

projects (Jones, 1996). The best way to handle those complexities is to handle and

understand the requirements of the users so that projects could be implemented due to

customer requirements resulting in success of the projects. Most of the software

development projects fail due to reprehensible handling of the user requirements

(Standish, 1994).

Several studies like Baccarini(1996) proved that project complexity has negatively

impact the project outcomes, when projects are highly complex they are difficult to

manage and difficult to achieve project objectives.Meyer and Utterback(1995) studied

that technology incorporation in which several number of technologies,they positively

concomitant with project complexity development. In similarity to the others' studies,

Larson and Gobeli (1989) proved that project complexity has no relationship with the

project performance (project success) and the quality of project. Dvir and Lechler (2003)

explained that project complexity negatively mediates between strategic planning and

project success, complex project negatively affect the effective project planning that lead

towards the project success.

According to Aitken & Crawford (2007) project complexity negatively affects the

innovative project and innovative project performance, as more complexity is involved

in innovative project they are hard to handle they require some formalized methods (like

agile methodology) to achieve success of the project.

User requirements can be successfully met by agile methodology usage (Paetsch,

Eberlein & Maurer, 2003).The iterative approach helps to consistently contact and meet

the user requirements so it is best suited when it comes to complex environments where

19
there are difficult goals and specifications of the customers.Using agile methodology to

meet the customer requirements is the emerging trend of the software industry and

proper agile methodology usage leads to the success of the project (Elssamadisy, 2008).

Some companies fail to understand the implementation of agile methodology and lead to

failure of the project so for meeting the complexities agile methodology is used and agile

methodology usage leads to the success of the projects.

In the dimensions of Project planning and execution; the Project complexity is most

important to focus on (Baccarini, 1996).The failure rate of the complex information

technology projects is surprisingly high and many of the software development projects

fail due to the complexity of the projects (Jones, 1996). The best way to handle those

complexities is to handle and understand the requirements of the users so that projects

could be implemented due to customer requirements resulting in success of the projects.

Most of the software development projects fail due to reprehensible handling of the user

requirements (Standish, 1994).

User requirements can be successfully met by agile methodology usage (Paetsch,

Eberlein & Maurer, 2003). The iterative approach helps to consistently contact and meet

the user requirements so it is best suited when it comes to complex environments where

there are difficult goals and specifications of the customers.

Using agile methodology to meet the customer requirements is the emerging trend of the

software industry and proper agile methodology usage leads to the success of the project

(Elssamadisy, 2008).Some companies fail to understand the implementation of agile

methodology and lead to failure of the project so for meeting the complexities agile

methodology is used and agile methodology usage leads to the success of the projects. So

from all above stated literature it can be predicted that

20
H4: Project complexity mediates the relationship between agile methodology usage and

project success.

2.5. Management Support Moderates The Relationship Between Project

Complexity And Project Success.

As management role is very essential in this relationship, Management support is also

the managerial support. Leaders (managers) are those who influence the group of

individual to achieve goals through common efforts (Northouse, 2007).George (2003)

succinctly states: “we want leaders (managers) who lead with values, purpose and

integrity; a leader who make enduring organizations, leaders also have the ability to

motivate employees to provide excellent customer services, and make long term

shareholder value” in this way management support is very essential in the organization.

The complexity of the projects can be reduced by many ways among them one of them is

support of the manager (Flynn & Flynn, 1999). If the manager is able to understand the

complex situations he communicates it to the team and complex situations are met easily.

Many studies provide clear evidence related to the importance of management support to

understand the complex situations and lead the organization toward success.

According to different researches high leader (manager) support positively affect all

types of performance like individual performance (Wayne et al., 2002) group

performance (Liden et al., 2006) and in-role performance (Chen, Lam, & Zhong,2007)

Among the success factors which lead to the success of the project, management support

is considered to be a critical factor to successfully implement complex information

technology projects (Sharma & Yetton, 2001). Management support can uplift the

possibility of success of the project. Literature supports that Information systems

development can be successfully done with managerial support, it is considered as a

21
challenge for the managers (Sheferaw, Negash & Amoroso, 2009; Sharma & Yetton,

2001).On the other hand it is seen that top management not only supports the middle

managers and staff it also helps in successful implementation (Dong, Neufeld & Higgins,

2009).

Management support is the basic thing to exploit and gain benefit to successfully

implement the management information systems (Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1991). Involvement

of the executives is successfully involved to achieve the firm’s performance (Jarvenpaa

& Ives, 1991). Management support is considered to be important in all phases of

planning execution and implementation (Somers & Nelson, 2001).

The complexity of the projects can be reduced by many ways among them one of them is

support of the manager (Flynn & Flynn, 1999). If the manager is able to understand the

complex situations he communicates it to the team and complex situations are met easily.

Many studies provide clear evidence related to the importance of management support to

understand the complex situations and lead the organization toward success.

Among the success factors which lead to the success of the project, management support

is considered to be a critical factor to successfully implement complex information

technology projects (Sharma & Yetton,2001). Management support can uplift the

possibility of success of the project.

Literature supports that Information systems development can be successfully done with

managerial support, it is considered as a challenge for the managers (Sheferaw, Negash

& Amoroso,2009; Sharma & Yetton, 2001).On the other hand it is seen that top

management not only supports the middle managers and staff it also helps in successful

implementation (Dong, Neufeld & Higgins, 2009). Management support is the basic

22
thing to exploit and gain benefit to successfully implement the management information

systems (Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1991).Involvement of the executives is successfully involved

to achieve the firm’sperformance (Jarvenpaa & Ives, 1991). Management support is

considered to be important in all phases of planning execution and implementation

(Somers & Nelson, 2001).

On the base of previous literature the present study is attempting to develop and test the

following hypothesis;

H5: Management support moderates the relationship between Agile methodology usage

and project success; such that if Management support is high than the relationship

between agile methodology usage and project success would be strengthened.

2.6.Summary

The section has shown and support that agile methodology use impacts the project

success and it increases the projects success by implementing this strategy. Planning is

an essential part of any projects execution for its success. Agile methodology use

implication beside this upfront planning is not just enough to carry out the execution of

agile methodology use and achieve success in the projects in which we are actually

following the agile methodology because of the abrupt and aggressive market conditions

and changing customer demands it is very much important that we should update our

plans and redefine them before their implementation especially in the agile methodology.

Project Complexity is another major era which is directly proportional to failure it is not

handled with proper planning; but it can be decreased with the managerial support and

keep motivated on the track for completion of over project successfully. Moreover once

we have defined a plan and we have upgraded it according to the customer’s demands,

the next thing that we have to do is to share the information amongst the team, which is

23
base area of agile methodology use. This practice is being followed not only by the agile

methodology projects but it is also evidenced by literature that many other industries and

traditional project management approaches consider the importance of sharing

information to the team so that they could well understand the task and produce better

performance and results. Agile methods also depends and directly associated to the

customer involvement, and it is very important for achievement of goals of the project

and getting the feedback from the customers / stakeholders, this is necessary as feedback

to progressive operations are in functional mode and will be moving there through its life

cycle. If the organization will be effective to run its system and produce beneficial results

then the project will be an ultimate success.

24
2.7.Research Model

Management
Support

Agile Project Project Success

Methodology Use Complexity

Figure 1.1: Research Model of Impact of Agile Methodology Usage on Project Success

with the Mediating Role of Project Complexity and Moderating Role of Managerial

Support.

25
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1.Introduction

In this chapter, the methodology is described which is used to find out relationship of

agile methodology use and project success, with the mediating role of project complexity

and moderating role of manager support. The methodology chapter deals with data

collection techniques (population and sample). And also highlights measurement and

instrument reliability analysis.

3.2.Research Design

Research design is a framework of research plan of action. Zikmund (2003) defines

research design is the plan of the researcher that specifies the procedure and method for

collecting and analyzing necessary information. In the research design includes time

horizon, types of setting and unit of analysis which are discussed below.

3.3.Types Of Study

This is a correlational study where the relationship of agile methodology use and project

success, with the mediating role of project complexity and moderating role of manager

support was measured on basis of self- reported perception.

3.4.Study Setting

The participant for study from the field because the supervisor and their subordinate

contacted in project base public and private organization and was contacted to fill the

questionnaire in their natural work environment.

26
3.5.Time Horizon

The data were collected in one and a half month for this study, the data in nature cross

sectional and collected at one time.

3.6.Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis is can be an object or individual whose character and features is to

be analyzed. Unit of analysis can be either dayd, individual, group, industry,

organization, country or cultured from the where data are collected. For this study unit

of analysis was individual private and as well as development project based

organizations Project manager and employees from Islamabad and Rawalpindi.

3.7.Population

Population is set of peoples, events, things connected with interest that the researcher

wants to investigate. The current study population is employees of project based

organization from Islamabad, Rawalpindi.

3.8.Sample

Sample is the component of the population represents whole population; O`Leary (2004)

defines sampling as the process by which a researcher selects an example of participants

for just a study from the population of interest. Convenient sampling was used, the

sample size is 400 and 255 questionnaires were used for analysis.Data were collected by

personally visiting the software houses and by virtually distributing the questionnaire

among the organizations. Due to shortage of time the data will be collected by

convenient sampling. The respondents would be assured regarding the aspect that

whatever the information they would provide will be kept highly confidential in order to

encourage participants to provide authentic data related to the topic and they would be

27
pledged that all the information which is being gathered is solely for academic purpose

in order to get insight about what is role of Agile methodology use in the project’s

success while the projects are complex in nature.

3.8.1. Sample Characteristics:

The table below represents sample characteristics

3.8.2. Table of Gender (RepresentsGender Percentage )

Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative percent

Male 188 73.7 73.7

Female 67 26.3 100

Total 255 100

First table represents the gender composition of the sample in which 73.7% were male

and 26.3% female. The male percentage is high.

3.8.3. Table of Age (Respondent’s Age Distribution)

Frequency Percent Cumulative percent

18-25 65 25.5 25.5

26-33 124 48.6 74.1

34-41 56 22 96.1

42-49 5 2 98.1

50 above 5 2 100

Total 255 100

28
Table 2 shows the composition of the sample with reference to age groups. 25.5% of

respondents age were 18-25, 48.6% respondents age were 26-33 range, 22% respondents

age were in 34-41 range, 2% respondents age were in 42-49 range and just 2%

respondents were more than 50years. In thisstudy, the percentage of 26-33 respondents is

high.

3.9.Qualification

Qualification of respondents is listed in the table below.

3.9.1. Table of Respondents Qualification

Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Inter 8 3.1 3.1

Bachelor 17 6.7 6.7

Master 96 38 90.2

MS/MPhil 134 52.2 100

Total 255 100

In the above table represent the respondents qualification, inter qualified was 3.1%,

bachelor qualified was 6.7%, master qualified was 38% and MS/Mphil qualified was

52.2%, in table 3 the master qualified percentage is high.

29
3.10. Work Experience

In below table 4 explain the respondent work experience

3.10.1. Table of Experience of Respondents

Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative percent

0-5 119 46.7 46.7

6-10 65 25.5 72.2

11-16 48 18.8 91

17-22 14 5.5 96.5

98.5
23-28 6 2.4
100
>29 3 1.2

Total 255 100

In above table 4 represent the respondent experience of the work, in which high

percentage of respondents work experience is 46.7% in range (0-5), in range (6-10) the

respondents experience were 25.5%, in category (11-16) the respondents experience

were 18.8%, in category (17-22) the respondent experience were 5.5% , in category (23-

28) the respondent experience were 2.4 % and above 29 is 1.2%.

3.11. Measurments

In this study close ended questionnaires wereusedto measure four variables. The

questionnaire would be measured on 5 point likert scale where 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree), unless otherwise stated.

30
3.12. Instrumentation

Data was measured for this study was analyzed by using adopted questionnaire from past

valuable studies including Agile Methodology Use, Project Complexity, Management

Support and Project Success. The questionnaire were filled by the employees and the

managers who were playing the key role in software projects who imply Agile

methodology Use for their projects. The questionnaire were measured on 5 point likert

scale where 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), unless otherwise stated. All the

questions related to the variables were studied through 5 point likert scale with additional

demographic studies measuring the respondents Gender, Age, Qualification and

Experience.

3.12.1. Agile Methodology Use

This was measured through 10 items scale which was developed by

(Maruping,Venkatesh&Agarwal, 2009) In 2009 they developed a scale for measuring

and operationalizing the construct to analyze impact of Agile Methodology Use. The

responses will be obtained through 5 point likert scale which includes the responses to be

measured as

 1= Strongly Disagree

 2= Disagree,

 3= Neutral,

 4= Agree

 5= Strongly Agree

The items of the scale are “Pair programming”

 How often is pair programming used on this team?

31
  On this team, we do our software development using pairs of developers.

 To what extent is programming carried out by pairs of developers on this team?

The items of the scale are “A Continuous integration”

 Members of this team integrate newly coded units of software with existing code.

 We combine new code with existing code on a continual basis.

 Our team does not take time to combine various units of code as they are

developed.

The items of the scale are “Refactoring”

 Where necessary, members of this team try to simplify existing code without

changing its functionality.

 We periodically identify and eliminate redundancies in the software code.

 We periodically simplify existing code.

3.12.2. Project Success

In order to analyze Project Success of software or the application Tiwana, Amrit, and

Ephraim R. McLean (2005) proposed the questionnaire, it was used which included 3

items. The replies will be acquired by 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5,1=

strongly disagree and 5= Strongly Agree. The items of the scale are :

1. In light of marketplace-mandated changes and new business requirements that

arose during project execution, at the present time, this project delivers all

desirable features and functionality.

32
 2. In light of marketplace-mandated changes and new business requirements that

arose during project execution, at the present time, this project meets key

project objectives and business needs.

3. In light of marketplace-mandated changes and new business requirements that

arose during project execution, at the present time, this project overall is very

successful.

3.12.3. Managerial Support

In order to analyze Managerial support software or the application a scale was adopted it

included 15 items scale was developed by(Elie-Dit-Cosaque, Pallud&Kalika, 2011). The

replies will be acquired by 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree 5=

Strongly Agree. The items of the scale are,

1. The senior management of my company supports best practices in using

information technology.

2. My boss is very supportive of PC use for my job.

3. My boss strongly encourages me to make better use of information technology.

3.12.4. Project Complexity

In order to analyze Project Complexity of developed software or the application

developed the scale (Xia & Lee, 2005) it included 15 items. The replies will be acquired

by 5 point Likert scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= Strongly Agree. The

items of the scale are:

1. The project team was cross-functional.

2. The project involved multiple external contractors and vendors.

3. The project involved coordinating multiple user units.

33
3.13. Reliability

In order to test the reliability of the data.Reliability test was run in spss 20.0 to test the

reliability of the instrument used.

3.14. Pilot testing

The table shows the reliability analysis of instruments. First, we collected 50

questionnaires from authentic respondents for pilot study we checked the reliability of

this scale,the detail is given below. Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) explained the

standard of chronbach’s Alpha is more or equal.70.

3.14.1. Table of Analysis of reliability

Variables Items Cronbach’s alpha

Agile Methodology Use 10 .774

Project Complexity 15 .851

Project Success 3 .867

Managerial Support 3 .833

Agile Methodology Use cronbach’s alpha value is .774 in the current study, the cronbach

value of Project Complexity in that study is .851, the Project Success cronbach’s value is

in the current study is.867 and Managerial Support value of cronbach’s is .833

34
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used for one way ANOVA to find out

covariates, data normality, reliability, validity analysis for measurement model and

hypothesis testing. Current chapter includes results of the study. Descriptive statistics,

correlations, alpha reliabilities and results of linear and moderated multiple regression

analysis are presented in both narrative and tabular forms. In addition, discussion on

study findings, theoretical and practical implications, strengths and limitations of the

study, and directions for future research are also discussed.

4.1.Control Variables

Barrick,Bradley, Brown and Colbert (2007) found that the size of organization and age

performing the project, project team size, PM experience ,project duration, educational

level and gender have been influence the project success, so these variables were

considered to be covariates Aga, Noorder haven and Vallejo (2016) also used these

variables as covariates. Results in table 6,shows insignificant difference in project

success across Gender (F=3.11, P=.07), insignificant difference across Age (F=.581,

P=.67) insignificant difference across Qualification (F=1.18 , P= .317) and insignificant

difference across Experience (F= 4.06, P= .001)

35
4.1.1 Table of One Way ANOVA

Covariates F Value Sig.

Gender 3.11 >.005

Age .581 >.005

Qualification 1.18 >.005

Experience 4.06 >.005

4.1.2. Table of Reliability Analysis

Reliability analysis refers to the fact that a scale should consistently reflect the construct

it is measuring. if the measurements are repeated a number of times. The analysis on

reliability is called reliability analysis. Thus, if the association in reliability analysis is

high, the scale yields consistent results and is therefore reliable.

Variables No. of Items Cronbach’s alpha (α)

Agile methodology use 10 .774

Project complexity 15 .851

Project success 3 .867

Managerial support 3 .833

The table 7 is showing the, reliability analysis which refers to the ability of a scale to

give the same results consistently when tested a number of times. The Cronbach

Coefficient Alpha (internal consistency reliability) value ranges from 0 to 1. Alpha

values “0.7 “are considered to be more reliable whereas values below 0.7 are considered

to be less reliable (Nunnally& Bernstein 1994). Table 7 shows that, Cronbach

36
Coefficient Alpha value of Agile methodology use was .774, Project complexity was

.851, Project success was .867 and Managerial support was .833.

4.2.Results ForHypothesized Variables

SPSS was used for descriptive and correlation analysis.

4.3.Descriptive Analysis

The Descriptive technique tells us about the univariate summary statistics for different

variables in one table and calculates its standardized values. The descriptive statistic

includes basic details like sample size, minimum and maximum values, mean values and

standard deviation values of the data. Descriptive statistics of the current data were given

in Table 8 First column of the table gives the details of the variables. Second, third,

fourth, fifth and sixth columns inform about sample size, minimum value, maximum

value, mean and standard deviation respectively.

4.3.1. Table of Descriptive Statistics

Variables N Min Max Mean SD

Agile methodology use 255 1.40 5.00 3.78 .58

Project complexity 255 1.09 5.00 3.81 .70

Project success 255 2.21 5.00 3.80 .53

Managerial support 255 2.29 5.00 3.94 .55

Table 8, shows that sample size was 255 for all the four variables. All variables (agile

methodology , project complexity, manager support and project success) were rated on a

five point Likert scale, such as 1 representing “Strongly Disagree” and 5 representing

“Strongly Agree”. Mean values show the essence of responses. This is respondents’

observation regarding a particular variable. The mean values of the Agile Methodology

37
Use (AMU) was 3.78 which shows that respondent were agreed. The mean values

Project Complexity (PC)was 3.81 which indicate that respondents were agreed. The

mean value of Project Success (PS) was 3.80 which indicate that respondents were

agreed that they have success in projects. Finally, the mean value of manager support

was 3.94 that represents that respondents were agreed .

4.4.Correlations Analysis

Correlation analysis is a method of statistical evaluation used to study the strength of a

relationship between two, numerically measured, continuous variables

4.4.1. Table of Correlation Analysis

Variables 1 2 3 4
1 Agile methodology use 1
2 Project complexity .408** 1
3 Project success .140* .300** 1
4 Manager support .172** .230** .326** 1

N=255, *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01. Correlation is significant at 0.01 levels (2-tailed);
Correlation is significant at 0.05 levels (2-tailed); alpha reliabilities are given in
parentheses.

This table presents the correlations for all theoretical variables. Agile methodology was

significantly correlated with project complexity (r=.408, p<.01), Project success (r=.140,

p<.01) and manager support (r=.172, p<.01) and in the expected direction.project

complexity was significantly correlated with Project success (r=.300, p<.01) and

manager support (r=.230, p< .01) and in the expected direction. Project success was

significantly correlated with manager support (r=.326, p<.01) and in the expected

direction.

38
4.5.Regression Analysis

SPSS was used to test the hypotheses, and Anova test showed that they were insignificant

and results shown in table 10 Gender, Age, education, and experience were used as

demographics and significant difference found in project success across the demographic

variable experience, experience was entered as control variable.

Hypothesis 1 states that agile methodology is positively related to project success. Results

reject this hypthesis, as indicated by the regression coefficient (β=-.01 ,P=.37) as the P>.05.

Hypothesis 2 states that agile methodology positively related to project complexity. Results

supported this relationship, as indicated by the regression coefficient (β= .49, P= .00) here as

the P<.01 and it is accepted. Hypothesis 3 states that project complexity is negatively related

to project success. Results, established this relationship, as indicated by the regression

coefficient (β= .12, P= .00) in this hypothesis P<.01 and it is accepted. Hypothesis 4 states

that project complexity mediates the relationship between agile methodology and project

success. A 95% BC bootstrap CI of -.24 to-.01 shows that there was mediation in the model

and hypothesis 4 is accepted. Hypothesis 5 states that manager support moderate between

project complexity and project success and result accepted that hypothesis because of

significant result (β=.21, p=0.00).

39
 B SE t p

agile methodology Project Success -.01 1.12 -.88 .37

agile methodology Project complexity .49 0.6 7.1 .00
Project complexity Project Success .12 .30 3.4 .00
int_term Project Succes .21 .07 2.8 .00
__________________________________________________________________________
____
LL 95% CI UL 95% CI

The Mediating Effect of Project complexity and Moderating effect of MS

Bootstrap results for indirect effect -.24 -.01
Note. Un-standardized regression coefficients reported. Bootstrap sample size 1000.
LL = Lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit

The hypothesis Agile methodology usage is positively and significantly associated with

project success got rejected. In the second hypothesis the Agile methodology has the t value

of 7.1, which shows high significance level of the relationship. As the t value which is

greater than 2 it shows that the results are significant. Hence in this hypothesis the t value of

7.1 indicates statistically significant relation of project complexity and project success. And

the B co-efficient comes out to be .49 which shows that if there is a one unit change in agile

methodology then there is a probability that agile methodology would influenceand decrease

the project complexity by 49%.

Project complexity has the t value of 3.4, which shows high significance level of the

relationship. As the t value which is greater than 2 it shows that the results are significant.

Hence in this hypothesis the t value of 3.4 indicates statistically significant relation of

project complexity and project success. And the B co-efficient comes out to be .12 which

40
shows that if there is a one unit change in project complexity then there is a probability that

decrease in project complexity would increase the project success by 12%.

In the hypothesis number 4, According to the analysis this hypothesis is accepted as project

complexity plays a significant mediating role between agile methodology use and project

success. As it is indicated by the results that there is no zero present in the bootstrapped 95%

interval hence CI of .09 to .54 shows that there was full mediation in the model and

regression coefficient was significant (β= .11, p= .00).

and in fifth hypothesis As it is indicated by the results that there is no zero present in the

bootstrapped 95% interval hence that hypothesis got accepted because of significant result

(β=.21, p=0.00).

Further, we plotted a graph and slope tests show that when Manager Support was high the

relationship between Project Complexity and project success was high, and however at low

was low the relationship between Project Complexity and Project Success,significant

Moderation.

41
 Mod Graph - Interacting effect of Project complexity and Managerial support

4.6.Hypothesis Summary

H1: Agile methodology usage is positively and significantly associated with project

success.(Rejected)

H2: Agile methodology is positively related to project complexity. (Accepted)

H3: Project complexity is associated with the success of the project.(Accepted)

H4:Project complexity mediates the relationship between agile methodology usage and

project success.(Accepted)

H5: Management support moderates the relationship between Agile methodology usage and

project success; such that if Management support is high than the relationship between agile

methodology usage and project success would be strengthened. (Accepted)

42
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

5.1.Introduction

This chapter includes hypothesis relationship details and also their justification of

acceptance and rejection including the theoretical implication, practical implication,

strengths and weaknesses of the study and future directions, detailed discussion about

understudied hypotheses is as following:

H1: Agile Methodology Use Is Positively And Significantly Associated With Project

Success.

The first variable studied in this research paper is the relationship of agile methodology on

project success. Results suggest that there is no significant relationship found between agile

methodology and successful implementation of the software development projects so this

suggests that in this changing market the demand is to shift toward those methods which are

recognized and which would deliberately lead us to the success of the projects. They should

analyze the methods being followed in their organizations along with those which suggest us

that latest methods should be used along with the fact that whether we are capable of

implementing such methodologies or not.

Literature suggests that agile methodlogy is the most emerging trend and a collaborative

technique required at each iteration of the project which leads to successful project

implementation in many ways (Stankovic, Nikolic, Djordjevic& Cao, 2013;Mann & Maurer,

2005; Budzier&Flyvbjerg, 2013),but in Pakistani culture collaboration on some specific

43
method is missing as different members of team required different level of speciality and

skills and it take time to train each members of the team regarding any new method.

Regardless of the fact some studies provide arguments by suggesting that it is not necessary

to implement the agile methodlogy for successful implementation mostly in the large

projects where we have extended team network but it was still suggested to be affective

technique in small infrastructural projects (Paasivaara, Lassenius&Heikkilä, 2012). In the

current market scenario most of the Pakistan’s projects have lack of collaboration with the

customers as well as many of Paksitani projects follow traditional methods.

H2: Agile Methodology Is Positively Related To Project Complexity

This hypothesis got accepted. The results of the current study shows significant relationship

(B= .49, t= 07.1, P= .00).

Hence the past literature also provides evidence for the above analyzed hypothesis (Schuh et

al. 2017; Baccarini, 1996; Miller and Hobbs, 2005; Dybå&Dingsøyr, 2008; Holmström,

Fitzgerald, Ågerfalk&Conchúir, 2006; Nayak&Patra, 2001).

Project complexity is the element which has got the most attention in the recent era, as agile

methodology is having a iterative and continuous interaction with customers for getting the

right information for the implementation and execution of projects proceedings with the

ongoing information sharings with the stakeholders makes the project complexity lower.

Hence, in this way the project moves to the success for achieving of its needs and

requirements.

44
H3: Decrease In Project Complexity Is Positively Associated With The Success Of The

Project

This hypothesis got accepted. The results of the current study shows significant

relationship(B= .12, t= 03.4, P= .00).

Therefore the result analyzed above is supported by the past literature and past researches

that provide evidence that decrease in project complexity positively influence the project

success by managing project management process(Tatikonda& Rosenthal, 2000; Gidado,

1996; Thomas&Mengel, 2008; Xia & Lee, 2004; Moore, Payne, Autry, &Griffis, 2016;

Abdou, Yong, & Othman, 2016).

In this era Projects has gain a lot of popularity and at the same time novelty and complexity

has been increasingly diluted as a major characteristics of the projects with the passage of

time in order to meet and gain the competitive advantage throughout the globe for proactive

development and success of the project but at the same time high level of complexity tends

to reduce the consequences of project success due to increase in the level of complications.

Hence it is obvious that reducing project complexity will automatically prevail and initiate

ease in performing tasks and activities of the project to meet the required project goals to

achieve success.

H4: Project Complexity Mediates The Relationship Between Agile Methodology Usage

And Project Success.

According to the analysis this hypothesis is accepted as project complexity plays a

significant mediating role between agile methodology use and project success. As it is

indicated by the results that there is no zero present in the bootstrapped 95% interval hence

45
CI of .09 to .54 shows that there was full mediation in the model and regression coefficient

was significant (β= .11, p= .00).

Many studies also provide evidence about the significance role of project complexity as a

mediator between agile methodology use and project success (Elssamadisy, 2008).

Project success is inversely proportional to the project success rate as the complexity

increases the project gets complex and success decreases but with the help of agile

methodology use it reduced to itsvery lower rate along with competing with novalty and

complexity in the prevailing market by continuous interactions and information sharing with

the stakeholders and developers and required output can be achieved with ontime right

decisions.

H5: Management Support Moderates The Relationship Between Agile Methodology

Usage And Project Success; Such That If Management Support Is High Than The

Relationship Between Agile Methodology Usage And Project Success Would Be

Strengthened

Analysis shows that this hypothesis got accepted as managing support plays a vital

moderating role between agile methodology use and project success. As it is indicated by the

results that there is no zero present in the bootstrapped 95% interval hence that hypothesis

got accepted because of significant result (β=.21, p=0.00).

Past literatures and studies also provides a support for the moderating role of managing

support between agile methodology use and project success (Northouse, 2007; George,

46
2003; Flynn & Flynn, 1999; Wayne et al., 2002; Bauer & Green, 1996; Kacmar, Witt,

Zivnuska & Gully, 2003; Chen, Lam, & Zhong 2007).

In every project, management is the most ultimate dimension which is a vital necessasity of

every phase in the project and along with that in projects managerial support is the most

important key to project success, where as in agile methodology use the management is the

backbone for decisions and planning for the new changes for the project.

5.2.Conclusion

In this study we have studied the domain of Agile Methodology use and its impact on

project success, which is the most popular and important domain in the recent era of the

projects management field, as agile methodology is the best working methodology and its

success rate is very high as all the bugs are fixed in the first meetings and in the start of the

execution of the project. The main aim of this study is to find out the impact of agile

methodology use on project success. Also this study has demonstrated the project

complexity as a mediator between the relationship of agile methodology use and project

success. Along with that, this study has examined a unique role of Managerial support as a

moderator between the relationship of Agile methodology use and project success.

The main contribution of this study is that this study has contributed a lot in the existing

literature because there has been a limited work on study of the agile methodology use. In

this study, there are 5 hypotheses which are being analyzed and tested according in the

context of Pakistan. H1 (Hypothesis 1) is rejected ,Moreover H2(Hypothesis 2), H3

(Hypothesis 3), H4 (Hypothesis 4) and H5 (Hypothesis 5) all are being accepted according

to the Pakistani context.

47
Data for the analysis of this study was collected through questionnaires, which were

distributed to the project based organizations of Pakistan mainly in the twin cities

Rawalpindi and Islamabad. In total 400 questionnaires were distributed but only 255 were

used for the analysis purpose because those 255 questionnaires were having the most

appropriate and full information required for the analysis of the study.

This study was conducted in Software engineering and information technology projects in

contextual setting of Pakistan results interpreted conclude that agile methodology use plays

a vital role toward successfully implementing the projects in the software industry and the

information about the software developing should be properly communicated and shared

with the managers, co-managers and project complexity will be decreased with the help of

managerial support and agile methodologies use, we can earn project success.

5.3.Theoretical and Practical Implication

This study has both managerial and theoretical implications while executing the agile

methodology in real time projects it should be kept in mind that meeting complexity

parameters are an important essence to successfully achieve the project goals. Management

should consciously look at the level and depth of complexity as it is an important element to

be solved and proactively dealt in the project. Moreover this study highlights and provides

contribution toward agile methodology use for ptoject success theoretically. Agile

methodology use is demanding the tranning sessions for proper implementation of this

methodology for success of projects effectively to meet the requirements of the user. As

market is continuously rushing toward applying agile methodology in every project as a

48
necessary element so it is essential to keep these important dimensions in mind essential for

achieving project success while proactively dealing with project complexity.

5.4.Limitations Of Research

As every research has some reservations, this study also has some limitations which

occurred mainly due to limited resources and time constraints. As data were collected from

the project based organizations of Pakistan mainly from the twin cities Islamabad and

Rawalpindi, hence the results might be quite different if the data were collected from all

cities of Pakistan. Another limitation arisen due to the fact that, since it was a dyadic

questionnaire, many difficulties were faced during the collection of data separately from

both of managers and employees. Even many of the employees were not interested in filling

the questionnaire so convincing them was a difficult task. Another limitation in this research

was the use of convenience sample, as convenience sampling was used to collect data

randomly from a large population, it limits the generalizability. Hence, the results might not

be widely generalized. As, it was concluded after analysis that some results are not the same

as what was expected in regard with the previous researches and literature, mainly due the

highly power distance culture, that is why the results might not be applicable in a non-

Pakistani context.

The data collected from individuals was collected from Pakistani software project industry.

Itdefines that some cultural differences and contextual settings effect other factors around as

well so, like every other social science research this was a limitation to this study.

Additionally due to limited time and resources the data were only collected from the

software houses of Islamabad and Rawalpindi and sample size was 255 which was not

49
enough to depict a true picture of software houses using agile methodology in the whole

world. Like every other research there was also a limitation that respondents may not have

filled up the data with complete attention blemishing the results and there was a chance of

error along with the possibility that the respondents may not have particular knowledge

about the study.

The data were collected from the Pakistani software development sectors which includes the

small to large scale sector organizations, these organisations were having the employes

strength of 10-50 developers and managers. As of Pakistani context the systems are not as

much upgraded and uptodate with these terms and methodologies by which this can not

predict the whole picture of study existence, but it tells about the information which is being

floated amoung the Pakistani software development sectors.

The organizations from which the data were collected , their employees also informed about

the use of tradional methodologies in the same manner of Agile methodology but they do

not know the true picture and concept of Agile methodology use and its impact of the

success of project in terms of proper use of time and understanding of the system in

accordance with the managerial support and other connected ways to make the project

successful.

Though the research model and results were properly analyzed but there may be variations

and choices so in future the data should be collected in different contextual setting by

increasing the sample size. Secondly the research was carried out in software industry of

Pakistan so in future the impact of execution planning should also be studied in other

industries as well. It can be investigated that whether we should doubt the traditional upfront

50
planning in other sectors or not. Thirdly it can be analyzed that whether other industries

should shift toward agile project methodologies or not. Fourthly there are many other factors

which are unexplored related to the agile methodology technique so those factors should

also be studied which are impacting the agile industry and why different industries haven’t

still adopted the agile methodology even its worth doing.

5.5. Future Research Directions

In this study the model is being tested for the impact of agile methodology use on project

success, but for future research directions these variables can be studied with other

dimensions of agile methodologies use in construction, development creativity along with

enhancement in the manager-employee relationship through other factors like team co-

operation and creative self-efficacy. There is still a lot of room for further research, mainly

the dimensions should be the customer interactions and customer orientation as it is purely

focused on stakeholders.

Hence a lot more research can be done on this perspective in order to examine the domains

in which creativity expectation can play a significant role in prevailing creativity in projects

further more re-planning the planning of execution of projects should be checked with agile

methodologies. Coram&Bohner (2005) also suggested to re-plan the planning in the

execution of the project. Telecommunication sector, marketing sector by relating these

sectors with such domain where creativity is highly required in jobs.

Agile methodologies use can be checked with the Psychological behavior and psychological

impact of end product users. Comparison of different methodologies in Pakistan and how

they can be modified in context of future improvement and project success. Agile

51
methodlogyuse is now the trerm especially for the sofrware community in terms of how the

softwares are developing, how the developers are planning the requirements of the user and

then dealing with the user need. Why organizations avoid the agile methodlogy and focus on

the contract for small industries and the software development companies. New

agilemethodologies adoptive parties and rejections on agile methodologies should be

covered with the comparison of its pros and cons. New merging techniques and how the

proper implementation of agile methodologies use can result in the success of projects either

in the software or in the terms of health sciences and construction projects.

52
 6. Reference

Abdou, S. M., Yong, K., & Othman, M. (2016).Project Complexity Influence on Project

management performance–The Malaysian perspective.In MATEC Web of

Conferences (Vol. 66, p. 00065).EDP Sciences.

Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., &Warsta, J. (2002). Agile software development

methods: Review and analysis.

Adams, J. R., &Barnd, S. E. (2008).Behavioral implications of the project life cycle. Project

Management Handbook, Second Edition, 206-230.

Aga, D. A., Noorderhaven, N., & Vallejo, B. (2016). Transformational leadership and

project success: The mediating role of team-building. International Journal of

Project Management, 34(5), 806-818.

Aitken, A., & Crawford, L. (2007). A study of project categorisation based on project

management complexity. ERA-Engineering and Environmental Sciences, 2.

Alexandre, J. D. O., Kruchten, P., & de Moura, H. P. (2013, August). GAME: Governance

for agile management of enterprises: A management model for agile governance.

In Global Software Engineering Workshops (ICGSEW), 2013 IEEE 8th International

Conference on (pp. 88-90). IEEE

Ambler, S. (2012). Agile database techniques: Effective strategies for the agile software

developer. John Wiley & Sons.

53
Ambler, S. W. (2009). The agile scaling model (ASM): adapting agile methods for complex

environments. Environments.

Anderson, D., Augustine, S., Avery, C., Cockburn, A., Cohn, M., DeCarlo, D., & Little, T.

(2005).Declaration of interdependence. Agile Project Leadership Network.

Andrews, M., &Dinitz, M. (2009, April).Maximizing capacity in arbitrary wireless networks

in the SINR model: Complexity and game theory.In INFOCOM 2009, IEEE (pp.

1332-1340).IEEE.

Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a

phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International journal of

project management, 17(6), 337-342.

Avison, D. E., & Taylor, V. (1997). Information systems development methodologies: a

classification according to problem situation. Journal of Information technology,

12(1), 73-81.

Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of project complexity—a review.International journal of

project management, 14(4), 201-204.

Bae, J., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Organizational and HRM strategies in Korea: Impact on firm

performance in an emerging economy. Academy of management journal, 43(3), 502-

517.

54
Baker, F., & Weiss, R. S. (1984).The nature of case manager support.Psychiatric Services,

35(9), 925-928.

Ball, M. O., Ma, M., Raschid, L., & Zhao, Z. (2002). Supply chain infrastructures: system

integration and information sharing. ACM Sigmod Record, 31(1), 61-66.

Barlow, J. B., Giboney, J., Keith, M. J., Wilson, D., Schuetzler, R., Lowry, P. B., & Vance,

A. (2011).Overview and guidance on agile development in large organizations.

Barrick, M. R., Bradley, B. H., Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Colbert, A. E. (2007). The

moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real

teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 544-557.

Barton, H. (2013). ‘Lean’policing? New approaches to business process improvement across

the UK police service. Public Money & Management, 33(3), 221-224.

Batool, A., & Abbas, F. (2017).Reasons for delay in selected hydro-power projects in

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Pakistan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews, 73, 196-204.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A

longitudinal test. Academy of management journal, 39(6), 1538-1567.

Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained. 2000.

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., ...&

Kern, J. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development.

55
Benaroch, M., Lichtenstein, Y., & Robinson, K. (2006). Real options in information

technology risk management: An empirical validation of risk-option

relationships. Mis Quarterly, 827-864

Boar, B. H. (2002). The art of strategic planning for information technology.John Wiley &

Sons.

Boden, A., Avram, G., Bannon, L., &Wulf, V. (2009, July). Knowledge management in

distributed software development teams-does culture matter?.In Global Software

Engineering, 2009.ICGSE 2009. Fourth IEEE International Conference on (pp. 18-

27). IEEE.

Boehm, B. (2002). Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer, 35(1), 64-69.

Bowen, S., & Maurer, F. (2002).Process support and knowledge management for virtual

teams doing agile software development.In Computer Software and Applications

Conference, 2002.COMPSAC 2002.Proceedings. 26th Annual International (pp.

1118-1120). IEEE.

Bryant, R. G. (2016). The Relationship of Management Support, Cash Incentives, Non-Cash

Incentives, and Project Leadership to Project Success in Information Technology

Organizations (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).

Budzier, A., &Flyvbjerg, B. (2013).Making sense of the impact and importance of outliers

in project management through the use of power laws.

56
Cameron, A. C., &Trivedi, P. K. (1986). Econometric models based on count data.

Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. Journal of applied

econometrics, 1(1), 29-53.

Cerpa, N., &Verner, J. M. (2009). Why did your project fail?. Communications of the ACM,

52(12), 130-134.

Chatfield, D. C., Kim, J. G., Harrison, T. P., &Hayya, J. C. (2004). The bullwhip effect—

impact of stochastic lead time, information quality, and information sharing: a

simulation study. Production and Operations Management, 13(4), 340-353.

Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet

feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational

culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 749-780.

Chau, T., & Maurer, F. (2004).Knowledge sharing in agile software teams.In Logic versus

approximation (pp. 173-183).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Chau, T., Maurer, F., &Melnik, G. (2003, June). Knowledge sharing: Agile methods vs.

tayloristic methods. In Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative

Enterprises, 2003. WET ICE 2003.Proceedings. Twelfth IEEE International

Workshops on (pp. 302-307). IEEE.

Chen, Z., Lam, W., &Zhong, J. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member

performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and

team-level empowerment climate. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 202-211.

57
Cheng, T. E., & Choi, T. M. (Eds.).(2010). Innovative quick response programs in logistics

and supply chain management.Springer Science & Business Media.

Chin, G. (2004). Agile project management: how to succeed in the face of changing project

requirements. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.

Cho, H., Jung, M., & Kim, M. (1996).Enabling technologies of agile manufacturing and its

related activities in Korea. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 30(3), 323-334.

Chow, T., & Cao, D. B. (2008). A survey study of critical success factors in agile software

projects. Journal of systems and software, 81(6), 961-971.

Christopher, M., & Lee, H. L. (2001). Supply chain confidence: the key to effective supply

chains through improved visibility and reliability. Global Trade Management, 6.

Cockburn, A. (2004). Crystal clear: a human-powered methodology for small teams.

Pearson Education.

Conforto, E. C., &Amaral, D. C. (2010).Evaluating an agile method for planning and

controlling innovative projects. Project Management Journal, 41(2), 73-80.

Conforto, E. C., Salum, F., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., & de Almeida, L. F. M. (2014).

Can agile project management be adopted by industries other than software

development?. Project Management Journal, 45(3), 21-34.

58
Cooke-Davies, T. J., &Arzymanow, A. (2003). The maturity of project management in

different industries: An investigation into variations between project management

models. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 471-478.

Coram, M., &Bohner, S. (2005, April). The impact of agile methods on software project

management.In Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 2005.ECBS'05. 12th IEEE

International Conference and Workshops on the (pp. 363-370). IEEE.

Crawford, B., Castro, C., &Monfroy, E. (2006, October). Knowledge management in

different software development approaches. In International Conference on

Advances in Information Systems (pp. 304-313).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a

global organization. Management science, 50(3), 352-364.

D. Phillips. The Software Project Manager’s Handbook: Principles that work at Work,

IEEE Computer Society Press; June 1998.

D'Amours, S., Montreuil, B., Lefrancois, P., &Soumis, F. (1999). Networked

manufacturing:: The impact of information sharing. International Journal of

Production Economics, 58(1), 63-79.

Datta, P. P., & Christopher, M. G. (2011). Information sharing and coordination

mechanisms for managing uncertainty in supply chains: a simulation

study. International Journal of Production Research, 49(3), 765-803.

59
De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team

effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(3), 628.

Dessai, K. G., Kamat, M. S., &Wagh, R. (2012).Application of social media for tracking

knowledge in agile software projects.

Dhungana, D., Rabiser, R., Grunbacher, P., Prahofer, H., Federspiel, C., &Lehner, K. (2006,

August). Architectural Knowledge in Product Line Engineering: An Industrial Case

Stu. In Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, 2006. SEAA'06. 32nd

EUROMICRO Conference on (pp. 186-197). IEEE.

Dingsøyr, T., & Moe, N. B. (2014, May).Towards principles of large-scale agile

development.In International Conference on Agile Software Development (pp. 1-

8).Springer International Publishing.

Dong, L., Neufeld, D., & Higgins, C. (2009). Top management support of enterprise

systems implementations. Journal of Information technology, 24(1), 55-80.

Dorairaj, S., Noble, J., & Malik, P. (2012, August).Knowledge management in distributed

agile software development. In Agile Conference (AGILE), 2012 (pp. 64-73). IEEE.

Du, R., Ai, S., &Ren, Y. (2007). Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance:

A survey in Xi’an, China. Expert systems with Applications, 32(1), 38-46.

60
Dybå, T., &Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A

systematic review. Information and software technology, 50(9), 833-859.

Edmonds, B. M. (1999). Syntactic measures of complexity. Manchester, UK: University of

Manchester.

Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., Pallud, J., &Kalika, M. (2011). The influence of individual,

contextual, and social factors on perceived behavioral control of information

technology: A field theory approach. Journal of Management Information

Systems, 28(3), 201-234.

Elssamadisy, A. (2008). Agile Adoption Patterns: A Roadmap to Organizational Success

(Adobe ebook). Addison-Wesley Professional.

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations.Foundations of modern sociology series.

Fawcett, S. E., Osterhaus, P., Magnan, G. M., Brau, J. C., & McCarter, M. W. (2007).

Information sharing and supply chain performance: the role of connectivity and

willingness. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(5), 358-368.

Fearne, A., & Hughes, D. (1999). Success factors in the fresh produce supply chain: insights

from the UK. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 4(3), 120-131.

Fengjie, A., Fei, Q., &Xin, C. (2004, September).Knowledge sharing and web-based

knowledge-sharing platform.In E-Commerce Technology for Dynamic E-Business,

2004. IEEE International Conference on (pp. 278-281). IEEE.

61
Filicetti, J. (2009). Project Planning Overview. PM Hut (Last accessed 8 November 2009).

Flynn, B. B., & Flynn, E. J. (1999).Information‐processing alternatives for coping with

manufacturing environment complexity.Decision Sciences, 30(4), 1021-1052.

Fowler, M., &Highsmith, J. (2001).The agile manifesto. Software Development, 9(8), 28-35.

Fry, C., & Greene, S. (2007, August).Large scale agile transformation in an on-demand

world. In Agile Conference (AGILE), 2007 (pp. 136-142). IEEE.Fowler, M.,

&Highsmith, J. (2001).The agile manifesto. Software Development, 9(8), 28-35.

George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value.

John Wiley & Sons.

Ghobadi, S. (2015). What drives knowledge sharing in software development teams: A

literature review and classification framework. Information & Management, 52(1),

82-97.

Ghobadi, S., &Mathiassen, L. (2016).Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in

agile software teams. Information Systems Journal, 26(2), 95-125.

Gidado, K. I. (1996). Project complexity: The focal point of construction production

planning. Construction Management & Economics, 14(3), 213-225.

Gilb, K. (2007). Evolutionary Project Management & Product Development. Self-published

online, 25.

62
Glib, T. Evolutionary project management; 2013.

Gunasekaran, A., & Yusuf, Y. Y. (2002). Agile manufacturing: a taxonomy of strategic and

technological imperatives. International Journal of Production Research, 40(6),

1357-1385.

Hadaya, P., &Cassivi, L. (2007).The role of joint collaboration planning actions in a

demand-driven supply chain. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(7), 954-

978.

Highsmith, J. (2003). Agile project management: Principles and tools. Cutter

consortium, 4, 1-37.

Highsmith, J., & Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile software development: The business of

innovation. Computer, 34(9), 120-127.

Holmström, H., Fitzgerald, B., Ågerfalk, P. J., &Conchúir, E. Ó. (2006). Agile practices

reduce distance in global software development. Information systems management,

23(3), 7-18.

Holz, H., & Schafer, J. (2003, June).Collaborative, task-specific information delivery for

agile processes. In Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative

Enterprises, 2003. WET ICE 2003.Proceedings. Twelfth IEEE International

Workshops on (pp. 320-325). IEEE.

63
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study:

Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(5),

435-446.

Iram, N., Khan, B., Ahmad, M. S., &Sahibzada, U. F. (2017). Critical Factors Influencing

the Project Success: An Analysis of Projects in Manufacturing and Construction

Industries in Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Business Studies

Review, 1(1).

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. (1991).Executive involvement and participation in the

management of information technology.MIS quarterly, 205-227.

Jones, C. (1996). Patterns of software system failure and success.Itp New Media.

Jones, P. L. (1988). The impact of belonging on the acceptance of online interactions

(Doctoral dissertation, University of West London).

Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2015).Relationships between a project management methodology

and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of

Project Management, 33(6), 1377-1392.

Kaulio, M. A. (2008). Project leadership in multi-project settings: Findings from a critical

incident study. International Journal of Project Management,26(4), 338-347.

64
Kavitha, R. K., & Ahmed, M. I. (2011, July).A knowledge management framework for agile

software development teams. In Process Automation, Control and Computing

(PACC), 2011 International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE.

Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and

controlling. John Wiley & Sons.

Kloppenborg, T. J., Manolis, C., &Tesch, D. (2009). Successful project sponsor behaviors

during project initiation: an empirical investigation. Journal of Managerial Issues,

140-159

Koskela, J., &Abrahamsson, P. (2004, November). On-site customer in an XP project:

Empirical results from a case study. In European Conference on Software Process

Improvement (pp. 1-11).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people

change their organizations. Harvard Business Press.

Kovács, G. L., &Paganelli, P. (2003).A planning and management infrastructure for large,

complex, distributed projects—beyond ERP and SCM. Computers in Industry, 51(2),

165-183.

Lam, W., Huang, X., &Snape, E. D. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-

member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter?.Academy of

Management Journal, 50(2), 348 -363.

65
Larman, Craig (2004). Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager's Guide. Addison-

Wesley.p. 27.Retrieved 2015-09-11.

Lawler III, E. E. (1986). High-Involvement Management.Participative Strategies for

Improving Organizational Performance.Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 Sansome

Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.

Lee, S. H., Pena-Mora, F., & Park, M. (2006). Dynamic planning and control methodology

for strategic and operational construction project management. Automation in

construction, 15(1), 84-97.

Leffingwell, D. (2010). Agile software requirements: lean requirements practices for teams,

programs, and the enterprise. Addison-Wesley Professional.

Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., &Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader‐member

exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: implications for individual and

group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723-746.

Lindsjørn, Y., Sjøberg, D. I., Dingsøyr, T., Bergersen, G. R., &Dybå, T. (2016). Teamwork

quality and project success in software development: A survey of agile development

teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 122, 274-286.

Lindvall, M., Basili, V., Boehm, B., Costa, P., Dangle, K., Shull, F., ...&Zelkowitz, M.

(2002, August). Empirical findings in agile methods.InConference on Extreme

Programming and Agile Methods (pp. 197-207).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

66
Lindvall, M., Muthig, D., Dagnino, A., Wallin, C., Stupperich, M., Kiefer, D.,

...&Kahkonen, T. (2004). Agile software development in large

organizations. Computer, 37(12), 26-34.

Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004).Linking SCOR planning practices to supply

chain performance: An exploratory study. International journal of operations &

production management, 24(12), 1192-1218.

Lu, Y., & K.(Ram) Ramamurthy. (2011). Understanding the link between information

technology capability and organizational agility: An empirical examination. Mis

Quarterly, 931-954.

Luna, A. J. D. O., Kruchten, P., & de Moura, H. P. (2015). Agile Governance Theory:

conceptual development. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.06701.

Luna, A. J. D. O., Kruchten, P., Pedrosa, M. L. D. E., Neto, H. R., & de Moura, H. P.

(2014). State of the art of agile governance: a systematic review. arXiv preprint

arXiv:1411.1922.

Magazinius, A., &Feldt, R. (2011, August).Confirming distortional behaviors in software

cost estimation practice. In Software Engineering and Advanced Applications

(SEAA), 2011 37th EUROMICRO Conference on (pp. 411-418). IEEE.

Magazinius, A., &Feldt, R. (2011, August).Confirming distortional behaviors in software

cost estimation practice. In Software Engineering and Advanced Applications

(SEAA), 2011 37th EUROMICRO Conference on (pp. 411-418). IEEE.

67
Malhotra, Y. (2005). Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational

business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business

performance. Journal of knowledge management, 9(1), 7-28.

Mann, C., & Maurer, F. (2005, July).A case study on the impact of scrum on overtime and

customer satisfaction.In Agile Conference, 2005. Proceedings (pp. 70-79). IEEE.

Martinsuo, M., &Lehtonen, P. (2007).Role of single-project management in achieving

portfolio management efficiency. International journal of project

management, 25(1), 56-65.

Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., &Agarwal, R. (2009).A control theory perspective on agile

methodology use and changing user requirements. Information Systems Research,

20(3), 377-399.

Maskell, B. (2001). The age of agile manufacturing. Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, 6(1), 5-11.

McAvoy, J., & Butler, T. (2009). A failure to learn in a software development team: the

unsuccessful introduction of an agile method. In Information Systems

Development (pp. 1-13).Springer US.

Mehdibeigi, N., Dehghani, M., &mohammadYaghoubi, N. (2016). Customer Knowledge

Management and Organization's Effectiveness: Explaining the Mediator Role of

Organizational Agility. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 94-103.

68
Melnik, G., & Maurer, F. (2004, June).Direct verbal communication as a catalyst of agile

knowledge sharing. In Agile Development Conference, 2004 (pp. 21-31). IEEE.

Meyer, M. H., &Utterback, J. M. (1995). Product development cycle time and commercial

success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(4), 297-304.

Mikurak, M. G. (2006). U.S. Patent No. 7,130,807. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office.

Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., &Grau, J. (1994).Antecedents to willingness to participate in a

planned organizational change.

Min, M. (2008). Game Theoretical Approaches in Wireless Networks. In Pareto Optimality,

Game Theory AndEquilibria (pp. 645-663). Springer New York.

Mirchandani, D. A., &Lederer, A. L. (2012). “Less is more:” information systems planning

in an uncertain environment. Information Systems Management, 29(1), 13-25.

Mishra, D., & Mishra, A. (2011). Complex software project development: agile methods

adoption. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice,

23(8), 549-564.

Misra, S. C., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2009).Identifying some important success factors in

adopting agile software development practices. Journal of Systems and

Software, 82(11), 1869-1890.

69
Moniruzzaman, A. B. M., &Hossain, D. S. A. (2013).Comparative study on agile software

development methodologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.3356.

Moore, C. B., Payne, G. T., Autry, C. W., &Griffis, S. E. (2016).Project complexity and

bonding social capital in network organizations.Group& Organization Management,

1059601116650556.

Moran, A. (2014).Agile risk management.In Agile Risk Management (pp. 33-60).Springer

International Publishing.

Morris, S. A., & McManus, D. J. (2002).Information infrastructure centrality in the agile

organization. Information Systems Management, 19(4), 8-12.

Myerson, R. B. Game theory: analysis of conflict. 1991. Cambridge: Mass, Harvard

University.

Nayak, M. K., &Patra, M. R. (2001).Agile Project Management-Redefining the Role of

Managers.management, 11, 2.

Neo, B. S., & Chen, G. (2007). Dynamic governance: Embedding culture, capabilities and

change in Singapore.

Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., &Mangalaraj, G. (2005).Challenges of migrating to agile

methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 72-78.

Neumann, J. v. (1928), "ZurTheorie der

Gesellschaftsspiele", MathematischeAnnalen, 100 (1): 295–

70
 320, doi:10.1007/BF01448847 English translation: Tucker, A. W.; Luce, R. D., eds.

(1959), "On the Theory of Games of Strategy", Contributions to the Theory of

Games, 4, pp. 13–42

Neves, F. T., Rosa, V. N., Correia, A. M. R., & de Castro Neto, M. (2011, June). Knowledge

creation and sharing in software development teams using Agile methodologies: Key

insights affecting their adoption. In Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI),

2011 6th Iberian Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Neves, F., Borgman, H., &Heier, H. (2017, January). Success Lies in the Eye of the

Beholder: A Quantitative Analysis of the Mismatch Between Perceived and Real IT

Project Management Performance. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences.

Noor, M. A., Grünbacher, P., & Hoyer, C. (2008).A collaborative method for reuse potential

assessment in reengineering-based product line adoption. In Balancing Agility and

Formalism in Software Engineering (pp. 69-83). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theories and practices.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994).The assessment of reliability. Psychometric

theory, 3(1), 248- 292

O'leary, Z. (2004). The essential guide to doing research.Sage.

71
Paasivaara, M., Lassenius, C., &Heikkilä, V. T. (2012, September). Inter-team

coordination in large-scale globally distributed scrum: Do Scrum-of-Scrums really

work?.In Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical

software engineering and measurement (pp. 235-238).ACM.

Paetsch, F., Eberlein, A., & Maurer, F. (2003, June).Requirements engineering and agile

software development. In Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative

Enterprises, 2003. WET ICE 2003.Proceedings. Twelfth IEEE International

Workshops on (pp. 308-313). IEEE.

Pardo, T. A., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2010). Collaborative governance and

cross-boundary information sharing: envisioning a networked and IT-enabled public

administration. The future of public administration around the world: The

Minnowbrook perspective, 129-39.

Parker, R. J., &Kyj, L. (2006).Vertical information sharing in the budgeting

process. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(1), 27-45.

Patel, C., &Ramachandran, M. (2009). Agile maturity model (AMM): A Software Process

Improvement framework for agile software development practices. International

Journal of Software Engineering, IJSE, 2(1), 3-28.

Paulk, M. C. (2002). Agile methodologies and process discipline. Institute for Software

Research, 3.

72
Pee, L. G., Kankanhalli, A., & Kim, H. W. (2010). Knowledge sharing in information

systems development: a social interdependence perspective. Journal of the

Association for Information Systems, 11(10), 550.

Peffers, K., Gengler, C. E., &Tuunanen, T. (2003). Extending critical success factors

methodology to facilitate broadly participative information systems

planning. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 51-85.

Pettit, S., & Beresford, A. (2009). Critical success factors in the context of humanitarian aid

supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, 39(6), 450-468.

Pikkarainen, M., &Mantyniemi, A. (2006). An approach for using CMMI in agile software

development assessments: experiences from three case studies.

Poister, T. H., &Streib, G. (2005). Elements of strategic planning and management in

municipal government: Status after two decades. Public administration

review, 65(1), 45-56.

Poli, M., &Shenhar, A. J. (2003, July). Project strategy: The key to project success. In

Management of Engineering and Technology, 2003.PICMET'03.Technology

Management for Reshaping the World. Portland International Conference on (pp.

231-235). IEEE

Porter, M. E., & Advantage, C. (1985). Creating and sustaining superior

performance. Competitive advantage, 167.

73
Qumer, A., & Henderson-Sellers, B. (2009).A framework to support the evaluation,

adoption and improvement of agile methods in practice. Quality control and applied

statistics, 54(4), 391-393.

Qureshi, S. M., & Kang, C. (2015).Analysing the organizational factors of project

complexity using structural equation modelling.International Journal of Project

Management, 33(1), 165-176.

Rabelo, R. J., Camarinha-Matos, L. M., &Afsarmanesh, H. (1999).Multi-agent-based agile

scheduling. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 27(1-2), 15-28.

Rajan, V. N., &Nof, S. Y. (1996). Cooperation requirements planning (CRP) for

multiprocessors: optimal assignment and execution planning. Journal of Intelligent

and Robotic Systems, 15(4), 419-435.

Rand, C., &Eckfeldt, B. (2004, June).Aligning strategic planning with agile development:

Extending agile thinking to business improvement. In Agile Development

Conference, 2004 (pp. 78-82). IEEE.

Razzak, M. A., & Ahmed, R. (2014, September). Knowledge sharing in distributed agile

projects: Techniques, strategies and challenges. In Computer Science and

Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2014 Federated Conference on (pp. 1431-1440).

IEEE.

74
Razzak, M. A., Ahmed, R., & Mite, D. (2013, August).Spatial knowledge creation and

sharing activities in a distributed agile project.In global software engineering

workshops (ICGSEW), 2013 IEEE 8th international conference on (pp. 24-30).IEEE.

Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., & Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring organizational

performance: Towards methodological best practice. Journal of management, 35(3),

718-804.

Roberts, T. L., Cheney, P. H., Sweeney, P. D., & Hightower, R. T. (2004). The effects of

information technology project complexity on group interaction. Journal of

vManagement Information Systems, 21(3), 223-247..

Rupp, T. M., &Ristic, M. (2000).Fine planning for supply chains in semiconductor

manufacture. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 107(1), 390-397.

Ryan, S., &O’connor, R. V. (2009).Development of a team measure for tacit knowledge in

software development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(2), 229-240.

Sahin, F., & Robinson, E. P. (2005). Information sharing and coordination in make-to-order

supply chains. Journal of operations management, 23(6), 579-598.

Santos, V., Goldman, A., & De Souza, C. R. (2015).Fostering effective inter-team

knowledge sharing in agile software development. Empirical Software

Engineering, 20(4), 1006-1051.

75
Santos, V., Goldman, A., &RorizFilho, H. (2013, January).The influence of practices

adopted by agile coaching and training to foster interaction and knowledge sharing in

organizational practices.In System Sciences (HICSS), 2013 46th Hawaii

International Conference on (pp. 4852-4861).IEEE.

Santos, V., Goldman, A., Martins, D., & Cortes, M. (2014, January).The Influence of

Organizational Factors on Inter-team Knowledge Sharing Effectiveness in Agile

Environments.In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International

Conference on (pp. 4729-4738).IEEE.

Schuh, G., Rebentisch, E., Riesener, M., Mattern, C., & Fey, P. (2017).Method for the

Evaluation and Adaptation of New Product Development Project

Complexity. Procedia CIRP, 60, 338-343.

Schwaber, K. (2006). Scrum is hard and disruptive. Retrieved October, 1, 2013.

Senapathi, M., &Srinivasan, A. (2012). Understanding post-adoptive agile usage: An

exploratory cross-case analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1255-1268.

Serrador, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2015). Does Agile work?—A quantitative analysis of agile

project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040-1051.

Serrador, P., & Turner, R. (2015).The relationship between project success and project

efficiency. Project Management Journal, 46(1), 30-39.

76
Sharma, R., &Yetton, P. (2001). The Contingent Effects of Management Support and Task

Interdependence on Successful IS Implementation: A Meta-Analysis. ECIS 2001

Proceedings, 125.

Sheferaw, Y., Negash, S., & Amoroso, D. L. (2009). Mechanisms of Management Support

and its Effect on Successful IS Implementation: The Case of Ethiopian Customs

Authority. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, 455.

Sheffield, J., &Lemétayer, J. (2013). Factors associated with the software development

agility of successful projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31(3),

459-472.

Sherman, R. J. (1998). Collaborative planning, forecasting & replenishment (CPFR):

Realizing the promise of efficient consumer response through collaborative

technology. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(4), 6-9.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative science

quarterly, 339-358.

Smith, T. A., Mills, A. M., & Dion, P. (2012).Linking business strategy and knowledge

management capabilities for organizational effectiveness. In Conceptual Models and

Outcomes of Advancing Knowledge Management: New Technologies (pp. 186-207).

IGI Global.

77
Sohan, S. M., Richter, M. M., & Maurer, F. (2010, June). Auto-tagging emails with user

stories using project context. In International Conference on Agile Software

Development (pp. 103-116).Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Solanki, R. S., &Southworth, F. (1991).An execution planning algorithm for military

airlift. Interfaces, 21(4), 121-131.

Somers, T. M., & Nelson, K. (2001, January). The impact of critical success factors across

the stages of enterprise resource planning implementations. In System Sciences,

2001.Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-

pp).IEEE.

Souza, C. R. D. (2012). Fostering inter-team knowledge sharing effectiveness in agile

software development.

Sparrow, P., & Cooper, C. (2014). Organizational effectiveness, people and performance:

new challenges, new research agendas. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and

Performance, 1(1), 2-13.

Speier, C., &Frese, M. (1997). Generalized self efficacy as a mediator and moderator

between control and complexity at work and personal initiative: A longitudinal field

study in East Germany. Human performance, 10(2), 171-192.

Srinivasan, J., Dobrin, R., &Lundqvist, K. (2009, July).'State of the Art'in Using Agile

Methods for Embedded Systems Development.In Computer Software and

78
 Applications Conference, 2009.COMPSAC'09.33rd Annual IEEE International (Vol.

2, pp. 522-527).IEEE.

Srivastava, V., Neel, J. O., MacKenzie, A. B., Menon, R., DaSilva, L. A., Hicks, J. E., ... &

Gilles, R. P. (2005). Using game theory to analyze wireless ad hoc networks. IEEE

Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 7(1-4), 46-56.

Standish, G. (1994). Charting the Seas of Information Technology-Chaos. The Standish

Group International.

Stankovic, D., Nikolic, V., Djordjevic, M., & Cao, D. B. (2013). A survey study of critical

success factors in agile software projects in former Yugoslavia IT companies.

Journal of Systems and Software, 86(6), 1663-1678.

Stefik, M. (1981). Planning with constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1). Artificial

intelligence, 16(2), 111-139.

Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., &Milanovich, D. M. (1999). Planning, shared

mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is

established. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics

Society, 41(1), 61-71.

Tallon, P. P., &Pinsonneault, A. (2011). Competing perspectives on the link between

strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from

a mediation model. Mis Quarterly, 463-486.

79
Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Technology novelty, project complexity, and

product development project execution success: a deeper look at task uncertainty in

product innovation. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 47(1), 74-87.

Teller, J., Unger, B. N., Kock, A., &Gemünden, H. G. (2012). Formalization of project

portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity.

International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 596-607.

TerjeKarlsen, J., Hagman, L., & Pedersen, T. (2011). Intra-project transfer of knowledge in

information systems development firms. Journal of Systems and Information

Technology, 13(1), 66-80.

Thomas, J., &Mengel, T. (2008).Preparing project managers to deal with complexity–

Advanced project management education.International Journal of Project

Management, 26(3), 304-315.

Tiwana, Amrit, and Ephraim R. McLean (2005), "Expertise Integration and Creativity in

Information Systems Development", Journal of management Information Systems,

22, 13-43. (Questionnaire – Project Success)

Tsai, J., Ho, C. Y., Chang, J., & JIANG, J. (2016). The Role of Agile Methodology Use and

Feedback Attributes in Game Development Projects: Implications for Game Project

Quality.

80
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., &McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting

leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The leadership

quarterly, 18(4), 298-318

Ullah, F., Ullah, F., Thaheem, M. J., Thaheem, M. J., Siddiqui, S. Q., Siddiqui, S. Q., ...

&Khurshid, M. B. (2017). Influence of Six Sigma on project success in construction

industry of Pakistan. The TQM Journal, 29(2), 276-309.

Underdown, R., &Talluri, S. (2002). Cycle of success: a strategy for becoming agile through

benchmarking. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 9(3), 278-292.

van der Vyver, G., Koronios, A., & Lane, M. (2003). Agile methodologies and the

emergence of the agile organization: A software development approach waiting for

its time?.

Verheij, H., &Augenbroe, G. (2006).Collaborative planning of AEC projects and

partnerships. Automation in Construction, 15(4), 428-437.

Verworn, B., Herstatt, C., &Nagahira, A. (2008). The fuzzy front end of Japanese new

product development projects: impact on success and differences between

incremental and radical projects. R&d Management, 38(1), 1-19.

Vidal, L. A., &Marle, F. (2008). Understanding project complexity: implications on project

management. Kybernetes, 37(8), 1094-1110.

81
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1986).Tacit knowledge and intelligence in the everyday

world. Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday

world, 51-83.

Wang, S., &Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future

research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131.

Waters, Kelly (27 July 2011). "Agile Project Management Extending PMBOK". All About

Agile.Retrieved 23 July 2016.Schwaber, K (2006) Scrum is hard and disruptive.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., &Tetrick, L. E. (2002).The role of fair

treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member

exchange. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 590

Whittaker, B. (1999). What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology

projects. Information Management & Computer Security, 7(1), 23-30.

Wu, W., &Issa, R. R. (2014). BIM execution planning in green building projects: LEED as a

use case. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(1), A4014007.

Xia, W., & Lee, G. (2004). Grasping the complexity of IS development projects.

Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 68-74.

Xia, W., & Lee, G. (2005). Complexity of information systems development projects:

conceptualization and measurement development. Journal of management

information systems, 22(1), 45-83. (Questionnaire – Project Complexity)

82
Xu, J., Zhu, J., & Liao, S. S. (2011, August). Organizational Context in Information Systems

Research: Perspectives and Components. In Management and Service Science

(MASS), 2011 International Conference on (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

Ye, F., & Wang, Z. (2013).Effects of information technology alignment and information

sharing on supply chain operational performance. Computers & Industrial

Engineering, 65(3), 370-377.

Yeo, K. T. (2002). Critical failure factors in information system projects. International

Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 241-246.

Yigitbasioglu, O. M. (2010). Information sharing with key suppliers: a transaction cost

theory perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, 40(7), 550-578.

Yinan, Q., Tang, M., & Zhang, M. (2014). Mass customization in flat organization: The

mediating role of supply chain planning and corporation coordination. Journal of

Applied Research and Technology, 12(2), 171-181.

Zagenczyk, T. J., Cruz, K. S., Cheung, J. H., Scott, K. L., Kiewitz, C., & Galloway, B.

(2015). The moderating effect of power distance on employee responses to

psychological contract breach. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 24(6), 853- 865.

Zäh, M. F., Möller, N., &Vogl, W. (2005, September).Symbiosis of changeable and virtual

production–the emperor’s new clothes or key factor for future success.

83
 In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable and

Virtual Production (CARV 2005), Munich, Germany (pp. 3-10).

Zain, M., Kassim, N. M., &Mokhtar, E. (2003).Use of information technology and

information systems for organisational agility in Malaysian firms. Singapore

Management Review, 25(1), 69.

Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of

psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: a

meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 60(3), 647-680.

Zhou, H., & Benton, W. C. (2007). Supply chain practice and information sharing. Journal

of Operations management, 25(6), 1348-1365.

Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Sample designs and sampling procedures. Business research

methods, 7, 368-400.

84
7. Appendix

CAPITAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD

Department of Management Sciences

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Participant,

I am students of MS Project Management at CAPITAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

ISLAMABAD. I am conducting a research on Impact of Agile Methodology Use on Project Success,
Mediating role of Project Complexity and Moderating role of Managerial Support. You can help me by
completing the attached questionnaire, You will find it quite interesting. I appreciate your participation in my
study and I assure that your responses will be held confidential and will only be used for education purposes.

Sincerely,

AsimRiaz
MS Project Management
CAPITAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD

Please provide following information.

1 2
Gender Male Female

1 2 3 4 5
Age 18- 25 26–33 34-41 42-49 50 and above

85
 1 2 3 4 5 6
Qualification Metric Inter Bachelor Master MS/M.Phil PhD

1 2 3 4 5 6
Experience 5 – 10 11 – 16 17 – 22 23 – 28 29 – 35 36 and above

Please tick the relevant choices: 1= strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Neutral, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly
Agree

Agile Methodology Use

1 2 3 4 5
1 How often is pair programming used on this team
1 2 3 4 5
2 On this team, we do our software development using pairs of
developers.
1 2 3 4 5
3 To what extent is programming carried out by pairs of developers
on this team?
1 2 3 4 5
4 Members of this team integrate newly coded units of software with
existing code.
1 2 3 4 5
5 We combine new code with existing code on a continual basis.
1 2 3 4 5
6 Our team does not take time to combine various units of code as
they are developed.
1 2 3 4 5
7 Where necessary, members of this team try to simplify existing
code without changing its functionality.
1 2 3 4 5
8 We periodically identify and eliminate redundancies in the
software code.
1 2 3 4 5
9 We periodically simplify existing code.
1 2 3 4 5
10 We run unit tests on newly coded modules until they run
flawlessly.

86
 Project Success

1 1 2 3 4 5
In light of marketplace-mandated changes and new business
requirements that arose during project execution, at the present
time, this project delivers all desirable features and functionality.

2 1 2 3 4 5
In light of marketplace-mandated changes and new business
requirements that arose during project execution, at the present
time, this project meets key project objectives and business needs.
3 1 2 3 4 5
In light of marketplace-mandated changes and new business
requirements that arose during project execution, at the present
time, this project overall is very successful.

Managerial Support

1 1 2 3 4 5
The senior management of my company supports best practices in
using information technology.

2 1 2 3 4 5
My boss is very supportive of PC use for my job.
3 1 2 3 4 5
My boss strongly encourages me to make better use of information
technology.

Project Complexity

1 2 3 4 5
1 The project team was cross-functional
1 2 3 4 5
2 The project involved multiple external contractors and Vendors
1 2 3 4 5
3 The project involved coordinating multiple user units.
1 2 3 4 5
4 The system involved real-time data processing
1 2 3 4 5
5 The project involved multiple software environments.
1 2 3 4 5
6 The project involved multiple technology platforms.
1 2 3 4 5
7 The project involved a lot of integration with other systems.
1 2 3 4 5
8 The end-users’ organizational structure changed rapidly.
1 2 3 4 5
9 The end-users’ business processes changed rapidly.
1 2 3 4 5
10 Implementing the project caused changes in the users’ business
processes.

87
 1 2 3 4 5
11 Implementing the project caused changes in the users’
organizational structure.
1 2 3 4 5
12 The end-users’ information needs changed rapidly.
1 2 3 4 5
13 IT architecture that the project depended on changed rapidly.
1 2 3 4 5
14 IT infrastructure that the project depended on changed rapidly.
1 2 3 4 5
15 Software development tools that the project depended on changed
rapidly.

88