Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Should We All Work in Sprints?

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Should We All Work in Sprints?: How Agile Project Management Improves Performance

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Should We All Work in Sprints? How Agile Project Management Improves Performance. / Lieberum, Tobias; Schiffels, Sebastian; Kolisch, Rainer.
In: Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, 31.07.2022, p. 2293-2309.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Lieberum, T, Schiffels, S & Kolisch, R 2022, 'Should We All Work in Sprints? How Agile Project Management Improves Performance', Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2293-2309. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1091

APA

Lieberum, T., Schiffels, S., & Kolisch, R. (2022). Should We All Work in Sprints? How Agile Project Management Improves Performance. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 24(4), 2293-2309. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1091

Vancouver

Lieberum T, Schiffels S, Kolisch R. Should We All Work in Sprints? How Agile Project Management Improves Performance. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management. 2022 Jul 31;24(4):2293-2309. Epub 2022 Mar 17. doi: 10.1287/msom.2022.1091

Author

Lieberum, Tobias ; Schiffels, Sebastian ; Kolisch, Rainer. / Should We All Work in Sprints? How Agile Project Management Improves Performance. In: Manufacturing and Service Operations Management. 2022 ; Vol. 24, No. 4. pp. 2293-2309.

Bibtex

@article{484d6a0aabcf4453a1c9fba73000f4fd,
title = "Should We All Work in Sprints?: How Agile Project Management Improves Performance",
abstract = "Problem definition: Agile project management, in particular Scrum, is enjoying increased use in practice despite only scant scientific validation. This article explores how agile project management impacts project performance and execution. We compare the effects of agile sprints—short-term project phases characterized by time-boxed progression from one sprint to the next and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals—with those of traditional project management. Methodology/results: We decompose the two sprint elements of time-boxed progression and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals as factors in a 2 × 2 experimental design. We then conceptualize project execution as a simple real-effort task and conduct a controlled laboratory study. For a given duration, participants perform better with time-boxed progression as, without it, that is, with flexible progression, they spend too much time on early project phases at the expense of later ones. We refer to this effect as “progression fallacy” and show how it differs from well-known behavioral effects that cause project delays. Introducing self-imposed, phase-specific output goals in combination with time-boxed progression, as proposed by Scrum, does not significantly improve performance when compared with time-boxed progression alone. However, the combination of self-imposed, phase-specific output goals and flexible progression, as is common in traditional project management, amplifies the progression fallacy with the result that goal-setting has a negative performance effect. In two control treatments, we show that the progression fallacy is robust to planning and progression prompts despite some mitigation. Managerial implications: This study contributes evidence of higher project performance when working in agile sprints, which mitigate behavioral flaws present in traditional project management. Not only do these behavioral insights apply to project management; they are also relevant in the broader context of task completion.",
keywords = "agile project management, Scrum, sprints, progression fallacy, goal setting, behavioral operations",
author = "Tobias Lieberum and Sebastian Schiffels and Rainer Kolisch",
year = "2022",
month = jul,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1287/msom.2022.1091",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "2293--2309",
journal = "Manufacturing and Service Operations Management",
issn = "1523-4614",
publisher = "INFORMS Inst.for Operations Res.and the Management Sciences",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should We All Work in Sprints?

T2 - How Agile Project Management Improves Performance

AU - Lieberum, Tobias

AU - Schiffels, Sebastian

AU - Kolisch, Rainer

PY - 2022/7/31

Y1 - 2022/7/31

N2 - Problem definition: Agile project management, in particular Scrum, is enjoying increased use in practice despite only scant scientific validation. This article explores how agile project management impacts project performance and execution. We compare the effects of agile sprints—short-term project phases characterized by time-boxed progression from one sprint to the next and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals—with those of traditional project management. Methodology/results: We decompose the two sprint elements of time-boxed progression and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals as factors in a 2 × 2 experimental design. We then conceptualize project execution as a simple real-effort task and conduct a controlled laboratory study. For a given duration, participants perform better with time-boxed progression as, without it, that is, with flexible progression, they spend too much time on early project phases at the expense of later ones. We refer to this effect as “progression fallacy” and show how it differs from well-known behavioral effects that cause project delays. Introducing self-imposed, phase-specific output goals in combination with time-boxed progression, as proposed by Scrum, does not significantly improve performance when compared with time-boxed progression alone. However, the combination of self-imposed, phase-specific output goals and flexible progression, as is common in traditional project management, amplifies the progression fallacy with the result that goal-setting has a negative performance effect. In two control treatments, we show that the progression fallacy is robust to planning and progression prompts despite some mitigation. Managerial implications: This study contributes evidence of higher project performance when working in agile sprints, which mitigate behavioral flaws present in traditional project management. Not only do these behavioral insights apply to project management; they are also relevant in the broader context of task completion.

AB - Problem definition: Agile project management, in particular Scrum, is enjoying increased use in practice despite only scant scientific validation. This article explores how agile project management impacts project performance and execution. We compare the effects of agile sprints—short-term project phases characterized by time-boxed progression from one sprint to the next and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals—with those of traditional project management. Methodology/results: We decompose the two sprint elements of time-boxed progression and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals as factors in a 2 × 2 experimental design. We then conceptualize project execution as a simple real-effort task and conduct a controlled laboratory study. For a given duration, participants perform better with time-boxed progression as, without it, that is, with flexible progression, they spend too much time on early project phases at the expense of later ones. We refer to this effect as “progression fallacy” and show how it differs from well-known behavioral effects that cause project delays. Introducing self-imposed, phase-specific output goals in combination with time-boxed progression, as proposed by Scrum, does not significantly improve performance when compared with time-boxed progression alone. However, the combination of self-imposed, phase-specific output goals and flexible progression, as is common in traditional project management, amplifies the progression fallacy with the result that goal-setting has a negative performance effect. In two control treatments, we show that the progression fallacy is robust to planning and progression prompts despite some mitigation. Managerial implications: This study contributes evidence of higher project performance when working in agile sprints, which mitigate behavioral flaws present in traditional project management. Not only do these behavioral insights apply to project management; they are also relevant in the broader context of task completion.

KW - agile project management

KW - Scrum

KW - sprints

KW - progression fallacy

KW - goal setting

KW - behavioral operations

U2 - 10.1287/msom.2022.1091

DO - 10.1287/msom.2022.1091

M3 - Journal article

VL - 24

SP - 2293

EP - 2309

JO - Manufacturing and Service Operations Management

JF - Manufacturing and Service Operations Management

SN - 1523-4614

IS - 4

ER -