Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agile Portfolio Management for Hybrid Projects: How to Combine Traditional and Agile Projects in a Project Portfolio

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Knowledge Management in Organisations (KMO 2022)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1593))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In today’s dynamically changing environment, projects are conducted increasingly with agile methods. Still, traditional waterfall methods exist which, depending on the requirements, are successfully used to implement projects. Thus, hybrid project environments arise. The management of project portfolios has to deal with this ambivalent project landscape, requiring a system suitable for the mixture of both methods. As little research has addressed this topic so far, the paper identified success factors that empower an agile project portfolio management that is able to deal with hybrid projects. A case study was chosen as the research method, supported by findings of a literature review conducted beforehand. The case study brought to light the complexity of current problems and challenges, while the factors found in the literature provide the first-time compilation of theoretically supported success factors in this context. It was found that all identified dimensions of PPM need to change, i.e. strategy and roadmap; identify and funnel; review, prioritize and balance; allocate and delegate. The results showed that when it comes to strategy, precise strategic goals are to be established, that need to be adapted according to changes in the environment. Clear project scopes, consistent rating methods, and corresponding metrics are identified as success factors as well. Furthermore, empowered individuals knowing their roles and those of other departments are important factors regarding resource allocation and delegation. The paper provides new insights into agile portfolio management for hybrid projects for both practice and academia and thus also can serve as the starting point for further research in this field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Aber wofür haben wir dann den Prozess? Wenn jeder tut, was er will? Es ist halt ein super schmaler Grat zwischen wir halten uns komplett an den Prozess und machen alles einheitlich und zwischen es gibt Ausnahmen, weil es nötig ist.".

  2. 2.

    “Dass die Leute sich gut miteinander vernetzen können, sich schnell absprechen können, dass es da halt keine Hemmschwellen gibt oder sonstiges.”.

References

  1. Alaeddini, M., Mir-Amini, M.: Integrating COBIT with a hybrid group decision-making approach for a business-aligned IT roadmap formulation. Inf. Technol. Manage. 21(2), 63–94 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-019-00305-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Clegg, S., Killen, C.P., Biesenthal, C., Sankaran, S.: Practices, projects and portfolios: current research trends and new directions. Int. J. Project Manage. 36(5), 762–772 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Şahin Zorluoğlu, Ö., Kabak, Ö.: Weighted cumulative belief degree approach for project portfolio selection. Group Decis. Negot. 29(4), 679–722 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09673-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Davies, A., Brady, T.: Explicating the dynamics of project capabilities. Int. J. Project Manage. 34(2), 314–327 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dilger, T., Ploder, C., Haas, W., Schöttle, P., Bernsteiner, R.: Continuous planning and forecasting framework (CPFF) for agile project management: overcoming the agilefall-budgeting trap. In: SIGITE 2020 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N.B., Fægri, T.E., Seim, E.A.: Exploring software development at the very large-scale: a revelatory case study and research agenda for agile method adaptation. Empir. Softw. Eng. 23(1), 490–520 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-017-9524-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Doz, Y.: Fostering strategic agility: how individual executives and human resource practices contribute. Human Resour. Manage. Rev. 30(1), 100693 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fink, K., Ploder, C.: A comparative study of knowledge processes and methods in Austrian and Swiss SMEs. In: ECIS 2007 Proceedings, pp. 704–715 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gasik, S.: A model of project knowledge management. Project Manage. J. 42(3), 23–44 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20239, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1002/pmj.20239

  10. Hall, P.A.: Systematic process analysis: when and how to use it. Eur. Manage. Rev. 3, 24–31 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Helfferich, C.: Die Qualität qualitativer Daten: Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, 4 edn. (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92076-4

  12. Hoffmann, D., Ahlemann, F., Reining, S.: Reconciling alignment, efficiency, and agility in it project portfolio management: recommendations based on a revelatory case study. Int. J. Project Manage. 38(2), 124–136 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huff, A.S.: Project innovation: evidence-informed, open, effectual, and subjective. Project Manage. J. 47(2), 8–25 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hüsam, A., Ploder, C.: Interview Guideline to the KMO 2022 Paper - Agile Portfolio Management for hybrid projects: How to combine traditional and agile projects in a project portfolio, April 2022. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12445.38883

  15. Jesse, N.: Organizational evolution - how digital disruption enforces organizational agility. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51(30), 486–491 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.11.310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaufmann, C., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G.: Emerging strategy recognition in agile portfolios. Int. J. Project Manage. 38(7), 429–440 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Krebs, J.: Agile Portfolio Management. Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leffingwell, D.: Scaling Software Agility: Best Practices for Large Enterprises. Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leffingwell, D.: Agile Software Requirements: Lean Requirements Practices for Teams, Programs, and the Enterprise. Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Linhart, A., Röglinger, M., Stelzl, K.: A project portfolio management approach to tackling the exploration/exploitation trade-off. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 62(2), 103–119 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0564-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mayring, P.: Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. In: Social Science Open Access Repository, Klagenfurt (2014). https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173

  22. Moore, S.: Strategic Project Portfolio Management: Enabling A Productive Organization. Microsoft Executive Leadership Series, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  23. O’Dwyer, C., Sweeney, B., Cormican, K.: Embracing paradox and conflict: towards a conceptual model to drive project portfolio ambidexterity. Proc. Comput. Sci. 121, 600–608 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pentland, B.T., Feldman, M.S.: Narrative networks: patterns of technology and organization. Organ. Sci. 18(5), 781–795 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Perez, F., Gomez, T.: Multiobjective project portfolio selection with fuzzy constraints. Ann. Oper. Res. 245(1-2), 7–29 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1556-z

  26. Pinto, J., Ribeiro, P.: Characterization of an agile coordination office for IST companies. Proc. Comput. Sci. 138, 859–866 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ploder, C., Fink, K.: An orchestration model for knowledge management tools in SMEs. In: Proceedings of the I-KNOW 2007, J. UCS, pp. 176–184 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Porter, S.: Project management in higher education: a grounded theory case study. Libr. Manage. 40(5), 338–352 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-06-2018-0050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sanchez, O.P., Terlizzi, M.A., de Moraes, H.R.O.C.: Cost and time project management success factors for information systems development projects. Int. J. Project Manage. 35(8), 1608–1626 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sarbazhosseini, H., Banihashemi, S., Adikari, S.: Human-centered framework for managing IT project portfolio. In: Nah, F.F.-H., Siau, K. (eds.) HCII 2019. LNCS, vol. 11589, pp. 432–442. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22338-0_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Snyder, H.: Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stelzl, K., Röglinger, M., Wyrtki, K.: Building an ambidextrous organization: a maturity model for organizational ambidexterity. Bus. Res. 13(3), 1203–1230 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-020-00117-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stettina, C.J., Hörz, J.: Agile portfolio management: an empirical perspective on the practice in use. Int. J. Project Manage. 33(1), 140–152 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tallon, P.P., Queiroz, M., Coltman, T., Sharma, R.: Information technology and the search for organizational agility: a systematic review with future research possibilities. J. Strat. Inf. Syst. 28(2), 218–237 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Thesing, T., Feldmann, C., Burchardt, M.: Agile versus waterfall project management: decision model for selecting the appropriate approach to a project. Proc. Comput. Sci. 181, 746–756 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tkachenko, I., Evseeva, M.: Leading approaches to managing organizational portfolio in a dynamically changing environment. In: Strielkowski, W. (ed.) Sustainable Leadership for Entrepreneurs and Academics. SPBE, pp. 191–199. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15495-0_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Vähäniitty, J.: Towards Agile Product and Portfolio Management. Aalto University, Helsinki (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zaman, U., Nadeem, R.D., Nawaz, S.: Cross-country evidence on project portfolio success in the Asia-pacific region: role of CEO transformational leadership, portfolio governance and strategic innovation orientation. Cogent Bus. Manage. 7(1), 1727681 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1727681

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management Center Innsbruck, Universitätsstrasse 15, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Christian Ploder, Annalena Hüsam, Reinhard Bernsteiner & Thomas Dilger

Authors
  1. Christian Ploder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annalena Hüsam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Reinhard Bernsteiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Dilger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Ploder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

    Lorna Uden

  2. University of Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    I-Hsien Ting

  3. FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany

    Birgit Feldmann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ploder, C., Hüsam, A., Bernsteiner, R., Dilger, T. (2022). Agile Portfolio Management for Hybrid Projects: How to Combine Traditional and Agile Projects in a Project Portfolio. In: Uden, L., Ting, IH., Feldmann, B. (eds) Knowledge Management in Organisations. KMO 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1593. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07920-7_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07920-7_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-07919-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-07920-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation