This scientific article explores the theoretical aspects of team management in the context of different management methodologies and compares the effectiveness of Agile and Waterfall project management methodologies. The study reveals that Agile methodologies are highly effective and provide significant cost savings but are still not widely used in Ukraine. Also, this article compares such methodologies as Scrum, Kanban, Lean, PRINCE2, SIX SIGMA, and Hybrid. The choice of methodology should depend on specific project conditions, such as team size and project complexity. The study presents new insights into the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to team management. The study finds that teams using the Agile methodology achieve better results on average than teams using the Waterfall methodology. It also shows that using Agile methodologies is more common in small teams than in large ones. As project complexity increases, traditional methods such as Waterfall become more common. Therefore, the article provides a valuable contribution to the field of project management and can be helpful for project managers who are looking for an optimal approach to managing their teams.
Purpose of the article. The purpose of this article is to investigate the theoretical aspects of team management in the context of different management methodologies and to compare the effectiveness of these methodologies in Ukraine and other countries. In addition, the paper aims to contribute to the ongoing debate about the benefits of using agile methodologies in project management and to highlight the need for further research in this area.
Design/methodology/approach. This article is based on a comprehensive literature review of recent research and publications on team management and project management methodology. Research sources used include scientific journals, conference proceedings, books and online resources. The focus is on comparing and contrasting different approaches to team management across methodologies including Agile, Waterfall and Lean. The study also includes an analysis of empirical data collected during surveys conducted in Ukraine and other countries to determine the most effective team management practices for projects of various sizes and complexities. The research design used in this study is primarily qualitative as the focus is on exploring the theoretical aspects of team management through different management methodologies. However, research also includes a quantitative element, as the analysis of survey data involves the use of statistical methods to identify relationships between variables. Limitations of the study include the sample size of the survey participants and the geographical coverage of the study, which is mainly focused on Ukraine and other European countries.
Findings. The results of this study indicate that Agile methodologies are becoming increasingly popular in software development teams around the world. The study also found that the use of Agile methodologies is more prevalent in smaller teams compared to larger teams. This trend may be due to the fact that smaller teams are more flexible and can adapt more easily to the iterative and collaborative nature of Agile methods. However, the data also suggests that as the complexity of a project increases, the use of Agile methods becomes less prevalent, with more traditional methods such as Waterfall being used instead. In terms of team management, the study found that the use of Agile methodologies can lead to higher levels of team collaboration and communication, which can ultimately lead to more efficient and effective project outcomes. However, it is important to note that effective team management requires more than just the use of a particular methodology, and other factors such as leadership, communication skills, and team dynamics also play a crucial role. Overall, the findings suggest that Agile methodologies can be a powerful tool for software development teams, particularly in smaller teams and less complex projects, but that effective implementation and management are key to achieving success.
Originality/value. The originality and value of this study lie in the comprehensive analysis and comparison of different management methodologies in the context of team management. The study presents new insights into the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to team management and provides practical recommendations for organizations in Ukraine and other countries. Furthermore, the study contributes to the existing body of literature on team management by providing empirical evidence on the effectiveness of different management methodologies. The study also highlights the importance of considering the size and complexity of the project when choosing a management methodology. Overall, the findings of this study can provide valuable guidance for managers and organizations in selecting the most suitable team management methodology for their specific needs and circumstances.
Practical implications. The results of this study have practical implications for project managers and team leaders who are responsible for managing teams in different countries with different project sizes and complexities. Research shows that using a specific methodology does not guarantee success in team management and that an individualized approach based on the specific needs of the team and project is more effective. Overall, the practical implications of this study can help project managers improve their team management skills and increase the likelihood of project success.
1. KPMG Survey on Agility (2019). Agile transformation. Retrieved from https://assets.kpmg.com/ content/dam/kpmg/be/pdf/2019/11/agile-transformation.pdf
2. Belout, A. (1998). Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and success: Toward a new conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 16(1), 21-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(97)00011-2
3. Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Carrillo, P., Anumba, C. J., & Kamara, J. M. (2000). Key performance indicators for successful construction projects. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow, UK, Vol. 2, 711-720.
5. Clegg, C. W., & Walsh, S. (2004). Change management in project-based organizations. In R. Turner & S. Simister (Eds.), Gower Handbook of Project Management (4th ed., pp. 425-448). Aldershot: Gower.
6. "Project Management Practices and Critical Success Factors - A Study of Malaysian Construction Industry" (2018). International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET).
7. Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The "real" success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00067-9
8. Dinsmore, P. C., & Cabanis-Brewin, J. (2011). The AMA Handbook of Project Management (3rd ed.). New York: AMACOM.
9. Gido, J., & Clements, J. P. (2009). Successful Project Management (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
10. Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
11. Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (6th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
12. Turner, J. R. (1999). The Handbook of Project-Based Management (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
13. VersionOne. (2018.). 12th Annual State of Agile Report. Retrieved from https://www.qagile.pl/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/versionone-12th-annual-s...
14. Sutherland, J. (2014). Scrum: The Art of Doing Twice the Work in Half the Time.
15. Cohn, M. (2005). Agile Estimating and Planning.
16. Anderson, D. J. (2010). Kanban: Successful Evolutionary Change for Your Technology Business.
17. Poppendieck, M., & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit.
18. Beck, K., & Andres, C. (2004). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change.
19. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile Project Management with Scrum.
20. Aguanno, K., Cuellar, R., & Cheung, L. (2005). Managing Agile Projects.
21. Cockburn, A. (2004). Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams.
22. Stapleton, J., & Constable, P. (1997). Dynamic Systems Development Method: The Method in Practice.
23. De Luca, J., & Coad, P. (2002). Feature-Driven Development: An Agile Alternative to Scrum and XP.
24. Nagornyi, M., & Kovaliov, I. (2019). Fundamentals of Agile Project Management. Kyiv: KNEU Publishing.
25. PMI Ukraine. Retrieved from https://pmiukraine.org
26. Project Management Institute. Retrieved from https://www.pmi.org
27. Zippia (2022). Agile statistics. Retrieved from https://www.zippia.com/advice/agile-statistics/
28. Statista (2022). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com
29. Google Trends (2023). Retrieved from https://trends.google.com.ua/home
30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21410
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21410
31. Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2011). The impact of inadequate customer collaboration on selforganizing Agile teams. Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 521-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.infsof.2010.10.009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.10.009
32. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with Scrum. Prentice Hall.