2016
DOI: 10.17705/1cais.03914
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Empirical Examination of an Agile Contingent Project/Method Fit Model

Abstract: Abstract:While research has demonstrated positive productivity and quality gains from using agile software development methods (SDMs), some experts argue that no single SDM suits every project context. We lack empirical evidence about the project contextual factors that influence when one should use these methods. Research suggests several factors to explain agile method appropriateness; however, generalizable empirical evidence supporting these suggestions is weak. To address this need, we used contingency th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 59 publications
(140 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, researchers have mostly relied on case-based qualitative studies to show the importance of alignment between project factors and management approach (e.g., Batra, Xia, VanderMeer, & Dutta, 2010; Boehm & Turner, 2005). Therefore, there is a need for more empirical studies to investigate quantitatively the intuitively appealing notion of contingency to the selection of appropriate project management approaches (Chow & Cao, 2008; Young, Beebe, Dietrich, & Liu, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, researchers have mostly relied on case-based qualitative studies to show the importance of alignment between project factors and management approach (e.g., Batra, Xia, VanderMeer, & Dutta, 2010; Boehm & Turner, 2005). Therefore, there is a need for more empirical studies to investigate quantitatively the intuitively appealing notion of contingency to the selection of appropriate project management approaches (Chow & Cao, 2008; Young, Beebe, Dietrich, & Liu, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%