As abordagens Tradicional e Ágil de gerenciamento de projetos são tidas como antagônicas, porém, há autores defendendo a combinação de práticas oriundas das duas abordagens. Por meio de uma Revisão Bibliográfica Sistemática, foram identificadas definições, benefícios esperados, fatores críticos e propostas de combinação, na forma de métodos e frameworks. Conclui-se que até o momento não há um termo comum, as definições são amplas e não auxiliam o desenvolvimento de métodos combinados. Analisou-se qualitativamente dez propostas utilizando os critérios de diferenciação identificadas em Eder et al. (2014). O resultado da análise indicou que as propostas não se diferenciavam da gestão Ágil ou não apresentavam informações para debater a combinação adotada. Identificou-se ainda duas estratégias de combinação: top-down e a bottom-up. Entre essas questões, optou-se por contribuir em duas áreas: a proposição de uma definição de abordagem híbrida ou combinada, e a recomendação de práticas para o uso dessa abordagem. O objetivo da pesquisa foi desenvolver um procedimento de planejamento de tempo combinado, baseado em uma definição nova de combinação. A concepção do procedimento utilizou a estratégia top-down e a proposta final é apresentada na forma de fluxo de atividades em um modelo de processos de negócio. Adotou-se o Estudo de Caso como método de investigação. O caso consiste em uma simulação de projeto com alunos da graduação do curso de Gestão de Projetos. Os dados foram coletados em duas dimensões, a primeira consiste na combinação de práticas, baseada nos seis critérios de Eder et al. (2014), e a segunda refere-se a usabilidade do procedimento. O resultado indicou que é viável combinar práticas. A usabilidade do procedimento pode ser considerada satisfatória para o contexto da aplicação, em termos de facilidade de uso e aprendizado. Recomenda-se como trabalhos futuros investigar a integração de outros processos de planejamento, como recursos e stakeholders, e desenvolver um procedimento considerando a estratégia bottom up. / The Traditional and Agile project management approaches are seen as polar opposites. However, the combination of agile and traditional practices could be preferable to the isolated use of either. Through a Systematic Literature Review (RBS), definitions, expected benefits, critical factors and combination proposals, among models, methods and frameworks, were summarized. The conclusion indicates the definitions present wide meaning and do not support the development of combined proposals. A qualitative analysis of ten combination proposals uses the criteria of differentiation of agile and traditional approaches identified in Eder et al. (2014). The result of the analysis indicated the proposals do not differ from Agile or lack of information to discuss the combination adopted. In addition, the analysis identifies two combination strategies: top-down and bottom-up. This dissertation contributes in two main areas: to propose a definition of hybrid or combined approach, and recommended practices for using this approach. The objective of the research was to develop a combined time planning procedure, based on a new definition of combination. The procedure used to design top-down strategy and the final proposal is presented as flow of activities in a business processes model. The research method adopts the case study. The case consists of a project simulation with under-graduate students of project management course. Two dimensions of analysis are used to assess the data, the first is the combination of practices, based on the six criteria of Eder et al. (2014), and the second relates to the procedure usability. The result indicated that it is viable to combine practices, the procedure usability can be considered satisfactory for the application context, in terms of use and learning facility. It is recommended as future work to investigate the integration of other planning processes, as resources and stakeholders, and develop a procedure considering the bottom-up strategy.

As abordagens Tradicional e Ágil de gerenciamento de projetos são tidas como antagônicas, porém, há autores defendendo a combinação de práticas oriundas das duas abordagens. Por meio de uma Revisão Bibliográfica Sistemática, foram identificadas definições, benefícios esperados, fatores críticos e propostas de combinação, na forma de métodos e frameworks. Conclui-se que até o momento não há um termo comum, as definições são amplas e não auxiliam o desenvolvimento de métodos combinados. Analisou-se qualitativamente dez propostas utilizando os critérios de diferenciação identificadas em Eder et al. (2014). O resultado da análise indicou que as propostas não se diferenciavam da gestão Ágil ou não apresentavam informações para debater a combinação adotada. Identificou-se ainda duas estratégias de combinação: top-down e a bottom-up. Entre essas questões, optou-se por contribuir em duas áreas: a proposição de uma definição de abordagem híbrida ou combinada, e a recomendação de práticas para o uso dessa abordagem. O objetivo da pesquisa foi desenvolver um procedimento de planejamento de tempo combinado, baseado em uma definição nova de combinação. A concepção do procedimento utilizou a estratégia top-down e a proposta final é apresentada na forma de fluxo de atividades em um modelo de processos de negócio. Adotou-se o Estudo de Caso como método de investigação. O caso consiste em uma simulação de projeto com alunos da graduação do curso de Gestão de Projetos. Os dados foram coletados em duas dimensões, a primeira consiste na combinação de práticas, baseada nos seis critérios de Eder et al. (2014), e a segunda refere-se a usabilidade do procedimento. O resultado indicou que é viável combinar práticas. A usabilidade do procedimento pode ser considerada satisfatória para o contexto da aplicação, em termos de facilidade de uso e aprendizado. Recomenda-se como trabalhos futuros investigar a integração de outros processos de planejamento, como recursos e stakeholders, e desenvolver um procedimento considerando a estratégia bottom up. / The Traditional and Agile project management approaches are seen as polar opposites. However, the combination of agile and traditional practices could be preferable to the isolated use of either. Through a Systematic Literature Review (RBS), definitions, expected benefits, critical factors and combination proposals, among models, methods and frameworks, were summarized. The conclusion indicates the definitions present wide meaning and do not support the development of combined proposals. A qualitative analysis of ten combination proposals uses the criteria of differentiation of agile and traditional approaches identified in Eder et al. (2014). The result of the analysis indicated the proposals do not differ from Agile or lack of information to discuss the combination adopted. In addition, the analysis identifies two combination strategies: top-down and bottom-up. This dissertation contributes in two main areas: to propose a definition of hybrid or combined approach, and recommended practices for using this approach. The objective of the research was to develop a combined time planning procedure, based on a new definition of combination. The procedure used to design top-down strategy and the final proposal is presented as flow of activities in a business processes model. The research method adopts the case study. The case consists of a project simulation with under-graduate students of project management course. Two dimensions of analysis are used to assess the data, the first is the combination of practices, based on the six criteria of Eder et al. (2014), and the second relates to the procedure usability. The result indicated that it is viable to combine practices, the procedure usability can be considered satisfactory for the application context, in terms of use and learning facility. It is recommended as future work to investigate the integration of other planning processes, as resources and stakeholders, and develop a procedure considering the bottom-up strategy.

Context. In recent years there has been observed a significant shift from plan-driven development towards agile, which is considered as a vast improvement to processes. However, it has also been spotted that agile methodologies are hardly ever applied in their pure form. Moreover, hybrid processes as combinations of plan-driven and agile practices emerge. In addition, agile adoption has been reported to result in both: benefits and limitations. Objectives. In this study the following matters are investigated: 1) the commonness of plan driven and agile practices usage, 2) common practices combinations, 3) patterns for agile adoption over time, 4) hybrid development models and 5) the actual effects of agile adoption in terms of benefits and limitations as perceived by practitioners. Methods. The thesis presents an empirical investigation of software development organizations. The objectives are achieved through a targeted survey based on existing evidence and a multidimensional data analysis. The mean for obtaining data is a web-based questionnaire with an interactive board with practices and time indication sliders (to capture applied development models and practices adoption strategies) and hierarchical cumulative voting (to measure the relative significance of benefits and limitations). The data analysis is supported by hierarchical cluster analysis and an extended hierarchical voting analysis framework (EHV-F). Results. In total, 45 practitioners have been successfully surveyed. The commonness of 7 plan-driven and 14 agile practices usage was investigated. The relative significance of agile adoption benefits (32 factors in 10 categories) and limitations (23 factors in 7 categories) was measured with respect to global view (all respondents and perspectives), different agile adoption strategies as well as distinguished development models. Conclusions. It is concluded that agile practices dominate over plan-driven, however, hybrid approaches, being combinations of plan-driven and agile practices, are frequently applied. It is also concluded that some practices are commonly used together since they facilitate each other (e.g. continuous integration with testing which facilitate short iterations and releases). Some agile practices are still unsuccessfully applied and eventually abandoned (e.g. pair programming), what should be further investigated by researchers. Incremental agile adoption strategy was found to be the most beneficial approach. It is also concluded that agile adoption leads first of all to improved quality of working life, increased knowledge transfer and improved verification and validation processes. On the other hand, agile adoption is very demanding since it requires high professional skills from development teams as well as managers. Hence, more resources should be devoted to training on agile for all the parties involved in development. Agile is still commonly considered to be poorly scalable. Moreover, the quality of design with agile methods is not considered as a benefit at all. These areas should be further investigated by researchers.