The aim of this study is to investigate whether a combination of agile system development methodologies (ASDMs) and project management methodologies (PMMs) can be used to develop a hybrid APMM that will have the ability to deliver information technology (IT) projects successfully in a constantly changing business and project environment. To achieve this objective, a literature review was conducted on the relatively well–established ASDMs by firstly defining a SDM and an ASDM. Each ASDM and its effectiveness are described, after which ASDMs in general are evaluated by considering their area of application, advantages and disadvantages. A comparison is then done of the seven different ASDMs using the four elements of an SDM (Huisman & Iivari, 2006:32) to emphasise some of the main similarities and differences amongst the different ASDMs. The seven ASDMs investigated in this study are Dynamic System Development Methodology, Scrum, Extreme Programming, Feature Driven Development, Crystal ASDMs ? Crystal Clear and Crystal Orange in particular, Adaptive Software Development and Lean Development. A literature review was also conducted on two structured and relatively well–established PMMs, PMBOK and PRINCE2, and a relatively new PMM called Agile Project Management. Each PMM is evaluated by considering their area of application, advantages, disadvantages and integration with other methodologies, after which a comparison is made of the different PMMs. The research was conducted by following a mixed methods research plan, which included the mixed methods research paradigm (combination of the interpretive research paradigm and the positivistic research paradigm), research methods (design science, case study and survey), quantitative and qualitative data–collection techniques (interviews and questionnaires), and dataanalysis techniques (cross–case and statistical). The reasons that projects fail and critical project success factors were studied and summarised to form the critical project success criteria, which were used to create the agile project success criteria. The ASDM best practice and PMM best practice frameworks were created by identifying whether a certain ASDM or PMM would satisfy a specific agile project success factor (APSF) of the agile project success criteria. The findings of each APSF in the respective frameworks were used as a foundation to develop a hybrid APMM (ver. 0) that would address the agile project success criteria. The hybrid APMM (ver. 0) was developed interpretively using design science (research approach) and constructivism by combining the strengths, addressing the weaknesses and bridging the gaps identified in the frameworks. The hybrid APMM (ver. 0) was then evaluated and improved by conducting an interpretive case study, which entailed interviewing participants from large and small organisations. Once the qualitative data collected had been analysed using cross–case analysis, the findings were incorporated in order to create an improved hybrid APMM (ver. 1). The hybrid APMM (ver. 1) too was evaluated and improved by conducting a survey, which entailed administering questionnaires to various respondents in order to collect quantitative and qualitative data. The findings of the statistical analysis of the data were also used to improve the hybrid APMM (ver. 1), resulting in the final hybrid APMM (ver. 2). This study demonstrates that a combination of ASDMs and PMMs can be used to develop a hybrid APMM with the ability to deliver IT projects in a constantly changing project and business environment. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Computer Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

The aim of this study is to investigate whether a combination of agile system development methodologies (ASDMs) and project management methodologies (PMMs) can be used to develop a hybrid APMM that will have the ability to deliver information technology (IT) projects successfully in a constantly changing business and project environment. To achieve this objective, a literature review was conducted on the relatively well–established ASDMs by firstly defining a SDM and an ASDM. Each ASDM and its effectiveness are described, after which ASDMs in general are evaluated by considering their area of application, advantages and disadvantages. A comparison is then done of the seven different ASDMs using the four elements of an SDM (Huisman & Iivari, 2006:32) to emphasise some of the main similarities and differences amongst the different ASDMs. The seven ASDMs investigated in this study are Dynamic System Development Methodology, Scrum, Extreme Programming, Feature Driven Development, Crystal ASDMs ? Crystal Clear and Crystal Orange in particular, Adaptive Software Development and Lean Development. A literature review was also conducted on two structured and relatively well–established PMMs, PMBOK and PRINCE2, and a relatively new PMM called Agile Project Management. Each PMM is evaluated by considering their area of application, advantages, disadvantages and integration with other methodologies, after which a comparison is made of the different PMMs. The research was conducted by following a mixed methods research plan, which included the mixed methods research paradigm (combination of the interpretive research paradigm and the positivistic research paradigm), research methods (design science, case study and survey), quantitative and qualitative data–collection techniques (interviews and questionnaires), and dataanalysis techniques (cross–case and statistical). The reasons that projects fail and critical project success factors were studied and summarised to form the critical project success criteria, which were used to create the agile project success criteria. The ASDM best practice and PMM best practice frameworks were created by identifying whether a certain ASDM or PMM would satisfy a specific agile project success factor (APSF) of the agile project success criteria. The findings of each APSF in the respective frameworks were used as a foundation to develop a hybrid APMM (ver. 0) that would address the agile project success criteria. The hybrid APMM (ver. 0) was developed interpretively using design science (research approach) and constructivism by combining the strengths, addressing the weaknesses and bridging the gaps identified in the frameworks. The hybrid APMM (ver. 0) was then evaluated and improved by conducting an interpretive case study, which entailed interviewing participants from large and small organisations. Once the qualitative data collected had been analysed using cross–case analysis, the findings were incorporated in order to create an improved hybrid APMM (ver. 1). The hybrid APMM (ver. 1) too was evaluated and improved by conducting a survey, which entailed administering questionnaires to various respondents in order to collect quantitative and qualitative data. The findings of the statistical analysis of the data were also used to improve the hybrid APMM (ver. 1), resulting in the final hybrid APMM (ver. 2). This study demonstrates that a combination of ASDMs and PMMs can be used to develop a hybrid APMM with the ability to deliver IT projects in a constantly changing project and business environment. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Computer Science))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

90年代的後期，敏捷式系統發展方法開始被倡導。相對於傳統的系統發展方法，敏捷式系統發展方法著重於回饋機制而非事前的計畫、以人為中心而非以流程為中心。這樣的方法希望能助於提高組織對回應市場、客戶的效率，進而提高效益。目前在商場中使用此方法做為開發工具的企業仍是少數，本研究希望透過探討敏捷式系統發展方法論的使用時機來進行教學，進而得知系統開發人員對於接受敏捷式系統發展方法的關鍵因素，並藉此了解該如何在企業中導入此方法。本研究發現除了使用此方法的能力會影響影響使用意圖之外，在內在因素方面也包含了公司結構與團隊因素，外部因素則包含了顧客與成功案例因素，這些都是接受敏捷式系統發展方法的關鍵因素。本研究希望根據以上的分析結果，提出敏捷式系統發展方法導入之建議，提供組織做為參考用。 / Awareness of agile system development methodologies (SDM) has grown among information systems development community in recent years. Many of their advocates consider the agile and the plan-driven SDMs polar opposites. Indeed there are circumstances where agile SDMs are more suitable than plan-driven SDMs. Yet, there have been few studies on understanding developers’ adoption intention. This paper takes an initial attempt to gauge new generation of software developers’ intention to select agile SDMs. To many of these developers, agile SDMs are relatively new if not unheard of, in order to assess their intention to choose such category of methodologies, this research first introduced the methodologies to a group of 21 IS-major graduate students and discussed how and when to use agile SDMs. Then a survey was conducted, which was comprised of two parts of questions: agile SDM self-efficacy and intention to use. PLS analysis results showed that agile SDM self-efficacy influence the intention to use through performance outcome expectation, personal outcome expectation, and affect. Although the relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety was not confirmed, anxiety does affect intention to use. The fact that direct relationships between all four emotive variables and the intention to use are established implies that in order to encourage the use of agile SDMs, the focus should be emotive variables, and that self efficacy may be just one of various ways to promote the favorable emotional states. In addition, these participates were invited to a three-round Delphi test and analytic hierarchy process to retrieved their concerns about accepting or rejecting agile SDMs. Ten key factors were extracted and categorized. Adding up the pros and cons, team dimension is the most important dimension, which explains individual first concerns about how the collaboration when using agile SDMs. Other than team dimension, customer, corporate structure, project, success cases and methodology dimensions were consistent with the literatures. Thus our study provides a critical understanding of the factors that affect new generation of software developers’ intention to select agile SDM.