BUSI 680 Week 4 Annotated Bibliography Example

Blending Plan-Driven and Agile Methods: An Annotated Bibliography on Hybrid Project Management

Introduction

Hybrid project management combines plan-driven practices, such as baselines, stage gates and formal change control, with agile practices, such as iterations, backlogs and frequent customer review. Larson and Gray (2018) present traditional and agile approaches as suited to different levels of uncertainty, but many organizations, including the composite water utility where I manage capital projects, run work that has elements of both: an infrastructure project with a fixed regulatory scope and a customer billing portal with evolving requirements. Using the Jerry Falwell Library's Business Source Complete and ABI/INFORM databases, I searched for peer-reviewed journal articles published from 2021 onward using the terms "hybrid project management," "agile and traditional" and "hybrid approaches," and selected ten that address outcomes, design and implementation.

Annotated Sources

Copola Azenha, F., Aparecida Reis, D., & Leme Fleury, A. (2021). The role and characteristics of hybrid approaches to project management in the development of technology-based products and services. Project Management Journal, 52(1), 90-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820956884

Copola Azenha et al. (2021) asked how organizations that develop technology-based products and services actually apply hybrid approaches, noting that prior hybrid models had been largely theoretical. Combining a literature review with multiple case studies, they found that hybrid approaches were fundamental for companies dealing with distinct organizational cultures, specific processes, customers' contractual requirements and the particular features of each project. The study also produced a consolidated list of the characteristics of hybrid approaches. Its case design gives depth but limits generalization, and its focus on technology products makes it most relevant to the utility's software work. The finding about contractual requirements is especially useful: much of the utility's work is governed by contracts and regulations that demand fixed scope and documentation, which explains why a pure agile approach rarely fits even its software projects. I will use this article to justify keeping plan-driven controls where contracts require them while applying iterative practices within those boundaries.

Costantini, S., Hall, J. G., & Rapanotti, L. (2021). Using complexity and volatility characteristics to guide hybrid project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(5), 1135-1162. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2020-0187

Costantini et al. (2021) set out to provide methodological support for combining predictive and adaptive methods. Using secondary research, a small survey of 31 practitioners and semi-structured interviews, they explored how the complexity and volatility of an organizational problem should inform the choice of project management methods. Their main contribution is a proposed mapping between dimensions of complexity and volatility and the use of predictive or adaptive risk controls, offered as a first step toward systematizing hybrid combinations. The authors acknowledge that the small sample limits generalization, so the mapping should be treated as a framework rather than a proven rule. For the utility, the framework is practical: a pipe replacement project is complex but not volatile, favoring predictive controls, while a customer portal is volatile, favoring adaptive ones. I will use the article to structure a simple screening tool that project managers could apply when chartering a new project.

Gemino, A., Horner Reich, B., & Serrador, P. M. (2021). Agile, traditional, and hybrid approaches to project success: Is hybrid a poor second choice? Project Management Journal, 52(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820973082

This international study examined 477 projects across industries and classified 52 percent of them as hybrid, combining agile and traditional practices. Gemino et al. (2021) used regression analysis with several outcome measures and found that hybrid and agile approaches significantly increased stakeholder success compared with traditional approaches, while achieving the same budget, time, scope and quality outcomes. Hybrid approaches were similar in effectiveness to fully agile ones. The large, cross-industry sample makes this the strongest empirical evidence in the bibliography, although the data rely on respondents' reports and cannot prove causation. The study directly addresses the utility's concern that blending methods might give the worst of both worlds; the evidence suggests instead that hybrid is a leading approach rather than a poor compromise. It will anchor the case for adopting hybrid practices on projects with significant stakeholder involvement, such as customer-facing software.

Khan, U. A., & Qaiser, M. (2025). Hybrid project management and its effects on project performance. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-09-2024-0166

Drawing on contingency theory, Khan and Qaiser (2025) examined whether combining traditional and agile project management, treated as a hybrid construct, improves project performance and whether teamwork quality mediates that relationship. They surveyed 153 project management professionals in information technology, construction and operations in Pakistan using a convenience sample. The results indicated that integrating the approaches significantly enhanced project performance, particularly when supported by high teamwork quality. The convenience sample and single-country setting limit generalization, and the cross-sectional design cannot establish cause. Still, the study adds a mechanism that other articles mention but do not test: hybrid methods work through how well teams collaborate. For the utility, where engineers often work in departmental silos, the finding suggests that adopting hybrid practices without improving communication and mutual support within project teams would yield little. I will use it to argue that training in hybrid methods should be paired with team-building and clearer roles.

Leong, J., May Yee, K., Baitsegi, O., Palanisamy, L., & Ramasamy, R. K. (2023). Hybrid project management between traditional software development lifecycle and agile based product development for future sustainability. Sustainability, 15(2), Article 1121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021121

Leong et al. (2023) reviewed how agile methodology and product management might be combined with traditional project management to keep project management sustainable in a period of rapid digital transformation. Their review focused on the agile requirements engineering methods described in articles and studies over the preceding six years and on how these could be applied together with traditional project management. As a review rather than an empirical test, it offers a map of practices rather than evidence of outcomes, and its focus is software development. Its value for the utility lies in requirements: the utility's software projects often fail because requirements gathered at the start no longer match what customer service staff need at go-live. The article's discussion of agile requirements methods, such as user stories and continuous backlog refinement, within a traditional lifecycle offers a way to keep the regulatory documentation the utility needs while letting requirements evolve. I will use it in planning the next billing system upgrade.

Mirzaei, M., Mabin, V. J., & Zwikael, O. (2025). Customising hybrid project management methodologies. Production Planning & Control, 36(9), 1188-1205. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2024.2349231

Mirzaei et al. (2025) examined how project managers actually customize hybrid methodologies by selecting elements of agile and plan-driven approaches. Using an abductive approach grounded in contingency and coordination theories, with interviews, document analysis and observations from ten case studies, they identified two project characteristics that drive managers' customization decisions: team type and project goal. They also showed that practices can be integrated either by method or by phase. The case-based design provides rich insight but limited generalization. The finding that integration can occur by phase is directly useful for the utility. A treatment plant upgrade could use plan-driven methods for design and construction, where scope is fixed, and agile methods for the control software commissioning phase, where requirements emerge during testing. I will use the article to design phase-specific methods for projects that combine physical construction and software, which are becoming more common as the utility automates its facilities.

Prenner, N., Unger-Windeler, C., & Schneider, K. (2021). Goals and challenges in hybrid software development approaches. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 33(11), Article e2382. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2382

Prenner et al. (2021) noted that companies often combine agile and plan-based methods but find it difficult because the two follow opposing concepts. To identify the goals companies pursue with hybrid approaches and the conflicts those goals create, they conducted a systematic mapping study of literature describing companies' actual needs. They presented the factors that cause conflicts in hybrid approaches and discussed how the conflicts can be addressed. As a mapping study, it organizes existing reports rather than testing hypotheses, and it centers on software development. Its strength is clarifying that conflicts depend on goals: a company that adopts agile practices for speed faces different tensions than one that adopts them for customer involvement. For the utility, this suggests asking first what a project's hybrid design is meant to achieve, whether faster delivery, closer customer input or better risk control, and designing to that goal. I will use it to frame a short goals discussion at each project's charter meeting.

Reiff, J., & Schlegel, D. (2022). Hybrid project management: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 10(2), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm100203

Reiff and Schlegel (2022) conducted a systematic literature review to structure the fragmented research on hybrid project management. They discussed four different hybrid methodologies and synthesized findings on the definition, benefits, challenges, suitability and prerequisites of hybrid project management. The review's systematic method gives a reliable overview of the field as of its publication, though, like any review, it depends on the quality of the studies it includes. Its value for the bibliography is foundational: it supplies definitions and a structured list of benefits and challenges against which the more specific studies can be read. For the utility, its discussion of prerequisites is particularly relevant, because adopting hybrid methods requires organizational support, trained staff and clear governance that the utility's capital projects office would need to provide. I will use the review to frame the introduction of any proposal to adopt hybrid practices, so that leadership sees the approach as a recognized methodology rather than an improvised mixture.

Székely, B., Késmárki-Gally, S. E., & Lakner, Z. (2025). Hybrid project management: Scoping review. Project Leadership and Society, 6, Article 100182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2025.100182

Székely et al. (2025) noted limited comprehensive knowledge about how hybrid project management is implemented in organizations and conducted a scoping review of literature in Web of Science and Scopus following PRISMA guidelines, addressing five research questions. They analyzed the significance, benefits and drawbacks of different methodologies, presenting findings in structured tables, and limited their scope to hybrid methodologies relevant to business product and service development. As the most recent review in this bibliography, it updates the earlier systematic review by Reiff and Schlegel (2022) and confirms that the field remains active. Its transparent method strengthens confidence in its synthesis, although scoping reviews map evidence rather than assess its quality. For the utility, its tables of benefits and drawbacks provide a ready reference for a briefing to leadership. I will use it alongside the earlier review to show how thinking about hybrid methods has developed and where gaps remain.

Zasa, F. P., Patrucco, A., & Pellizzoni, E. (2021). Managing the hybrid organization: How can agile and traditional project management coexist? Research-Technology Management, 64(1), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2021.1843331

Zasa et al. (2021) observed that agile practices have spread beyond software but that large organizations struggle to adopt them exclusively, leading to hybrids that combine traditional stage-gate management with agile methods. They interviewed eight agile coaches experienced in non-software industries and identified practical actions to manage the challenges of implementing hybrid models, grouped at three levels: integration, cultural change and perceptions of the agile methodology. The small sample of coaches limits generalization, but their non-software experience makes the article unusually relevant to a utility whose core work is physical infrastructure. Its emphasis on culture echoes chapter 3 of Larson and Gray: methods change little if the culture still punishes early disclosure of problems or treats iteration as indecision. I will use the article to plan how the capital projects office would introduce hybrid practices, starting with how leaders talk about agile methods and how stage-gate reviews would accommodate iterative work.

Synthesis

Together, the ten articles address three questions. On outcomes, Gemino et al. (2021) and Khan and Qaiser (2025) suggest that hybrid approaches perform as well as agile ones and better than purely traditional ones, especially when teamwork is strong. On design, Costantini et al. (2021), Mirzaei et al. (2025) and Prenner et al. (2021) show that hybrid methods should be tailored to a project's complexity, volatility, team and goals, often phase by phase. On implementation, Copola Azenha et al. (2021), Zasa et al. (2021) and the reviews by Reiff and Schlegel (2022), Leong et al. (2023) and Székely et al. (2025) identify the contractual, cultural and governance conditions that make hybrids work. The evidence supports combining methods deliberately, not blending them by accident.