A Critical Analysis of the Usage of Selected Agile Project Management Methods in Change Management

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations

List of Illustrations

List of Tables

Abstract

Zusammenfassung

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical Background
2.1 Change Management
2.1.1 Change
2.1.2 Change Management
2.1.3 Change Management Process
2.2 Project Management
2.2.1 Project
2.2.2 Project Management
2.2.3 Project Planning
2.2.4 Project Management Process
2.2.5 General Project Management Procedure Models
2.2.6 Project Organizational Structures
2.2.7 Project Roles
2.2.8 Multi-project management
2.3 Agile Project Management
2.3.1 Agile Manifesto
2.3.2 Comparison of Agile and Traditional Project Management
2.4 Scrum
2.4.1 Definition of Scrum
2.4.2 History of Scrum
2.4.3 Pillars of Scrum
2.4.4 Scrum Process
2.4.5 Scrum Roles
2.4.5.1 Product Owner
2.4.5.2 Development Team
2.4.5.3 Scrum Master
2.4.6 Scrum Events
2.4.6.1 Sprint
2.4.6.2 Sprint Planning
2.4.6.3 Daily Scrum
2.4.6.4 Sprint Review
2.4.6.5 Sprint Retrospective
2.4.7 Scrum Artifacts
2.4.7.1 Product Backlog
2.4.7.2 Sprint Backlog
2.4.7.3 Increment
2.4.7.4 Definition of Done
2.4.8 Scaling Scrum
2.5 Design Thinking
2.5.1 History of Design Thinking
2.5.2 Definition of Design Thinking
2.5.3 Principles of Design Thinking
2.5.4 Design Thinking Process
2.5.4.1 Understand
2.5.4.2 Empathize
2.5.4.3 Define
2.5.4.4 Ideate
2.5.4.5 Prototype
2.5.4.6 Test
2.5.4.7 Implementation of Results
2.5.5 Design Thinking Moderator
2.5.6 Design Thinking Tools
2.5.7 Scaling Design Thinking

3. Analysis
3.1 Analysis of Management Systems
3.2 Analysis of Project Management Systems
3.3 Analysis of Basic Characteristics
3.3.1 Scrum’s Basic Characteristics
3.3.2 Design Thinking’s Basic Characteristics
3.4 Analysis of Impact on Success Factors of Change Management
3.4.1 Success Factors of Change Management
3.4.2 Vision and Goals
3.4.2.1 Scrum’s Impact on Vision and Goals
3.4.2.2 Design Thinking’s Impact on Vision and Goals
3.4.3 Communication
3.4.3.1 Scrum’s Impact on Communication
3.4.3.2 Design Thinking’s Impact on Communication
3.4.4 Leadership
3.4.4.1 Scrum’s Impact on Leadership
3.4.4.2 Design Thinking’s Impact on Leadership
3.4.5 Participation
3.4.5.1 Scrum’s Impact on Participation
3.4.5.2 Design Thinking’s Impact on Participation
3.4.6 Qualification
3.4.6.1 Scrum’s Impact on Qualification
3.4.6.2 Design Thinking’s Impact on Qualification
3.4.7 Project Management
3.4.7.1 Scrum’s Influence on Project Management
3.4.7.2 Design Thinking’s Influence on Project Management

4. Conclusion

4.1 Résumé

4.2 Recommendations and Prospects

Bibliography

List of Abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

List of Illustrations

Illustration 1: BCG Matrix with Directions of Change

Illustration 2: Lewin's Planned Change Model

Illustration 3: Kotter's Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change

Illustration 4: Krüger's Process for Radical and Far-Reaching Change

Illustration 5: The Triple Constraint

Illustration 6: Project Phases

Illustration 7: The Waterfall Model

Illustration 8: The Scrum Process

Illustration 9: Rules for Design Thinking

Illustration 10: The Design Thinking Process

Illustration 11: Factors of Success and Failure in Change Processes

Illustration 12: Barriers of Change Management

List of Tables

Table 1: Differences between Business and Design

Table 2: Framework for Evaluating Management Systems

Table 3: Success Factors in Change Management

Abstract

The thesis explores the current trend towards agility in the context of its possible application in change management. For the analysis Scrum and Design Thinking have been chosen as examples of agile project management methods with increasing popularity. The core of the evaluation is an examination of the impact of these methods on six significant success factors of change management. The analysis shows that Design Thinking has the highest impact on the success factor vision, while the strength of Scrum lies in project management itself. Both methods influence the factor communication mostly within the respective project team. Additionally, both Scrum and Design Thinking increase the need for qualification and require a rethinking of the concept of leadership. The possibility to involve a larger number of affected employees according to the factor participation exists, but is limited in both methods. Scrum and Design Thinking have the potential to enhance change management, and they are adaptable to the working method of the individual organization. The use of the agile methods ought to happen deliberately and is not suitable for a strict top-down approach, which is usually applied in times of crisis.

Zusammenfassung

Die Thesis nimmt den aktuellen Trend zur Agilität in Unternehmen auf und prüft ihn auf die mögliche Anwendung im Change Management. Für die Analyse wurden die Methoden Scrum und Design Thinking exemplarisch für agile Projektmanagementmethoden ausgewählt, die zunehmenden Anklang finden. Den Kern der Beurteilung bildet die Bewertung des Einflusses dieser Methoden auf sechs bedeutende Erfolgsfaktoren des Change Managements. In der Analyse stellt sich heraus, dass Design Thinking den größten Einfluss auf den Faktor Vision ausübt, während die Stärke von Scrum deutlich im Bereich Projektmanagement selbst zu finden ist. Der Faktor Kommunikation wird von beiden Methoden hauptsächlich innerhalb des Projektteams beeinflusst. Außerdem erhöhen beide den Bedarf an Qualifikation und bedürfen eines Umdenkens im Bereich Führung. Die Möglichkeit, eine größere Anzahl betroffener Mitarbeiter gemäß des Faktors Partizipation zu beteiligen, besteht in beiden Methoden, allerdings nur in begrenztem Ausmaß. Scrum und Design Thinking haben das Potenzial, das Change Management zu bereichern und können individuell an die Arbeitsweise des Unternehmens angepasst werden. Der Einsatz der agilen Methoden sollte überlegt erfolgen und ist nicht für strikte „Top-down“-Vorgehensweise geeignet, wie sie oft in Krisensituationen verwendet wird.

1. Introduction

The only constant is change itself. This saying applies increasingly to the world of business. Change has become an integral part of daily business life, and the importance of the discipline change management continues to increase in literature and practice.^[1] Change management is not only the facilitator of change in organizations. The discipline itself changes and develops over time. Kurt Lewin has developed the first popular model. In his article, ‘Frontiers in group dynamics’ (1947), he describes the change process with the help of the three stages unfreezing, moving and freezing.^[2] For a long time, this traditional point of view has been the standard. More modern approaches, like the eight-stage process of creating major change developed by John P. Kotter, see change as a constant for businesses and the last stage of freezing has been replaced by anchoring changes in the culture and continuous striving for improvement.^[3]

The next radical development in change management could influence the way change projects and programs are approached and structured.

Agility is on trend.^[4] Agile ideas are organizations’ efforts to adapt to changing environmental conditions, in which hierarchical systems and authoritative structures do not work anymore. Increasing complexity makes orientation on planning rather irrelevant and shifts the focus toward process orientation.^[5] Agile organizations will have a growing need for agile change frameworks in the future. Therefore, the discipline of change management could benefit from influences and inspirations from agile project management methods, which have gained popularity in recent years.^[6]

This thesis will have a strictly systematic theoretical approach and will analyze the effects of agility on the success of change management. Its goal is to answer the question whether and how the use of agile methods can be beneficial in this field by analyzing the impact of exemplary methods on distinct success factors of change management.

The examples for agile methods chosen for analysis in this thesis are Scrum and Design Thinking. Scrum is the method used most in software industry, where the trend for agile project management has its roots.^[7] In contrast, Design Thinking stems from the area of innovation.^[8] The literature describes it as the exact opposite of project management as we know it.^[9] The two methods share many similarities like their focus on collaboration and an iterative process, but they approach projects in different ways. Therefore, the selected methods offer a range within agile project management and can provide interesting insights into the usage of various agile methods in change management.

The following chapter will give an overview of the theoretical background. It will define and describe change and the discipline of change management. Additionally, it will include definitions and descriptions of project management as they are relevant to the subsequent analysis and the description of agile project management, which a distinction between traditional and agile project management follows. The second chapter also includes definitions of Scrum and Design Thinking, as well as information about the methods’ histories and principles and detailed descriptions of their processes and included elements. Chapter three contains the analysis, which starts with a look at the basic characteristics of the methods as management and project management systems. It continues with an overview of change management’s success factors in literature and the selection of six of them for further analysis. Following are a definition of each chosen factor with a description of its respective contribution to the success of change and an examination of the potential positive and negative effects both methods have. The last chapter includes a résumé of the analysis, which summarizes and compares the selected agile project management methods’ impact on change initiatives, as well as recommendations which can be drawn from this with an outlook.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Change Management

2.1.1 Change

The Oxford dictionary defines change as “an act or process through which something becomes different.”^[10] A specific kind of transformation is organizational change. The Cambridge dictionary describes this change as “a process in which a large company or organization changes its working methods or aims.”^[11]

Capgemini Consulting asked the participants of their 2015 change study what the reasons for their last completed change initiative were. Reorganization/restructuration was in the first place with 35% and in the second place with 16% were growth initiatives. Process digitalization/IT innovations and cost reduction/rightsizing shared the third place with 11%. Close behind with ten percent was a changed corporate strategy, followed by continuous improvement/other improvement initiatives with seven percent and mergers & acquisitions/demergers with four percent. In the last places of the top ten landed internationalization with three percent, as well as changed HR concepts and miscellaneous with one percent each.^[12]

In his book ‘Erfolgsfaktor Change Management’, Reiner Czichos lists the reasons for change named in the case studies in ‘Change Management Praxisfälle’ by Lutz von Rosenstiel and categorizes them as follows:

- Product-related: low quality, complex product design, wrong product range structure
- Market-related: loss of market shares, insuficcient customer value
- Process-related: high process costs, high lead time, poor production logistics, high inventory, insufficient IT support
- Personnel-related: corporate culture problems, high absence/sickness rate, inadequate culture of trust, resistance against change, mutual recriminations, low identification with the company
- Leadership-related: high time pressure, no culture of feedback, lack of autonomy, low achievement of objectives, lots of micro-politics
- Structure-related: cooperation with other enterprises^[13]

There are two types of organizational change. Many structural changes are unintended, coincidental and can happen unrecognized over an extended period of time. This unplanned organizational change is natural and necessary. It is possible to react to this unplanned change in a passive, observant way or in a reactive, acting way. A reaction would gear towards restoring the initial equilibrium, which has been disturbed by situational influences. The planned organizational change on the other hand includes all intentional, steered, organized and controlled efforts towards an anticipative and target-oriented organizational design aiming to improve efficiency and effectiveness. In this context, structural changes are concerned with the active improvement of items like characteristics, skills, and relationships.^[14]

Whether an organizational change is planned or unplanned, the transformation can reach different dimensions.^[15] A first-order change also referred to as gradual, evolutionary or adaptive change, entails an incremental modification of an organization’s operation.^[16] The organization's corporate values, strategic direction, as well as its basic structures, norms, and processes stay the same. This change mainly focuses on quantitative and evolutionary adjustments due to corporate growth. It has a low degree of intensity and complexity. Therefore, anxiety among affected individuals is rather low, as well.^[17] Second-order change is also called radical, revolutionary or transformative change.^[18] It entails significant, paradigmatic changes of an organization’s operation with a change of the reference framework.^[19] This transformation is of mainly qualitative character and has a high degree of intensity and complexity. With its abrupt and fundamental nature, it leads to much anxiety among the affected.^[20]

Depending on the object transformations focus on it is possible to identify four types of change: restructuring, reorientation, revitalization and remodeling.^[21] Restructuring or reorganization concerns changes to processes, systems, and structures, as well as tangibles like facilities and equipment. It is a necessary side effect or consequence of the far-reaching change, but not every restructuring can bring sustainable change to key success factors. Reorientation describes a change of strategy like abandoning old and developing new business segments. It reaches deeper than reorganization and is a requirement for transformative change. Revitalization includes fundamental changes to personnel capabilities as well as management and cooperation behaviors. This transformation includes increased participation and delegation, inspiring creativity, autonomy, and entrepreneurship. Remodeling involves the change of values and beliefs and the resulting attitudes. This change is the most in-depth transformation in an organization. The collective values, beliefs, and attitudes form the core of the so-called corporate culture. Its design is as significant as it is challenging and lengthy.^[22]

Changes always occur on at least one of three levels:

- Organizational structure (structures, and reorganization),
- Operational structure (processes, tasks, roles, and responsibilities),
- Social fabric and the individual work behavior (value of cooperation, management tools, and tasks)

Usually, changes occur on two or three of these levels at the same time but influence them to a different degree. Therefore, it is important to determine on which level to focus on, when planning transformations.^[23]

An important characteristic of each transformation initiative is the direction of the change. The initiatives can be a reduction, conversion, or development efforts. A reduction entails scaling down or abandoning positions and potentials. The abandonment of peripheral business divisions and a decrease in vertical integration to focus on core competences are typical examples. In connection with the organizational structure, a reduction mainly implies job cuts, flattening of hierarchies and decentralization. Staff related problems especially characterize reductive measures, since they entail quantitative and qualitative changes in personnel requirements. A conversion occurs when an organization regroups or renews present potentials and positions without categorically questioning them. To affected divisions, conversion measures usually are a mixture of reduction and development elements. An organization can develop new potentials and positions by expanding (internal growth) or through M&A activities (external growth) which grant integration. Existing competences can be used to bring new goods and services to market, as well as present goods and services to new regions and customer segments. Alternatively, new competences develop and bring competitive advantages to new or existing business segments. In the beginning, development efforts focus on value adding (operational) activities. It is important to adapt controlling and supporting tasks and processes, as well. Particularly critical are integration initiatives concerning acquired companies, when they include an entirely different organizational structure on top of the staff and cultural differences. The impact direction of change corresponds to the BCG’s growth-share matrix and the corresponding strategies, as shown in illustration 1.^[24]

Illustration 1 : BCG Matrix with Directions of Change

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Own Illustration Krüger, W. (2009): p.62f., modified according to Martin, M. (2016): n.p.

2.1.2 Change Management

The discipline exploring how to handle the transformations described above is called change management. The Cambridge dictionary defines change management as “the planning and introducing new processes, methods of working, etc. in a company or organization.“^[25] Literature differs in the extent to which aspects and activities change management includes. The following text describes a few selected examples.

Stolzenberg and Heberle define change management as the planning and realization of all activities which prepare affected managers and employees for future situations and enable them to implement changed requirements optimally. They differentiate change management with its four core topics development and implementation of the vision, communication with concerned parties, participation of affected personnel, and qualification of concerned individuals from the actual transformation process. Change management occurs embedded in the actual process.^[26]

Thomas Lauer takes a similar approach and describes change management as the optimal design of the path between the starting point and the finish line. He describes that change management in this sense does not include defining the content of a goal, nor the development of methods to derive such goals from an organization’s strategy. He adds that this distinction between the path and the finish line cannot be 100 percent, especially when it comes to the participation of affected parties. Lauer distinguishes change management from strategic management, which deals with an optimized adaptation to the environment. He defines change management as an internally directed task concerned with the changing organization and its member.^[27]

Vahs and Wieand refer to planned change in organizations, also called strategic change, organizational change, corporate change or business transformation, as the object of many change management concepts. They are based on a greater orientation towards processes, customers, and competences and strive for continuous improvement or a radical redesign of business strategies, structures, and processes, the corporate culture, as well as the utilized methods and procedures. They identify four areas of activity, whose interdependencies an organization needs to consider while planning and implementing a change initiative:

- strategy (vision, mission statement, and business strategy)
- organization (structures and processes)
- culture (leadership and communication)
- technology (methods and procedures)

According to Vahs and Wieand, change management not only deals with single problem areas but is equally concerned with a holistic perspective of all four areas of activity and their interdependencies. Change management includes the preparation, analysis, planning, implementation and continuous improvement of holistic change initiatives with the objective to develop an organization from a specific current state to the desired target state and thus sustainably enhance efficiency and effectivity of all business activities. The management of a transformation evaluates the current potentials and skills of an organization and systematically plans the necessary measures of change.^[28] The following parts of this thesis will refer to the holistic view of change management as described by Vahs and Wieand.

2.1.3 Change Management Process

In 1947 psychologist Kurt Lewin provided one of the earliest models of planned change in his paper ‘Frontiers in group dynamics’. He identified two groups of forces that keep a system’s behavior stable in a state of ‘quasi-stationary equilibrium’: forces striving to maintain the status quo and forces pushing for change. An organization can change the equilibrium by decreasing the forces maintaining the current state, increasing the forces pushing for change, or a mixture of both.^[29]

Lewin determined that groups tend to revert to their old behavior after a change toward a higher level of group performance. This finding indicated that the objective for planned change not only has to include reaching a higher level, but also permanent maintenance of this level. Lewin determined three aspects necessary to achieve a successful change: unfreezing of the current level (if needed), moving to the new level, and freezing the group life on the newly reached level.^[30]

Illustration 2 shows the resulting change process.

Illustration 2 : Lewin's Planned Change Model

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Own Illustration Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2013): p.23

The step of unfreezing typically includes reducing the forces maintaining the organization’s behavior on its current level.^[31] It can be necessary to cause an emotional stir-up deliberately.^[32] The step of moving shifts the behavior of an individual, a department or a whole organization to a new level. It involves changes in organizational structures and processes that result in newly developed behaviors, values, and attitudes.^[33] The step of refreezing stabilizes the new state of equilibrium within the organization. Supporting mechanisms like organizational culture, rewards, and structures reinforce the new organizational state.^[34]

In his book ‘Leading Change’, first published in 1996, John P. Kotter identifies eight errors, which are common to organizational change efforts:

- “Allowing too much complacency,
- failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition,
- underestimating the power of vision,
- undercommunicating by a factor of 10 (or 100 or even 1,000),
- permitting obstacles to block the new vision,
- failing to create short-term wins,
- declaring victory too soon,
- neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture.”^[35]

The consequences of making these mistakes are that the organization does not implement new strategies well, acquisitions do not achieve the expected synergies, re-engineering may take too long and cost too much, downsizing does not get costs under control, and that quality programs do not deliver desired results.^[36]

Kotter designed a process with eight steps. Each of the steps shown in illustration 3 aims to prevent one of the common errors.^[37]

Illustration 3 : Kotter's Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

According to Kotter, J. P. (2013): p.23

The first four steps of this transformation seek to defrost the current status quo. The phases five, six and seven introduce many new practices. The eighth stage grounds the changes in the corporate culture and helps to make them permanent.^[38]

Derived from Kotter’s eight-stage process as well as his experiences and research Wilfried Krüger developed a five-phase process model for radical and far-reaching change. The five phases form the framework for analyzing the tasks of change management. The model determines the two most important tasks of each phase as shown in illustration 4.^[39]

Illustration 4 : Krüger's Process for Radical and Far-Reaching Change

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Modified according to Krüger, W. (2009): p.70

The first phase initialization is concerned with the identification and binding specification of an objectively necessary change. The first task of determining the need for change entails the creation of problem awareness. When an analysis of the external and internal situation indicates a major need for change, the first step is to create a sense of necessity and urgency among the leadership. A vision of the organization’s future should ideally guide the direction the change needs to take. The second task of the initialization phase is to activate supporters of change. This task involves the creation of a change coalition. Transformative changes affect a lot of internal and external stakeholders, as well as their respective positions. Therefore, it is important to view the change process as a forcefield of promoters, opponents, and undecideds. It is crucial to identify the possible promoters of change and gain them as supporters of the transformation. Subsequently, the formed change coalition or its representative triggers the visible part of the change process.^[40]

After triggering the change, the second phase, the conception of the change initiative begins. The third task focuses on the specification of the objectives of the change. The objectives of the change are an expression of the corporate vision and long-term goals. They are a break-down of priority goals an organization needs to achieve through the transformation. The task also includes the determination of the conditions that form the boundaries for the objectives. The fourth task is concerned with the development of a program of measures. This assignment includes the structuring of the project responsibilities and distribution of work packages. In complex initiatives, it is important to coordinate the allocation of work between required sub-projects. The planning of the project’s or program’s organization and roles as well as the objective and chronological order is necessary. Usually, project teams develop concepts, which are a combination of goals and measures designed to cope with the need for change. The management assesses and selects the concept or concepts for implementation. The task also entails the making of implementation decisions. Since radical change often includes consequences concerning employees, which fall under the right of co-determination, this step can include negotiations with the workers’ council.^[41]

The third phase of the change management process is the mobilization. After determining the concept, the change management needs to prepare the persons involved or affected by the planned change and confront them with the changes. Communicating the concept of the change is the fifth task. The task entails a lot of convincing. This phase is the latest phase to involve co-determination entities, which is the leaderships’ responsibility. The leadership needs to be visible in small meetings with key personnel as well as in huge events. The goal is to communicate with the masses. It is of vital importance to the success of a change concept that an organization's leadership is sincere in its willingness to make changes and practices symbolic management that may involve staff modifications. To engage as many affected employees as active supporters as possible, in addition to the identified promoters, the management needs to create incentives. Attaining positive involvement and change readiness is important. The second task in this phase is creating the conditions for change. The implementation of prioritized initiatives and subsequent projects requires many management decisions. It is necessary to determine priorities, hand responsibilities over to project managers, and allocate and release resources. These activities can be quite complex and may form preparatory projects. In organizations with a well-developed project management and a high degree of changeability, this sixth task loses in importance.^[42]

The implementation phase consists of implementing prioritized initiatives and subsequent projects. While the number of people included in the concept’s design tends to be small, its implementation may involve many – if not all – employees. That is why the implementation phase has a very high influence on the change initiative’s success. Since an organization cannot solve all problems at once, it is necessary to set priorities. The priorities that determine what to implement in the seventh task are:
- Factual dependencies: It is possible to implement projects, which are independent of each other, in a parallel or overlapping manner to save time.
- Urgency: Urgent projects have priority. In practice, it is common to reduce weaknesses, like cost reductions, before growing strengths, like the development of competitive advantages.
- Implementation risk: The implementation of pilot projects within a limited area helps to test the functionality of a solution and to reduce a high implementation risk.
- Know-how transfer: The development of skills critical to the change initiative’s success happens within basic projects, and subsequent projects can profit.
- Resource availability: Scarce resources shape the work on a project.
- Short-term gains: To develop trust and create even more change readiness it is important to implement risk-free projects early on to generate quick wins and convince skeptics.^[43]

The seventh task of implementing prioritized initiatives also involves controlling the program flow. The project team members are responsible for determining details as well as documenting and reporting to those responsible. The leadership is in charge of checking whether a critical milestone is achieved or not. The eighth task, implementing subsequent projects, involves the controlling of the program’s progress, too. Subsequent projects complete the change and implement the set objectives. In the case of significant deviations, management must interfere. Lastly, the experiences gained during the projects should become ‘lessons learned’ or ‘best practice’ for future projects. This approach strengthens the organization's project management as well as its dynamic capabilities.^[44]

The last phase is concerned with continuation. Although the change initiative comes to an end after its implementation, the organizational development continues, and change needs to be a constant issue. In contrast to Lewin’s model, the process does not end with freezing the change results but with a continuation in the sense of continuous improvement. The ninth task deals with embedding the results of the change in the organization. It involves handing over responsibilities from the program management to the primary organization and the department heads responsible for maintaining the changes. Evaluating results and honoring successes is important. The tenth task ensures change readiness and changeability. The organization needs to implement change objectives into the management process to serve its evolutionary development. Furthermore, it is necessary to create platforms for learning and development and ensure their use.^[45]

Although implementation is the name of the fourth phase in the process, the term also refers to all activities and methods which ensure the reaching of targeted objectives independent of the phase of the process, in which they take place.^[46] There are two generic implementation strategies, the top-down and the bottom-up approach. A strict top-down implementation aims at quick results and tries to intercept a lack of willingness to change by keeping the concept of change secret and using the element of surprise. The bottom-up approach does not, as one might think, mean the autonomous initiation and implementation of the change by affected employees. Though the ideas may come from them, they still need authorization and resources from the top management. It is possible to combine the two approaches, for example by directing strategic initiatives and goals top-down and organizing particular implementation projects bottom-up. The choice of implementation strategy is dependent on the situation. Organizations handle changes in times of crisis top-down, because of time constraints.^[47]

2.2 Project Management

Change management is always project management as well. It needs a planned approach (not necessarily rigid, set in stone planning) to develop the new and consider its wider implications.^[48] The term change management project usually refers to projects aiming to change an organization in a radical, far-reaching and cross-sector manner. Examples are the introduction of new processes, mergers and the implementation of new strategies.^[49]

2.2.1 Project

The business dictionary describes a project as a “planned set of interrelated tasks to be executed over a fixed period and within certain cost and other limitations.”^[50] Different organizations define the term project in various ways.^[51] The German Institute of Standardization defines a project as characterized by a unique set of conditions, such as goals, as well as constraints regarding time, budget, personnel and alike.^[52] The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Guide by the Project Management Institute (PMI) puts emphasis on the time constraints and a project’s singularity, while PPINCE2, the project management standard of the British government, focuses on the ‘business case’ and thus the project’s justification and purpose.^[53]

The general characteristics of a project include:

- Limited Timeframe – There is a specific beginning and ending.
- Singularity and Uniqueness – Typically this is a one-off initiative which involves something new.
- Specific Objective – The result can, for example, be a product, system or a process.
- Sufficient complexity – The present line organization cannot easily manage it due to importance, criticality, and urgency.
- Cross-departmental – This is usually true for large organizations.
- Constrained resources.^[54]

There are many different projects and endless ways to categorize types of projects. The following list is a selection:

- project initiator (internal project/external project)
- project size (small, middle or large)
- business purpose (e.g.: strategy, rationalization, expansion)
- project content (e.g.: organizational, R&D, investment, infrastructure)
- complexity (standard, acceptance, potential or pioneer)^[55]

The German Institute for Standardization defines the project goal as the sum of individual objectives reached by the project.^[56] Goals serve different purposes, namely:

- Decision making – Goals act as criteria to choose between alternatives.
- Coordinating – They are the red thread connecting the activities of different team members.
- Motivating – Goals help to create a sense of unity within the team.
- Informing – They inform team members, colleagues and the corporate environment about future activities.
- Controlling – Goals serve as target values and thus serve to measure the project’s success.
- Legitimizing – They give the project team a reason for being, which is of particular importance in internal projects which bring change to the organization.^[57]

The objectives are typically not precise in the early stages. They rather undergo constant revision. In the beginning, there are rough ideas, visions or strategic objectives which form a project idea. During the process of planning the project, they gain detail. Since goals can change over time, their up-to-dateness needs constant checking. PRINCE2 implements this in the concept of the business case.^[58] Rules used regarding objectives are the SMART criteria. To have relevance goals must be specific (S), measurable (M), assignable (A) realistic (R), and time-bound (T).^[59]

An important concept, when talking about project goals and project planning, is the triple constraint shown in illustration 5.^[60] The objective is to achieve a specific result, at a specific point in time, while staying within given resources.^[61]

Illustration 5 : The Triple Constraint

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

According to Preußig, J. (2015): p.36

The scope of the project defines the products, services, reports, and conditions to be present at the end of the project or specific points in time during the process. Specifications describe the quality these items need to achieve. Main methods defining the scope are requirements management, project structure planning, quality planning and configuration management.^[62]

An organization provides a limited amount of resources to cover the costs of the project. The initiator of the project agrees upon this budget. Personnel costs are the main item of the project cost. Other examples of expenses are costs of material, machinery, travel, and licenses.^[63]

Per definition, each project has a specific end date and the associated time constraint. This date can be a delivery date for the client or the end date for an internal customer, including a delivered final report and a closed cost center.^[64]

The term triple constraint derives from the fact that a change in one aspect always influences at least one of the other two.^[65] During a project, there are bound to be trade-offs between the three competing goals.^[66]

2.2.2 Project Management

The business dictionary describes project management as “the body of knowledge concerned with principles, techniques, and tools used in planning, control, monitoring, and review of projects.”^[67] The Project Management Institute (PMI) defines it as follows: “Project Management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet project requirements.”^[68] The ISO norm by the German Institute of Standardization adds that project management includes the interaction of the different stages of the project lifecycle.^[69] Like every management system, project management includes planning and controlling tools as well as leadership methods and organizational models.^[70]

2.2.3 Project Planning

Project planning is one of the most important tasks in project management. Main goals in project planning are the minimization of risk and deliverance of the project’s result within the stipulated time and budget.^[71] The project planning includes the project’s organization and the corresponding responsibilities. Planning also involves the determination of controlling measures for results and budgets, as well as the design of communication within the project and an outward reporting system.^[72]

The project plan is not one single plan; it includes all plans existing within the project.^[73] The project structure plan is the basis for all following planning steps and determines what the project team must do in the project.^[74] A project flow chart shows in which order tasks need to be tackled. The schedule determines when the project team needs to perform the tasks. The resource plan specifies who and/or what resources the project needs for carrying out the task. Furthermore, the cost projection determines how much performing the tasks by using the resources will cost.^[75]

The scheduling is one of the most difficult tasks of project planning. The challenge is to make assumptions about future conditions and their temporal dependencies at an early point in time. The main problem of project scheduling lies in its uniqueness and novelty. The project manager cannot draw from broad experiences. However, clients and project owners often expect a strict and very detailed plan. Project managers and their project owners need to plan for uncertainties. A schedule is dependent on its up-to-dateness and needs to be optimized and communicated transparently if changes occur. The tools a project manager can use to schedule a project include a phase plan, a plan of action, an activity list, as well as a network or Gantt chart.^[76]

2.2.4 Project Management Process

The process of a project describes the order of the project’s phases.^[77] A phase in a project always ends with a milestone. A milestone is the event of the realization of an interim goal with a significant project result. Each milestone consists of a date and the expected result with verifiable criteria.^[78]

The different norms and standards regarding project management vary in the number of general phases forming a project’s life cycle. The following illustration shows the phases suggested in the previously mentioned standards.

Illustration 6 : Project Phases

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Modified according to Meyer, H. and Reher, H.-J. (2016): p.15

The initiating phase includes the examination of the project idea, the consideration of the initiators or customers wishes and a check of the project’s profitability.^[79]

The defining phase involves tasks like the creation of the project assignment, the determination of the project’s parameters and its goals, the analysis of stakeholders as well as risks and benefits, determining roles and tasks of the team members and the implementation of a project start workshop.^[80]

The planning phase consists of the selection of a phase model, the structuring of the project, the description of work packages, the determination of milestones as well as dates and resources. Furthermore, it includes the clarification of needs, the assessment of the project’s efficiency, and planning project cost as well as securing of budget.^[81]

The implementation phase involves the release of the project plan, the collection of actual data (dates, hours and costs), the comparison of target and actual data, the analysis of discrepancies, the determination and initiation of control measures, as well as the provision of reports and information.^[82]

The closing phase of the project consists of a project completion meeting, the evaluation of the project, and the final project report.^[83]

Organizations usually adapt these three to five general phases to the specific circumstances of the project in question. They differ between industries and project types.^[84] The duration of a phase, as well as the chosen number of milestones, are determined by the complexity of the project, predictable and verifiable interim results, time horizon, availability of decision makers, the autonomy of the project team, and critical deadlines.^[85] Although the graphical presentation of the phases is commonly linear, their interaction in practice is normal and beneficial for the quality of the project.^[86]

2.2.5 General Project Management Procedure Models

A procedure model combines methods, elements, processes and phases into a standardized project course.^[87] There are four categories of procedure models: sequential, parallel, repetitive and agile.^[88]

Illustration 7 : The Waterfall Model

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Modified according to Timinger, H. (2015): p.60

In sequential models, the project structure implements the phases one after another. To strictly comply, one phase must be finished, before the next one begins. One of the most popular models in this category is the waterfall model shown in illustration 7.^[89]

Each phase of the waterfall model has a goal. Achieving the goal means moving on to the next phase.^[90] Jumps back into a previous phase are possible, for example, to correct mistakes made in the phase. In strict compliance, only jumps to the immediately previous phase are allowed, but the practice shows deviation from these limitations.^[91]

An example for parallel procedure models is simultaneous engineering. It chooses to renounce the sequential work in phases and starts to work simultaneously on the subsequent phase as enough information to continue is available.^[92]

The repetition of phases in sequential and parallel models has the purpose of mistake correction and is an undesired event. In repetitive models the plan includes repetitions as a core element. One example is the incremental model. In this model, the run through of phases happens in sequential order. After testing the first increment, the requirements for the second increment are determined. This repetition occurs until the desired result is achieved. Another example is the spiral model. It has the start of the project in its center, and recurring iterations include the determination of requirements, the analysis, and minimization of risks, the implementation of requirements and the plan of the next iteration. Each iteration substantiates the project issue.^[93]

Agile models exhibit similarities to repetitive models, but they describe an entirely different type of project handling, as chapters 2.3 to 2.5 will show.^[94]

2.2.6 Project Organizational Structures

A project’s organizational structure specifies the project’s integration in the main organization. The structure determines in which manner the line organization and the project organization divide the management responsibility as well as the decision-making authority. The choice of structure also influences the amount of freedom the team and its project manager have and the type of collaboration.^[95]

Selection criteria for the organizational structure may include the project’s importance, type, goal, and scope as well as the company's management structure and culture.^[96] A main selection criterion of the organizational structure is the project’s complexity. This complexity may derive from scientific novelty, the risk of failure to reach the project goal, the scope, the time frame, number of departments and external stakeholders involved, the number of simultaneously worked on projects, as well as dependencies and interconnections of tasks.^[97]

For a project of high importance and complexity, a pure project organizational structure is favorable, while a medium project calls for a matrix organizational structure, and project coordina­tion is suitable for small projects.^[98]

The pure project organization has a high degree of autonomy and is a unit clearly separated from line organization.^[99] The structure involves that team members work full-time on the project. The project manager receives full management responsibility and full decision-making authority, except for decisions regarding milestones and long-term human resource development.^[100] In addition to high importance and complexity, minimal involvement with day-to-day tasks is another important criterion for the choice of a pure project organizational structure.^[101]

The matrix structure is a mixture of pure project organization and project coordination.^[102] The members work part-time in the project team. They report to the project manager only regarding the project. The disciplinary authority stays with the line supervisors.^[103] The matrix organizational structure is a very common structure, that shows much variety relating to the division of authorities and responsibilities in practice.^[104] It is suitable for all kinds of projects, but it demands a high degree of communication and coordination to ensure the project team members do not suffer under conflicts serving two masters.^[105]

The most minimal type of project organization is project coordination.^[106] The project team members stay within the existing functional hierarchies. The project manager’s staff role is a simple addition to the primary organization and has a coordinative nature since it does not involve authority.^[107] His responsibilities include the material content of the project, adherence to the schedule, informing relevant line bodies, the qualitative correctness of the approach and the overall coordination of all parties involved.^[108] Without authority, the project coordinator needs a resilient and influential personality to work successfully.^[109]

2.2.7 Project Roles

The determination of roles and their respective responsibilities is an important aspect of the definition of a project.^[110] It is favorable for each team member to have only one role, but holding multiple, especially neighboring roles is possible and often done in small teams. The most important attributes for roles are a precise definition, a consensus, and transparency.^[111]

The project owner, also referred to as the sponsor, usually has the key role. He has the highest decision-making authority and provides the necessary resources for the project.^[112] Larger organizations might split the role into the project’s initiator, who may not have the capacity to oversee the entire project, and the project’s decision-maker, who has the entrepreneurial respon­sibility.^[113] There may be a split in the decision-making function between stakeholders like the management and the board or executive and legislative teams as well.^[114] The project owner is the main contact person. In projects for clients, he represents the customers’ interests. In internal projects, he often leads the department which benefits most from the project.^[115] His main responsibilities include setting the strategic framework conditions, specifying priorities, making milestone decisions, supporting project managers, securing resources and providing access to people with essential information.^[116]

The project manager is responsible for the operational planning and controlling of the project and thus must ensure the project reaches the goals regarding scope, time and costs. The project manager is a key success factor for each project. The requirements for a project manager resemble those expected of a leadership personality in the original organization.^[117] He needs to have professional expertise, knowledge of project management methods and tools and how to use them, knowledge of leading a project team, the capacity for teamwork and effective communication skills.^[118] The project manager has different duties. In consultation with the steering committee, he selects the members of the team.^[119] He coordinates the project goals with the project owner and ensures the team members understand these goals and can implement them. Despite the planning, he also organizes the release of the project plan with the product owner. The project manager distributes the tasks among the team members, controls the implementation and reacts to deviations from the plan.^[120] He coordinates the exchange of information between team members and other stakeholders, manages conflicts and regularly informs all interested parties.^[121]

The project team delivers the content of the project. Differentiation between a core team and an extended team can be beneficial for larger projects and make meetings and workshops more efficient. Large-scale projects often have several sub-projects with own sub-project manager, who report to the main project manager.^[122] The project may also have temporary project members or specialists, who do not have a fixed assignment in the project. The team contacts them on an irregular basis to obtain vital information.^[123]

The steering committee, also known as project committee, is an extension of the project owner and includes senior managers of concerned departments and other people representing key stakeholder groups.^[124] From an organizational point of view, it is favorable if the project manager only reports to the steering committee and the steering committee has sole authority to issue directives to the project manager.^[125] It is the highest decision-making body within the project organization.^[126] The role of the steering committee is to order the project, to monitor and sustain its progress, to make initial decisions regarding budget and alternative problem solutions, to accept milestones, and to release the final report.^[127]

Major projects might have the need for a separate back office structure. A project office can lend administrative support to project members.^[128] Another role a project organization may include is an advisory group or sounding board. It consists of regular employees and makes sense where the project concerns the majority of the workforce.^[129]

2.2.8 Multi-project management

Multi-project management (MPM) addresses the management and controlling of various projects.^[130] The terms program management and project portfolio management are also used synonymously with MPM, although these terms describe two distinct aspects of multi-project management.^[131]

The Project Management Institute (PMI) defines a program as “a group of related projects managed in a coordinated manner to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually” and program management as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to meet program requirements.”^[132] Another way to define a program is a distinct number of connected projects and organizational changes designed to reach strategic objectives and achieve expected benefits for the organization.^[133] In this sense program management is a temporal managerial task, entailing the planning, comprehensive supervision and controlling of the defined number of connected projects, which together serve an overall goal.^[134]

A project portfolio is the sum of all planned, approved and ongoing projects and programs of a company, an organization or a division. A project portfolio has no temporary restrictions. Over time an organization adds new projects to the portfolio and completes others.^[135] According to the Project Management Institute project portfolio management refers to “the centralized management of one or more project portfolios to achieve strategic objectives.”^[136] It aims for holistic optimization of projects and especially focuses on prioritization of new projects and the implementation of the right projects.^[137]

2.3 Agile Project Management

A way to describe agile project management is by looking at its different components. Agile values build the foundation. The focus is on more flexibility and the reduction of bureaucracy. Agile principles are based on agile values and form the operational principles of agile project management. Examples of these principles are iterations and self-organization of teams. Agile techniques are detailed procedures that implement agile values and principles and give the project management the necessary structure. Agile methods provide agile techniques with a framework and combine them and the agile principles into a coherent project management process.^[138] Agile project management methods, as well as their underlying values and principles, have their roots in software development.^[139]

2.3.1 Agile Manifesto

In 2001 software developers joined in the interest of finding an alternative to the traditional heavyweight, documentation driven software development process. They met in the Wasatch mountains of Utah. These 17 representatives from Extreme Programming, Scrum, Feature-Driven Development, and other approaches had the goal to find common ground around Agile. During the meeting, they arrived at four shared values emerging into the ‘Manifesto for Agile Software Development’.^[140]

The manifesto states:

“We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools

Working software over comprehensive documentation

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation

Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.”^[141]

All participants of the meeting signed the manifesto and published the twelve following principles behind it:

- “Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.
- Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage.
- Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale
- Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.
- Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.
- The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
- Working software is the primary measure of progress.
- Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.
- Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.
- Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential.
- The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.
- At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.”^[142]

In summary, the Agile Manifesto puts people into the center of software development and names optimizing customer satisfaction and added value as its goals.^[143]

2.3.2 Comparison of Agile and Traditional Project Management

Agile and traditional project management do have a common foundation: the basic project management process with its separate phases, as described in chapter 2.2.4. The various techniques of project management shape this process. This design can theoretically be made by either using strictly traditional or agile techniques. In practice, it is not uncommon to use a few agile techniques in a traditional project management framework or add a few traditional tools onto an agile process.^[144]

In general, traditional project management works with a fixed project management process. There is a clear hierarchy and it is possible to have large teams. These teams can consist of lots of specialists, who sit separately and work on different projects at a time. Their tasks are handed down to them and the communication happens through long meetings and documents. Agile manage-ment constantly makes improvements to the project management process. To be effective agile management needs small teams. These teams are self-organized, share responsibilities, sit together and ideally focus on one project at the time. They take on their tasks and have much informal communication in stand-up meetings.^[145]

One of the main differences between agile and traditional project management is the handling of changes that occur over the course of a project. In traditional project management, the stakeholders’ influence is high at the start of the project and declines as the project progresses. To follow traditional project management by the book, the customer or internal client expresses his wishes once in the beginning.^[146] The requirements, once identified, are ‘set in stone’.^[147] It is common for the customer to see a mainly finished product only and feedback tends to happen towards the end of a project.^[148] Traditional project management operates under the assumption that a change in the project order becomes more expensive the later it occurs.^[149] The goal of this plan driven form of project management is to be predictable and as close to the plan as possible.^[150]

Agile project management works with the idea that a result may be different from the initial idea. Once developed, a stakeholder can amend requirements as needed.^[151] The use of agile principles and techniques ideally keeps the costs of changes to a minimum.^[152] A quick response to change is the main objective.^[153] There are two reasons behind this goal. On the one hand it enables to react to rapidly changing environments. Influencing factors like the market situation can easily evolve over the course of a project. On the other hand it is hard for a customer to accurately describe the result he wants to have in every detail, especially with respect to innovative and complex products. Additionally, the mostly written description of requirements can lead to misunderstandings.^[154] Agile project management encourages the customer to evaluate interim results. Thus the project team can constantly assess feedback and learn from mistakes.^[155]

The triple constraint regarding a projects goal’s costs, time and scope/quality is the same in traditional and agile project management. In traditional project management it is common to adjust the time component and postpone milestone dates. In contrast, adherence to delivery dates has a high significance in agile project management. The first element to face adjustments is the scope. Instead of postponing the date of a presentation of interim results, agile management is inclined to reduce the scope of the presented result. It is important to mention that this does not concern the quality. The quality requirements do not lessen in agile projects.^[156]

2.4 Scrum

2.4.1 Definition of Scrum

The ‘Scrum Guide’ defines Scrum as “a framework within which people can address complex adaptive problems, while productively and creatively delivering products of the highest possible value.”^[157] “Scrum is an Agile framework and, as such, is consistent with the values of the Agile Manifesto,” as stated by the Scrum Alliance.^[158]

The word ‘scrum’ stems from rugby. It is a means of restarting the game after a stoppage caused by a minor infringement or in case the ball becomes unplayable and serves to concentrate all the forwards as well as the respective scrum-halves in one place on the field. The two teams stand in tight embrace opposite each other, while the front rows wedge heads and shoulders. The scrum-half throws the ball into the tunnel between them, and the hookers have the task to hook the ball backward in the direction of their team. The key player is the scrum-half, who moves to the rear side after the throw and is usually the one picking up the ball and passing it to the fly-half who distributes the ball to the back line. The scrum is a complex play. Usually, the team who throws the ball into the scrum retains possession, but that requires careful synchronization between the hooker and the scrum-half.^[159]

Takeuchi and Nonaka first used this rugby analogy in a management context in their paper ‘The New New Product Development Game’ from 1986. The described research showed an outstanding performance in the development of new and complex products by teams consisting of a small and self-organized unit of people, who follow objectives, not tasks. It showed how to achieve excellence teams require autonomy.^[160]

2.4.2 History of Scrum

Influenced by the work of Takeuchi and Nonaka (as well as Babatunde A. Ogunnaike Tunde, a distinguished process control research engineer) Jeff Sutherland and Ken Schwaber constructed the Scrum process during the early nineties and labeled it accordingly. In the same year, they presented it at the OOPSLA conference in Austin, Texas and published the first paper ‘SCRUM Software Development Process’.^[161] They had been working together for years. Both owned IT companies in the United States and had huge experience as software developers, project managers, and line managers. Schwaber and Sutherland were struggling with waterfall project management approaches and the overall status quo of software development. Growing trends towards lean management, empirical process control, as well as iterative and incremental development proved to be their solution to projects and companies crumbling under pressure. After the first publication, Schwaber and Sutherland continued to refine their ideas together.^[162] Both inventors were among the 17 original signatories of the ‘Manifesto for Agile Software Development’ in 2001.^[163] In addition to co-authoring several books, Schwaber co-founded the Scrum Alliance and he chairs the organization which successfully created and launched Certified Scrum Master programs and its derivatives.^[164] In 2010, with incremental changes in 2011, Schwaber and Sutherland published the ‘Scrum Guide’, a globally recognized body of knowledge of Scrum, which they update and maintain.^[165]

[...]

---

^[1] Cf. Lauer, T. (2010): p.3ff.; cf. Stolzenberg, K. and Heberle, K. (2013): Preface.

^[2] Cf. Lewin, K. (1947): p.34f. In: Human Relations.

^[3] Cf. Kotter, J. P. (2013): p.22ff.

^[4] Cf. Hofert, S. (2017): n.p.

^[5] Cf. Hofert, S. (2016): p.19.

^[6] Cf. Capgemini Consulting [ed.] (2012): p.13.

^[7] Cf. Hofert, S. (2016): p.11.

^[8] Cf. Gürtler, J. and Meyer, J. (2014): p.14.

^[9] Cf. Erbeldinger, J. and Ramge, T. (2015): p.110.

^[10] Oxford Living Dictionaries [ed.] (2017): n.p.

^[11] Cambridge Dictionary [ed.] (2017b): n.p.

^[12] Cf. Capgemini Consulting [ed.] (2015): p.12.

^[13] Cf. Czichos, R. (2014): p.16f.; cf. Rosenstiel, L. v. et al. (2012): p.14ff.

^[14] Cf. Vahs, D. and Weiand, A. (2013): p.2.

^[15] Cf. Vahs, D. and Weiand, A. (2013): p.3.

^[16] Cf. Staehle, W. H. and Conrad, P. (1999): p.900.

^[17] Cf. Vahs, D. and Weiand, A. (2013): p.3.

^[18] Cf. Vahs, D. and Weiand, A. (2013): p.3.

^[19] Cf. Staehle, W. H. and Conrad, P. (1999): p.900.

^[20] Cf. Vahs, D. and Weiand, A. (2013): p.3.

^[21] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.56 according to Krüger, W. (1994): p.358ff.

^[22] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.56f.

^[23] Cf. Stolzenberg, K. and Heberle, K. (2013): p.2f.

^[24] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.60ff.

^[25] Cambridge Dictionary [ed.] (2017a): n.p.

^[26] Cf. Stolzenberg, K. and Heberle, K. (2013): p.6.

^[27] Cf. Lauer, T. (2010): p.3f.

^[28] Cf. Vahs, D. and Weiand, A. (2013) p.7 according to Vahs, D. (2012): p.346ff.

^[29] Cf. Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2013): p.22.

^[30] Cf. Lewin, K. (1947): p.34f. In: Human Relations.

^[31] Cf. Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2013): p.22.

^[32] Cf. Lewin, K. (1947): p.34f. In: Human Relations.

^[33] Cf. Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2013): p.22.

^[34] Cf. Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2013): p.22.

^[35] Cf. Kotter, J. P. (2013): p.16.

^[36] Cf. Kotter, J. P. (2013): p.16.

^[37] Cf. Kotter, J. P. (2013): p.22ff.

^[38] Cf. Kotter, J. P. (2013): p.24.

^[39] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.69f.

^[40] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.70ff.

^[41] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.73f.

^[42] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.75ff.

^[43] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.78f.

^[44] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.80.

^[45] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.81ff.

^[46] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.172.

^[47] Cf. Krüger, W. (2009): p.172ff. quoting Bach, N. (2000): p.196ff.

^[48] Cf. Czichos, R. (2014): p.215.

^[49] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.33.

^[50] Business Dictionary [ed.] (2017e): n.p.

^[51] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.5f.

^[52] Cf. Drews, G. et al. (2014): p.19.

^[53] Cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.20.

^[54] Cf. Alam, D. and Gühl, U. (2016): p.2; cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.5f.

^[55] Cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.26 quoting the German Association for Project Management; cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.27.

^[56] Cf. Bea, F. X. et al. (2011): p.111.

^[57] Cf. Bea, F. X. et al. (2011): p.112f.; cf. Kupsch, P. (1979): p.1ff.

^[58] Cf. Bea, F. X. et al. (2011): p.111.

^[59] Cf. Steffens, G. and Cadiat, A.-C. (2015): p.6.

^[60] Cf. Alam, D. and Gühl, U. (2016): p.74; cf. Meyer, H. and Reher, H.-J. (2016): p.10.

^[61] Cf. Meyer, H. and Reher, H.-J. (2016): p.10.

^[62] Cf. Meyer, H. and Reher, H.-J. (2016): p.12.

^[63] Cf. Meyer, H. and Reher, H.-J. (2016): p.12f.

^[64] Cf. Meyer, H. and Reher, H.-J. (2016): p.13.

^[65] Cf. Alam, D. and Gühl, U. (2016): p.75.

^[66] Cf. Meyer, H. and Reher, H.-J. (2016): p.13.

^[67] Business Dictionary [ed.] (2017f): n.p.

^[68] Alam, D. and Gühl, U. (2016): p.3.

^[69] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.11.

^[70] Cf. Kraus, G. and Westermann, R. (2014): p.5f.

^[71] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.21ff.

^[72] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.21ff.

^[73] Cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.128.

^[74] Cf. Kraus, G. and Westermann, R. (2014): p.81; cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.128.

^[75] Cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.128.

^[76] Cf. Kraus, G. and Westermann, R. (2014): p.86ff.

^[77] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.29.

^[78] Cf. Alam, D. and Gühl, U. (2016): p.87.

^[79] Cf. Drews, G. et al. (2014): p.23.

^[80] Cf. Drews, G. et al. (2014): p.23.

^[81] Cf. Drews, G. et al. (2014): p.23.

^[82] Cf. Drews, G. et al. (2014): p.24.

^[83] Cf. Drews, G. et al. (2014): p.24.

^[84] Cf. Meyer, H. and Reher, H.-J. (2016): p.23.

^[85] Cf. Kraus, G. and Westermann, R. (2014): p.45.

^[86] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.30.

^[87] Cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.57.

^[88] Cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.59.

^[89] Cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.59.

^[90] Cf. McKenna, D. (2016): p.7.

^[91] Cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.60.

^[92] Cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.64.

^[93] Cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.68.

^[94] Cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.69.

^[95] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.110; cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.110.

^[96] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.110; cf. Bergmann, R. and Garrecht, M. (2016): p.239.

^[97] Cf. Bergmann, R. and Garrecht, M. (2016): p.239.

^[98] Cf. Bergmann, R. and Garrecht, M. (2016): p.239.

^[99] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.113.

^[100] Cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.65; cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.112.

^[101] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.113.

^[102] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.113.

^[103] Cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.63.

^[104] Cf. Kraus, G. and Westermann, R. (2014): p.31.

^[105] Cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.63.

^[106] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.111.

^[107] Cf. Alam, D. and Gühl, U. (2016): p.94; cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.62.

^[108] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.111.

^[109] Cf. Kraus, G. and Westermann, R. (2014): p.34; cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.63.

^[110] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.26; cf. Drews, G. et al. (2014): p.23.

^[111] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.104f.

^[112] Cf. Alam, D. and Gühl, U. (2016): p.95; cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.52.

^[113] Cf. Kraus, G. and Westermann, R. (2014): p.19.

^[114] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.105f.

^[115] Cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.52.

^[116] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.105f.

^[117] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.26.

^[118] Cf. Peipe, S. (2015): p.138.

^[119] Cf. Bergmann, R. and Garrecht, M. (2016): p.241

^[120] Cf. Peipe, S. (2015): p.136f.

^[121] Cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.50.

^[122] Cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.107; cf. Bergmann, R. and Garrecht, M. (2016): p.240f.

^[123] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.28.

^[124] Cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.52; cf. Kuster, J. et al. (2015): p.106.

^[125] Cf. Alam, D. and Gühl, U. (2016): p.95.

^[126] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.29.

^[127] Cf. Bergmann, R. and Garrecht, M. (2016): p.241; cf. Pfetzing, K. and Rohde, A. (2014): p.53f.

^[128] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.28; cf. Timinger, H. (2015): p.111.

^[129] Cf. Bär, C. et al. (2017): p.28.

^[130] Cf. Kraus, G. and Westermann, R. (2014): p.187.

^[131] Cf. Kraus, G. and Westermann, R. (2014): p.187; cf. Seidl, J. (2011): p.6ff.

^[132] Project Management Institute [ed.] (2017b): n.p.

^[133] Cf. Seidl, J. (2011): p.7 according to Berge, F. & Seidl, J. (2009): p.2195ff. In: Gessler, M. [ed.].

^[134] Cf. Seidl, J. (2011): p.10 according to Seidl, J. (2007): p.34.

^[135] Cf. Seidl, J. (2011): p.6.

^[136] Project Management Institute [ed.] (2017a): n.p.

^[137] Cf. Seidl, J. (2011): p.6.

^[138] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.8f.

^[139] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): preface.

^[140] Cf. Scrum Alliance [ed.] (2016): n.p.; cf. Highsmith, J. (2001): n.p.

^[141] Beck, K. et al. (2001a): n.p.

^[142] Beck, K. et al. (2001b): n.p.

^[143] Cf. Pichler, R. (2013): p.1.

^[144] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.33ff.

^[145] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.41f.; cf. Chandramouli, S. and Dutt, S. (2012): p.59.

^[146] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.11.

^[147] Cf. Akdeniz, C. (2015): n.p.

^[148] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.41; cf. Akdeniz, C. (2015): n.p.

^[149] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.11.

^[150] Cf. Chandramouli, S. and Dutt, S. (2012): p.59.

^[151] Cf. Akdeniz, C. (2015): n.p.

^[152] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.15.

^[153] Cf. Chandramouli, S. and Dutt, S. (2012): p.59.

^[154] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.13f.

^[155] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.41; cf. Akdeniz, C. (2015): n.p.

^[156] Cf. Preußig, J. (2015): p.35f.

^[157] Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2016): p.3.

^[158] Scrum Alliance [ed.]: n.p.

^[159] Cf. World Rugby [ed.] (2017): n.p.; cf. Pichler, R. (2013): p.2.

^[160] Cf. scrumguides.org (2016): n.p.

^[161] Cf. scrumguides.org (2016): n.p.; cf. Maximini, D. (2015): p.27; cf. Schwaber, K. et al. (2014): p.xvii.

^[162] Cf. Maximini, D. (2015): p.27.

^[163] Cf. Beck, K. et al. (2001a): n.p.

^[164] Cf. scrumguides.org (2016): n.p.

^[165] Cf. scrumguides.org (2016): n.p.; cf. Maximini, D. (2015): p.27f.