Wittenborg Professor Co-authors Chapter in Routledge’s ‘Handbook of Project Management’

Gilbert Silvius’ Work Analyses Different Types of Project Approaches

What criteria determine the effectiveness of different project approaches in organisations? 

This is the question addressed by Wittenborg professor Gilbert Silvius in the book chapter he co-authored with project management expert Dagmar Silvius-Zuchi, titled ‘Predictive, Adaptive and Hybrid Project Approaches’ and recently published in Routledge’s ‘Handbook of Project Management’. 

The chapter highlights that recent studies have found a combination of agile and traditional approaches, known as a ‘hybrid approach’, is applied to the majority of projects conducted by organisations. 

According to the authors, the agile approach emerged in the early 21st century as an innovative and more adaptive option to the development activities that projects, by nature, include. Its popularisation was largely driven by the expansion of the software development and information technology industries, as well as the publication of the Agile Manifesto (2001), which provides values and principles that help to optimise the development process.  

The Manifesto is composed of four statements, advocating for “individuals and interactions over processes and tools”, “working software over comprehensive documentation”, “customer collaboration over contract negotiation” and “responding to change over following a plan”. 

Silvius remarks that based on these values and related principles, agile became an umbrella term for a highly adaptive approach to product development activities, either within or without the context of a project. “Despite its original focus on software development, the perceived success of the agile approach carried its fame over to other domains and types of projects. There, agile quickly became a synonym for a more modern approach to projects and development.”

Adaptive versus predictive (traditional) approaches

The chapter points out that the agile approach, also known as ‘adaptive’, stands in significant contrast to traditional approaches. One of the most relevant features of the adaptive approach is its iterative development process, which involves short cycles of product increments rather than a single, comprehensive development cycle for the entire product, as seen in the predictive approach. As a result, the product is broken down into increments, with each part delivering functionality and value to users as it is developed. 

In contrast, the single development cycle of the predictive approach requires a complete and detailed overview of all requirements of the product at the start of the development cycle, making the development process more vulnerable to changes in requirements or priorities. 

“Responsiveness and flexibility are two of the defining characteristics of the adaptive approach. As this approach prescribes that the development process is organised in iterative development cycles of product increments, instead of a single development cycle for the full product, it is much more suitable to accommodate expected and unexpected changes to the requirements and features,” Silvius underlines. 

He adds that while the predictive approach has the desired output of the project as its starting point, establishing a predicted budget and timeline, the adaptive approach’s output is defined in much less precise features and requirements, often referred to as a ‘product vision’. 
 

Additionally, the adaptive approach is characterised by its leanness, focusing on shortening time frames and costs. In this sense, documentation is developed only as needed and is often tailored for the project, whereas the predictive approach documents each step of the development cycle extensively. 

Silvius comments that the adaptive approach is more people focused and communication oriented than the predictive approach. 

“In the adaptive approach, user interaction and participation is required during each iteration and to make the decision to proceed to the next iteration. This intensive human interaction, together with the self-organisation of the development team that this approach advocates, limits the size at which a development team can effectively and efficiently function. Moreover, the adaptive approach also relies heavily on the support of reflection and learning, by focusing on continuous improvement during the development cycle.” 

Given the different characteristics of the adaptive and predictive approaches, the authors argue that they are not equally suitable for all projects and all situations. Therefore, selecting the right approach is a decision that may influence the success of the development of a project.

Adopting a hybrid approach

Often, companies adopt hybrid approaches that include characteristics of both adaptive and predictive approaches. This gives them the opportunity to combine the advantages of both approaches, and to overcome the contradictions between them. The chapter describes three types of hybrid approaches: sequential, parallel and integrated. 

In a sequential hybrid approach one or more phases of the project are performed in an adaptive approach, while the other phases are carried out with a predictive one. A comprehensive project plan shows sequential phases, of which one or more are performed in iterations, each iteration delivering valuable products. 

A parallel hybrid approach, in turn, requires that some of the project’s deliverables are developed with a predictive approach, and in parallel other parts are developed with an adaptive approach. This approach could be applied, for example, to a reorganisation project, where strengths and weaknesses are analysed, a new strategic orientation developed and, in consequence, a new orientation of the company developed and implemented.

A third type of hybrid is the integrated hybrid approach, in which integration of the predictive and adaptive approaches may appear in different forms. An example of this approach would be a project in which the development team works in an adaptive way, but with defined results that need to be realised on scheduled milestones in a predictive planning. 

Silvius comments that each of these hybrid approaches offers advantages and limitations. Furthermore, they require organisations to clearly establish the roles, methods and techniques that are most appropriate for project planning. 

“Both the predictive and adaptive approaches have their qualities and their applicability. However, quite often a combination of both is the optimal design for a project. It is, therefore, up to the project manager to make an informed decision about how a project should be approached. And for that, he should consider questions such as whether the investment will pay off and whether the investment contributes to the company’s strategy,” the professor concludes.

WUP DD/MM/2024 
by Ulisses Sawczuk 
©WUAS Press