Master Thesis- 2015_HFT StuttgartF_12-05-2015

Integration of Agile Principles with
Traditional Project Management
Approach: Streamlining Design phase
in Construction Projects
Master Thesis
Submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of International
Project Management at the University of Applied Sciences - Stuttgart
Submitted by : Nashath Abdul Hameed
Bachelor Degree : Civil Engineering (NITK Surathkal – India)
Student Matriculation No. : 674162
Tutor : Prof. Falk Huppenbauer
University of Applied Sciences - Stuttgart
International Project Management (2014-15)

HFT Stuttgart| Dissertation 2015 Nashath Abdul Hameed| Int. Project Management
2
Declaration
I declare, that the thesis with the title:
“Integration of Agile Principles with Traditional Project Management Approach:
Streamlining Design phase in Construction Projects”
is entirely my own piece of work. No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation
has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of
this or any other university or other institute of learning. Further, all the work in this
dissertation is entirely my own, unless referenced in the text as a specific source and
included in the bibliography.
Stuttgart, 15/06/2015 Signature: Nashath Abdul Hameed

3
Acknowledgement
I am grateful of the opportunity granted to me for undertaking the Masters in
International Project Management at the University of Applied Sciences - Stuttgart. In
addition, I would like to thank everyone who contributed towards this dissertation.
First of all I would like thank my supervisor Mr. Falk Huppenbauer for his helpful
guidance and constructive criticism. Also, I would like to thank Mr. Selim Tugra Demir
Second supervisor) for his constant review and feedback with topics pertaining to the
research. Furthermore, I want to express my gratitude to all the interview participants,
without whom this research project would not have been possible. My colleagues
(especially Mr. Farooq Akbar) deserve special thanks for their appreciation and their
continual support by sharing their experiences and knowledge throughout the duration
of the research thesis.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their continual support as well
during the duration of my research thesis. Their constant assertiveness and inspiration
proved to be an invaluable guidance during the arduous phases of my dissertation.

4
Abstract
The long duration in construction projects usually involves considerable changes during
a project life cycle. From the project inception towards the end of the design phase, the
requirements and expectations tend to vary as per client requirements. Many factors
could contribute to this change, such as altered specifications from the client side or
other components in the construction environment. The concern is that these varying
factors could influence the entire project in terms of increased cost, time schedule,
quality control and changing scope. Therefore, unseen changes could lead to resource
inefficiency and added re-work. It has a negative impact on client satisfaction and as
pointed out earlier, it also affects the scope, cost, and time.
The main objective is to streamline the pre-design phase of construction projects and
lays the foundation of this report. More specifically, this master thesis will overlook how
agile methodologies influence the program and schematic stages in construction
projects and help in increasing client satisfaction.
Agile tools and methodologies could be termed as an attribute that responds to change.
Agile methodologies help in the accomplishment of a project that is prone to changes
due to varying factors. It is regarding realization that knowledge and understanding of a
project should be duly developed as it proceeds, which indicates that a shift is required
to tap the new information attained during a project life cycle. In simple terms, agility is
all about flexibility. The research assessed the prospects of introducing agile principles
in the pre-design stages of construction projects (United Arab Emirates). The blending
of agile and traditional approach focusses on the co-existence of unconventional and
conventional approaches of managing projects. The data gathered through interviews
showcased the possibilities in adopting agile concepts in the pre-design phase. A
SWOT analysis on Agile Project Management highlighted the responses of the
interviewees towards its strengths and weaknesses. Although awareness was low
regarding agile concepts, industry professionals showed considerable interest in
learning more about the agile methodologies. Further workshops could be conducted in
order to create awareness and increase the level of knowledge to showcase its benefits
among industry professionals in the UAE construction industry.

5
Abbreviations
APM – Agile Project Management
GDP – Gross Domestic Product
PM – Project Management
PLC – Project Life Cycle
US – United States
UAE – United Arab Emirates
WBS – Work Breakdown Structure

6
Table of Contents
Declaration................................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgement...................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 4
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 5
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 9
List of Appendices.....................................................................................................................11
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................12
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................13
1.1. Problem Outline .................................................................................................................15
1.2. Research Purpose & Goal..................................................................................................17
1.4. Research Aim & Objectives:...............................................................................................18
2. Structure of the Research .....................................................................................................19
2.1. Literature Review............................................................................................................19
2.2. Research Methodology...................................................................................................19
2.3. Findings..........................................................................................................................19
2.4. Discussion......................................................................................................................19
2.5. Conclusion......................................................................................................................19
3. Literature Review ..................................................................................................................20
3.1. Project Success .................................................................................................................20
3.1.1. Uncertainty Management.............................................................................................21
3.1.3. Traditional Project Management ..................................................................................24
3.2. Prevailing environment of Construction projects ............................................................25
3.2.1. Client Satisfaction in the construction industry.............................................................27
3.2.2. Overview of the UAE construction Industry .....................................................................29
3.3. Introduction to Design phase..............................................................................................31
3.3.1. Design Management....................................................................................................32
3.3.2. Stages of design & role of innovation in the UAE construction industry........................32

7
3.3.2. Challenges observed in the Pre-Design Phase ...........................................................34
3.4. Agile Project Management .................................................................................................34
3.4.1. Agile Manifesto & Scrum .............................................................................................37
3.4.2. Challenges in adopting agile and its applicability in construction .................................39
4. Methodology .........................................................................................................................41
4.1. Individual Learning Style.................................................................................................42
4.2. Research Paradigm........................................................................................................45
4.3. Research Approach........................................................................................................46
4.4. Research Design............................................................................................................47
4.5. Research Strategy..........................................................................................................48
4.6. Research Methods .........................................................................................................50
4.6.1. Individual Interviews.................................................................................................50
4.6.2. Interview preparation................................................................................................51
4.6.3. Research Plan .........................................................................................................52
4.7. Data Reliability & Validity................................................................................................53
4.8. Data Analysis .................................................................................................................54
4.9. Ethical Implications.........................................................................................................56
5. Findings: ...............................................................................................................................57
5.1. Traditional Project Management ....................................................................................57
5.1.1. Complexities ............................................................................................................57
5.1.2. Traditional and Non- traditional factors of Project Success.......................................58
5.1.3. Impact of Uncertainties on Project Performance.......................................................60
5.1.4. Perception of Client Satisfaction...............................................................................63
5.2. Construction ...................................................................................................................64
5.2.1. Scenario of UAE construction industry .....................................................................64
5.2.2. Cognizant measures and complexities in Design Management (Pre-Design Phase)67
5.3. Agile Project Management..............................................................................................70
5.3.1. Comparison – Perception of Agile and Traditional methodologies............................70
5.3.2. Significance of Agile Characteristics.........................................................................71

8
5.3.3. Challenges and SWOT analysis of APM in the construction industry .......................72
6. Discussion ............................................................................................................................75
6.1. Scenario of traditional PM approach in managing complex construction projects ...........75
6.2. Determinants of Project Success....................................................................................77
6.3. Blending of Agile principles and Traditional Project Management (Waterfall) Approach..79
6.4. Roadblocks to adopting agile in the construction industry (UAE) ....................................81
6.5. Efficiency in design management and Complexities observed in the Pre-design phase..84
6.6 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................89
6.6.1. Limitations and Further Research ............................................................................92
6.7. Reflection .......................................................................................................................92
6.7.1. Learning style...........................................................................................................93
6.7.2. Personal Maturity .....................................................................................................93
6.7.3. Summary..................................................................................................................94
Appendix...................................................................................................................................95
References: ............................................................................................................................119

9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Overview of Construction process and Design process (Own illustraation) ..................14
Figure 2: The possibility to influence the project is large early in the project, the cost of making
changes increases with time (Rocque, 2013)......................................................................................14
Figure 3: The closed loop of managerial processes in project management (PMBoK Guide,
2013) ..........................................................................................................................................................15
Figure 4: Agile Project Management Method Comparators (Source: Owen et al., 2006) ............16
Figure 5: Integration of Agile & Traditional PM principles in the design phase of projects (Own
illustration) .................................................................................................................................................18
Figure 6: The scope of success in a project life cycle (Source: Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996) ............21
Figure 7 : Uncertainty management issues in a project life cycle (Source: Chappman & Ward,
2003) ..........................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 8: Soft & Hard dimensions framework ( Source: Crawford et al., 2004) .............................23
Figure 9: Uncertainty-Ambiguity relationship in change situations (Source: Thiry, 2002). ...........24
Figure 10: Traditional PM – Waterfall Model (Source: PM World Today) .......................................25
Figure 11: Factors affecting Project Complexity (Own illustration)...................................................26
Figure 12: Characteristics that affect client satisfaction in the construction industry (Source: Own
illustration) .................................................................................................................................................27
Figure 13: Customer relationships and interactions in the construction supply chain (Source:
Kärnä, 2004) .............................................................................................................................................28
Figure 14: Interrelationships between customer satisfaction and quality at project level (Source:
Kärnä, 2004) .............................................................................................................................................29
Figure 15: Characteristics of the UAE construction industry (Source: Ailabouni, 2009)...............30
Figure 16: Factors for delay in UAE construction industry (Source: Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006)
....................................................................................................................................................................31
Figure 17: Major influential factors for innovation across design stages (Source: Baom, 2011).33
Figure 18: Agile Project Management method comparators (Source: Owen et al., 2006) ...........35
Figure 19: A Comparison between Lean Construction and Agile Project Management (Source:
Owen et al., 2006)....................................................................................................................................35
Figure 20: Agile Project Life cycle model (Source: Kathleen (2007)) ..............................................36
Figure 21: Traditional PM vs APM - Critical factors (Source: Owen et al., 2006) ..........................36
Figure 22: Traditional vs Agile ( Neur et al., 2005) .............................................................................37

10
Figure 23: Scrum Process (Source: Asproni, 2006) ...........................................................................38
Figure 24: Determinants of APM approach (Source: Conforto, 2014).............................................39
Figure 25: Key issues in migrating to Agile (Neur et al. 2005)..........................................................41
Figure 26: Research Onion (Source: Saunders et al., 2012)............................................................42
Figure 27: Learning Style Assessment (Source: Kolb’s Model, 1984).............................................44
Figure 28: Research philosophies in Management Research (Source: Saunders et al, 2012)...46
Figure 29: Major Differences between Deductive and Inductive Research Approach (Source:
Saunders et al., 2009).............................................................................................................................47
Figure 30: Methodological Choice (Source: Saunders et al., 2012).................................................48
Figure 31: Dance of Qualitative Analysis (Source: Schutt, 2011).....................................................54
Figure 32: Data Analysis Techniques - Own illustration (Source: Schutt, (2011) ..........................55
Figure 33: A streamlined codes-to-theory model for qualitative inquiry (Source: Saldana, 2013)
....................................................................................................................................................................56
Figure 34: Cognizant measures in the pre-design stages of a construction project (Source: Own
illustration) .................................................................................................................................................68
Figure 35: Recurring Internal risks in traditional PM approach (Source: Own illustration) ...........76
Figure 36: Mapping of project success – Shift from traditional factors (Cost, Quality, Time) –
(Source: Own illustration)........................................................................................................................78
Figure 37: The expectations – perceptions gap model for scrutinizing service quality (Source:
Parasuraman et al., 1985) ......................................................................................................................79
Figure 38: Projection of management approaches between two extremes (Plan-driven and
Adaptive environment) – (Source: Cobb, 2014)..................................................................................80
Figure 39: Shift observed in Project management practices across a varying project
environment (Source: Cobb, 2014) .......................................................................................................81
Figure 40: Significant roadblocks to Agile PM methodology in construction projects (Source:
Own illustration)........................................................................................................................................83
Figure 41: Linear Design Flow (Source: Own translation).................................................................86
Figure 42: Cause-Effect diagram for complexities observed in pre-design phase of construction
projects (Own illustration) – (Source: Slack et al., 2012)...................................................................86

11
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Research Model .................................................................................................................95
Appendix 2: Research Philosophy table...............................................................................................96
Appendix 3: Research participant consent form - 1............................................................................97
Appendix 4: Research participant consent form – 2...........................................................................98
Appendix 5: Research Participant Consent form - 3 ..........................................................................99
Appendix 6: Research participant consent form - 4.........................................................................100
Appendix 7: Research participant consent form - 5..........................................................................101
Appendix 8: Research participant consent form – 6.........................................................................102
Appendix 9: Research participant consent form – 7.........................................................................103
Appendix 10: Research participant consent form – 8.......................................................................104
Appendix 11: Research participant consent form - 9........................................................................105
Appendix 12: Research participant consent form - 10 .....................................................................106
Appendix 13: Research participant consent form - 11 .....................................................................107
Appendix 14: Research participant consent form – 12.....................................................................108
Appendix 15: List of Research participants........................................................................................109
Appendix 16: Research Project Plan ..................................................................................................110
Appendix 17: Research Participant Information Letter.....................................................................112
Appendix 18: Research Protocols .......................................................................................................113
Appendix 19: Research Interview Schedule (Questions).................................................................115
Appendix 20: Research Project (Word Count) ..................................................................................116
Appendix 21: SCRUM Body of Knowledge (Source: SBOK Guide, 2013)....................................118

12
List of Tables
Table 1: Main Contributors to construction delays observed in the UAE construction industry
(Source: Own illustration)........................................................................................................................58
Table 2: Traditional and Non- Traditional factors – Contributing factors to project success........59
Table 3: Macro & Micro factors – Contributing factors to project success ......................................60
Table 4: External Risk Categories that influence project performance in the UAE construction
industry ......................................................................................................................................................61
Table 5: Internal Risk Categories that influence project performance in the UAE construction
industry ......................................................................................................................................................62
Table 6: Factors that enhance Client Satisfaction ..............................................................................64
Table 7: Overview of the UAE Construction industry scenario (Own illustration) ..........................66
Table 8: Basic requirements for carrying out construction work by international contractors in the
UAE (Source: Kerr, M. et al., 2013).......................................................................................................67
Table 9: RIBA plan of work – Description of activities across phases in a project (Source:
Othman, 2011)..........................................................................................................................................69
Table 10: Significant challenges observed in the pre-design phase................................................70
Table 11: SWOT analysis of APM in the construction industry.........................................................74

13
1. Introduction
A life cycle of a construction project requires the guidance and management of project
managers. This endeavor could be said to be a relatively difficult task as large complex
projects usually involve many disciplines including uncertainty or risks. Therefore due to
the ambiguous nature observed in construction projects, a call for flexible management
and leadership could be deemed essential that can embrace changes in a project life
cycle (Gould & Joyce, 2009).
Project management (PM) is a subject area that is undergoing development and the
traditional method of managing projects is a growing challenge (Johannson, 2012). It
also has been observed that PM is carrying out an inflexible approach with an
increasing degree of specialization in construction projects (Everts, 2011). To meet the
challenges that arise in the efficient co-ordination, planning and control of construction
projects, new efficient management paradigms need to be considered that can engage
uncertainties that arise in a project life cycle (Winch, 2010). Uncertainty could refer to
the complexities or unpredictable nature of a project life cycle. Currently, construction
projects could be considered complex with an ensemble involving clients, suppliers and
other strategic partnerships (Hass, 2007). The construction environment is rather
dynamic in nature due to the existence of unknown factors that lead to changes.
Therefore, the typology of construction projects could be considered complex that
needs to be addressed with new management paradigms (Williams, 1999).
Agile has developed its roots in the IT industry and are considered to be in the infantry
stages in construction (Owen and Koskela, 2006a). Agile methodologies could serve as
a tool to standardize processes and that are practically applicable in nature. Traditional
PM with a rigid planning process, could lead to the destruction of critical thinking in the
present. Although agile tools and processes are relatively new in the construction
environment, it could prove beneficial to meet varying demands and client requirements.
The underlying nature of agile tools to embrace changes could prove to be a key
concept in managing construction projects.
The design phase in a construction project can be viewed as a project that is further
divided into sub-stages such as the program, schematic design and design
development (Figure 1). The main focus of this thesis would be on assessing the
benefits of applying agile tools in the (Program and Schematic stages) of the design
phase.

14
Figure 1: Overview of Construction process and Design process (Own illustraation)
The prime focus is on the design phase, since at project inception, the money
consumed is considered to be at its lowest juncture whereas the prospects of guiding
the design and direction of the project at its peak (Gould & Joyce, 2009). Figure 2 also
illustrates the fact the potential to influence the project cost gradually decreases with
time and money spent increases substantially. These aspects do make the initial stages
of a construction project very crucial.
Figure 2: The possibility to influence the project is large early in the project, the cost of
making changes increases with time (Rocque, 2013).

15
1.1. Problem Outline
Complexity is a critical phenomenon for a project environment. Construction projects
are considered to be complex with innumerable processes. Within construction industry,
the design process is the area under focus. The use of Traditional PM approach in the
industry fails to address the problems encountered and provide value delivery.
Construction projects are often abundant in plan failure, delays, cost overruns and grief
(Bertelsen, 2002). General reasoning would be poor standards of PM services. Koskela
and Howell (2002) deal with the role of project management in great detail, and
scrutinize the challenges of the lack of a concrete theory for the understanding of the
project. Traditional PM often tends to overlook this aspect in the virtual firm formed by
the project. (Dalcher, 1993) suggests that Traditional PM is often characterized by late
delivery, overrun budgets, undermining functionality and questioned quality. As the
complexity and magnitude of projects increases, the competency to bring these projects
to a successful completion dramatically decreases.
There is no precise theory of PM observed (Shenhar 1998, Turner 1999). However, it
seems to be grouped into three theories of management: Management as planning,
Dispatching model and the thermostat model, the latter forming the closed loop
observed in (Figure 3). The planning ordinates the plan, eventually realized by the
executing processes and requests for change leads to further rectifications in execution.
Dominance and emphasis is exerted in the planning sector and resulting output adds up
as an input to the executing processes. This method of operation gives the notion of
management as – Planning dominant approach (Johnston & Brennan, 1996).
Figure 3: The closed loop of managerial processes in project management (PMBoK
Guide, 2013)

16
Due to traditional environment and complex structure of construction projects, it could
prove to be a challenge to adapt the APM principles. APM has evolved within
information systems development and could prove to be a solution to address
complexity or frequently occurring changes in a project (Owen et al, 2006). Agility can
be considered as a state of mind or a set of methodologies, however it is very frequently
confused with lean (Sanchez & Nagi, 2001). In order to be agile, project must be
structured adequately such that it responds to changes, eliminates root causes and
enhances value delivery. Outline reasoning of adopting APM have been explored
(Owen & Koskela, 2006b). Its application on organizational learning, project planning &
execution can be described as shown in (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Agile Project Management Method Comparators (Source: Owen et al., 2006)
The long durations emerging in a construction project life cycle are due to constant
changes made in the initial stages of planning. This can disrupt the entire process chain
in the design phase. The inception of the importance of Design management in
construction is mostly influenced by the complexities observed in projects and process
with respect to technical and functional requirements (Koskela et al., 2002; Owen et al.,
2010). The main factors that could contribute to this wayward nature of handling
changes could be based on insufficient information flow, communication gap, constant
change of scope and failure to meet client requirements and specifications. Since the
design phase forms the initiation for the subsequent following phases in a construction
project, it should be consolidated for the smooth flow in later stages of the project life
cycle (Morris, 2010). The concepts developed in the pre-design phase form the basis for

17
guidelines and specification that models the construction, operation and maintenance of
the building (Kagioglou et al., 1998). Failure to address these issues could result in
increase of budget, time and transformed scope.
These unexpected changes could also lead to inefficient handling of resources and
result in rework (Project Management Institute, 2013). The challenge to prevail
sustainability in the design process brings forth another dimension along with the
fluctuating balance of power between clients, designers and contractors (Rekola et al.,
2012). Hanson and Olsson (2011) propose the existence of models that would help
increase flexibility through a procedure of layered decisions in the design process,
thereby enabling the layering of the building design. This sort of approach could lead to
the decentralization of design decisions, which would provide space for efficient
decision making with great flow of information and increasing reliability on well-defined
project values. Previous studies have indicated possibility to introduce agile principles in
the Pre-design and design phases (Owen et al., 2006), as benefits are attained due to
the iterative and incremental development cycle that help incorporate creative solutions
pertaining to complex and uncertainty requirements in a project. However, it would be
interesting to assess the acknowledgement of APM in the robust UAE construction
industry that experiences construction delays and design complexities.
1.2. Research Purpose & Goal
An overview on the traditional PM approach in the UAE construction industry will be
assessed to indicate the shift required in management paradigm. The UAE construction
industry could be perceived as conservative with no apparent changes in the past
decade. The master thesis will also investigate the complexities observed in the design
management (Program & Schematic stages) and the possibility to introduce agile
principles in order to render the design phase more efficient. Introduction of agile
principles in the pre-design phase in the UAE construction industry is relatively new. It
would be interesting to closely examine the benefits it could generate in the UAE
construction industry. For the very same reason, Construction PM and design
professionals in the field of construction (UAE) and Agile professionals (IT industry) will
be interviewed separately to gain a deeper understanding of the existing phenomenon,
which will further act as a guide towards the research goal as stated below:
What benefits could be realized by integrating agile principles along with traditional
project management approach in the (Program & Schematic stages) design phase of
construction projects in the UAE?

18
Figure 5: Integration of Agile & Traditional PM principles in the design phase of projects
(Own illustration)
1.4. Research Aim & Objectives:
The main aim of this research project is to examine the possibilities to integrate agile
principles with traditional PM approach and streamline the (Program & Schematic
stages) design phase of a construction project. The traditional project management
approach will be closely examined as well to indicate the requirement of a shift in the
management paradigm. The focus of research is mainly restricted to the UAE
construction industry. Also, the design complexities that emerge in construction projects
will be closely observed. To achieve this, the following objectives have been acquired:
Objective 1: To assess the UAE construction industry, environment & its complexities
Objective 2: To assess the traditional PM approach with respect to management of
parameters pertaining to project success, uncertainties and client satisfaction in the
UAE construction industry
Objective 3: To evaluate the challenges observed in design management in
construction projects (UAE)
Objective 4: To assess the suitability of implementing agile principles along with PM
approach in order to streamline the (Program & Schematic stages) Design phase of a
construction project (UAE)
Objective 5: To assess the barriers/constraints to integrate traditional PM with Agile
principles in the UAE construction industry.
Objective 6: To identify recommendations and thus give benefits to professionals in the
field of PM.

19
2. Structure of the Research
2.1. Literature Review
This chapter firstly analyses the traditional project management approach and its
current practices towards parameters such as project success and uncertainties faced
in projects. Subsequently, client satisfaction achieved on the current practice of PM
methodology will be reviewed. Secondly, agile practices and tools will be analyzed
based on its fundamental concepts of responding to change in a project. Further,
challenges of adopting agile practices along with traditional PM in a conservation
construction environment will be discussed. Thirdly, Design management, challenges
and its phases in a construction project will be discussed. Based on these results, a
linkage will be made to analyze the possible benefits of integrating the agile and
traditional PM practices to streamline the design phase in construction projects and
achieve client satisfaction.
2.2. Research Methodology
This section will showcase the research philosophies along with the rationalization for
the research methodology. Further, the method of data collection and data analysis,
reliability and validity will be introduced.
2.3. Findings
This section will summarize the major findings observed as part of the research.
Findings of groups (Project managers, design consultants and agile practitioners) will be
evaluated and analyzed.
2.4. Discussion
This section will analyze the major findings in depth and paired along with the literature
review. Challenges and benefits of adopting a new management paradigm in design
phase of construction projects will be analyzed.
2.5. Conclusion
The findings of the research will be highlighted as summary. Further, reflections on the
research, delimitations and scope for further study in this area of study will be
presented.

20
3. Literature Review
This chapter firstly analyses the traditional project management approach and its
current practices towards parameters such as project success and uncertainties faced
in construction projects. Subsequently, client satisfaction achieved on the current
practice of PM methodology will be reviewed. Secondly, Design management,
challenges and its phases in a construction project will be discussed. Thirdly, agile
practices and tools will be analyzed based on its fundamental concepts of responding to
change in a project. Further, challenges of adopting agile practices along with traditional
PM in a conservation construction environment will be discussed.
3.1. Project Success
A clear distinction is observed between the terms ‘project’ and ‘project management’. A
project can be described as an accomplishment of a specific objective that includes a
sequence of activities which utilizes resources (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). On the contrary
PM can be viewed as a process that controls the output of the project objectives within
scope, budget, schedule and quality standards (ibid.). Since 1950s, work being carried
out in projects using PM methodologies rely on the scheduling of problems, with the
assumption that better scheduling of tools would contribute to effective management of
projects (Belassi & Tukel, 1996). However, various factors beyond control of
management contribute to the success and failure of projects. Determination of a
project as a success of failure could be considered complex. There is a certain level of
ambiguity observed in measuring project success or failure due to the existence of
many parties and their perceptions involved in a project (Pinto & Slevin, 1987). If the
project seems to satisfy the top management and considered a success, it could be
considered a failure by the client as it did not meet the requirements and vice-versa.
Various factors contribute to the definition of success achieved in a project, such as
client satisfaction, feasibility of project, definite goal, competition, execution of
processes, market availability and third parties (Morris & Hugh, ). However, only two fall
under the scope of PM, definite goal and execution of the processes (Munns & Bjeirmi,
1996).
The realization of a project demands input from various groups such as the client,
project team, the organization and the end user. Each individual has defined roles in the
value delivery of a project. They also involve in specific functions and responsibilities in
order to realize project success (Kumar, 1989). In figure 6, the focus of the project team
is highlighted which is to reach the end of stage 4.

21
Figure 6: The scope of success in a project life cycle (Source: Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996)
At this juncture, their involvement in a project will come to an end and the client is left to
face the final outcome. The failure in traditional PM approach can also be said be the
lack of consideration given in the project feasibility stage, so that the project scope can
be redefined if there is a potential for failure observed (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). The
project definition and early decision making act as essential ingredients to project
success. Also, the client presence is crucial since one would be responsible for the
development of ideas in a concerned project. For the same reason, this course of action
can be directed towards involvement of the client actively in the planning, design and
production phases in a project (ibid.). Although this could result in additional cost, to
ensure the achievement of objectives, it could prove essential to measure the project
success beyond the Iron triangle (Cost, Scope & Quality) observed in the traditional PM
approach (Atkinson, 1999).
3.1.1. Uncertainty Management
Although projects are characterized by uncertainty, the traditional project management
approach seems to be lacking in the efficient management of uncertainties in a project
(Atkinson et al., 2006). The reason pointed out is that the focus of PM approach is
towards the operational, planning and controlling of projects (ibid.). This could reflect the
need to alter the conventional reliance on management methods. The uncertainties in a
project could be generally associated with third parties, estimation or other stages in a
project life cycle (ibid.). Gallagher (1995) has showcased various sources of uncertainty
associated with in a project life cycle (Figure 7). These issues can be observed in the
early stages as well as later and can be considered as the underlying root causes of
uncertainties. In particular, failure to manage client expectations initially could result in
difficulties in the subsequent stages of the project. The typical source of failure
observed is the failure in carrying out the design and planning stages effectively (ibid).
During execution stages, this could develop further problems resulting in rework in
design and production planning, consequently affecting the performance standards of
cost, time, delay in schedule and quality. Standard PM approach should be able to
provide a framework that accommodates these changes for effective co-ordination and
communication.

22
Figure 7 : Uncertainty management issues in a project life cycle (Source: Chappman &
Ward, 2003)

23
3.1.2. Categorization of Projects
In order to determine the scope of PM approach in managing uncertainty, it could prove
helpful in characterizing the project type and range with respect to the emerging
uncertainties. The projects could be classified as the one with standard and predefined
goals and objectives, whereas, multidisciplinary projects include objectives that are not
pre-defined and open to negotiations (Winter et al., 2005). The two ends of the scale
can be referred as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ ends with existing variations in their measurement
(Crawford et al., 2004; Crawford et al., 2005). Crawford et al., (2004) have identified
seven criteria’s to characterize the hardness and softness experienced in projects
(Figure 8). Projects that have clearly defined goals (Hard end) allow the use of PM tools
effectively such as resource allocation, network planning and coordination of activities
(Atkinson et al., 2006). Towards the soft end, traditional PM fails to encounter
uncertainties and are not reliable (ibid). The extent of client involvement and expectation
plays a key role in managing uncertainty and to achieve clarity in a project. The softer
the project is against these dimensions, greater is the extent of flexibility and ambiguity
observed.
Figure 8: Soft & Hard dimensions framework ( Source: Crawford et al., 2004)
The acceptance of this lack of precision in projects needs to be accepted by all project
participants in order to achieve project success. The uncertainty- ambiguity relationship
can be observed in Figure 9. Evaluation of projects against the soft and hard spectrum
can determine the nature of projects. For the same reason, although construction

24
projects maybe be considered ‘hard’ and suitable for traditional PM approach to deal
with uncertainties and expectations, it may also experience the soft end of the spectrum
that calls for a need of flexible management approach (ibid.). Thereby, in construction
projects, sensible decision making is of particular significance in the concept and
preliminary design activities where uncertainties observed are high.
Figure 9: Uncertainty-Ambiguity relationship in change situations (Source: Thiry, 2002).
3.1.3. Traditional Project Management
Traditional PM follows a calculated and structured planning, execution and control
methods. Factors affecting project are assumed to be predictable combined with the
understanding of full scope of a project. Limitations are that projects do not attain the
sequential flow and client requirements can rarely be defined so early in the project. The
model can be depicted as a waterfall (Figure 10).Construction projects often face
complexity during different stages of its life cycle. It is not surprising that complex
projects demand an outstanding level of management and that the application of
traditional PM techniques for projects could be inadequate for complex projects
(Baccarini, 1996). The concept of PM involves eradication of complexity in a project
through an organized structure. A theory arises principally from concepts and causal
relationships that connect these concepts (Whetten, 1989). PM can be characterized as
similar to an operations/production management approach (Koskela et al., 2000). A
theory of PM signifies how various actions empower the goals set to it. There is no
precise theory of PM observed (Shenhar 1998, Turner 1999)). The planning ordinates

25
the plan, eventually realized by the executing processes and requests for change leads
to further rectifications in execution. Dominance and emphasis is exerted in the planning
sector and resulting output adds up as an input to the executing processes. This
method of operation gives the notion of management as – Planning dominant approach
(Johnston & Brennan, 1996).
Figure 10: Traditional PM – Waterfall Model (Source: PM World Today)
A project environment always experience a flux of changes and hence reflects the need
to identify these potential uncertainties to the farthest extent possible (Schon, 1983).
Complexity and uncertainty are prevailing conditions in a project life cycle. All these
factors emphasize the importance of flexibility and knowledge management for the
adequate functioning of a project (Wikstrom et al., 2005).
3.2. Prevailing environment of Construction projects
In the construction environment, each stakeholder is focused towards one’s own
interest owing to the temporary nature of projects (Ochieng & Price, 2010). The cultural
differences in a globalized environment can often lead to conflicts and poor
performance, however, the culture observed in the construction industry is observed to
be similar across global boundaries. Li et al., (2012) have showcased the similarity in
characteristics of the construction environment between China & the UK. Hence, the
views and perceptions on construction environment or industry could be generalized
and not entirely be limited to being country specific. Hence, improvement in the project
performance of construction is an area that needs to be addressed (Zhang & Fan,

26
2013). The scenario in construction projects depicts a gradual increase in project
complexity due to the existence of a broad environment faced in complex projects
(Ochieng & Price, 2010). With the existence of multicultural project teams, each parties
involved are only concerned on their own individual interests. Hence, disputes and lack
of understanding between various stakeholders can subsequently result in poor
performance. The construction industry is also often distinguished by low profit margins
and severe competition (Polat & Donmez, 2010).
Figure 11: Factors affecting Project Complexity (Own illustration)
Accumulating client expectations is a common observation where value delivery in
projects is expected with low cost and better service quality (Hoonakkera et al., 2010).
Complexity in construction projects is also often characterized with delays in planning,
design phase, execution phase, existence of various stakeholders and the control of
external factors (Yang & Kao, 2012). The main factors listed in Figure 11 could be
considered as variants resulting in project complexity. Geraldi and Adlbrecht (2007)
conclude that the underlying factors could differ over the life cycle of a project and
developing an understanding of their respective influences, will help approach or
manage complex projects effectively. Further studies have implicated that the traditional
PM methodology relies on a hard based model, where planning and controlling is given
emphasis (Winter et al., 2006). Though the construction environment can be
generalized in an international context, they remain susceptible to unpredictability,
change and risks (Ochieng et al., 2013). An approach to convert the dynamic nature of

27
a construction project, could be through declining change orders and sticking to a
constant design. Client satisfaction would also suffer eventually as a result of the
conversion (Bourne & Walker, 2005). This brings about the position of change
management as a key element of PM. Flexibility will help the project team to manage
and deal with complex, unanticipated complications. A flexible environment is linked to
communication as it lays the foundation of a project. Feedback channel systems could
also be essential to realize effective communication in a construction project (Rodrigues
and Bowers, 1996). A gradual shift in management paradigm could help to realize client
satisfaction in a construction environment.
3.2.1. Client Satisfaction in the construction industry
Customer satisfaction is one of the key elements for organizations to improve quality in
the competitive industry (Kärnä, 2004). The term satisfaction can be defined as the
consequence of few comparable processes in which expectations can be judged to
what is achieved in reality (Czepiel 1985). In this context, client satisfaction can be
depicted in relation to the experience of the service process (Ahmed, 1995). In the
construction industry, the requirements of the client is transformed into design that
directs the performance criteria of the project (ibid.). Figure 12 depicts the essential
characteristics that contribute to the overall satisfaction to the client in the construction
industry. Although the construction industry seems to be aware of these criteria’s, it
needs to be understood how is it managed and met at the end of a project.
Figure 12: Characteristics that affect client satisfaction in the construction industry
(Source: Own illustration)

28
Customer satisfaction is accentuated in markets where competition is extreme (Kotler
2000; Jones and Sasser 1995). It also seems to influence customer retention and in
result, profitability and competitiveness (Anderson and Sullivan 1993). Also, it could be
considered the key to ensure client loyalty and increase in monetary performance in the
long term (Jones and Sasser, 1995). It also helps to reinforce the relationship between
a client and the organization and this sense of association is found to be beneficial (e.g.
Storbacka et al. 1994). Accordingly, customer satisfaction is an essential factor in the
overall improvement of the construction process and client relationship. The significance
has been highlighted by many authors in construction to evaluate the quality in a project
from a client’s viewpoint (Barret 2000). However, client satisfaction in the construction
industry has not been investigated thoroughly. For example, Torbica & Stroh (2001)
ascertain that client satisfaction is in the infantry stages in construction. It is also argued
that in a construction project, client satisfaction can be measured only later in a project
life cycle (ibid.). Ireland (1992) ascertains the importance of the role of a project
manager in order to improve relationship and satisfaction towards the client. The
interrelation between a client and other stakeholders in construction involves a
multilevel complex nature (Figure 13). Therefore, customer satisfaction should be
viewed as relationship-specific and not in terms of a transaction process (Homburgh &
Rudolph 2001). At project level, the client evaluates the contractor’s performance on the
basis of three factors: Quality of building, Quality of the process and expectations or
experiences (Figure 14). Co-operation between client and other stakeholders is
recommended highly as client input has an overall impact on the outcome of the project.
The complex nature of construction project and uniqueness makes it harder to rely on
past experiences and client feedback for the future. The overall impact could prove as
an influential factor in achieving project success.
Figure 13: Customer relationships and interactions in the construction supply chain
(Source: Kärnä, 2004)

29
Figure 14: Interrelationships between customer satisfaction and quality at project level
(Source: Kärnä, 2004)
3.2.2. Overview of the UAE construction Industry
Primarily construction industry revolves around a project based environment (Carillo et
al., 2013). Meng (2012) suggest that cost and time surge in construction projects is a
result of poor execution. Construction delays are presumed to be a recurring
phenomenon in the construction industry (faridi et al., 2007). In the UAE, local and
foreign investors are enticed to own and invest in the property market (Motaleb et al.,
2010). This trend has contributed to the growth of population, consequently affecting
the GDP (Abu Dhabi Chamber Commerce and Industry 2009). The UAE construction
industry has attained a supreme position in the last decade. The surge was observed in
the mid-1990’s with the change in dependency from oil resources towards the
promotion of industrial, tourism and commercial hub (ibid.). Dubai’s key role is evident in
the dilation of construction activities in the Gulf, with the UAE contributing about $30
billion (60%) of the $50 billion estimated Gulf-wide building spends; and Dubai playing
the major role (ITP Construction, 2004). Currently, the UAE construction industry
contributes to 11% of the GDP (Construction week, 2015). An overview of the general
characteristics observed in the UAE construction industry is provided (Figure 15).

30
Figure 15: Characteristics of the UAE construction industry (Source: Ailabouni, 2009)
Client satisfaction seems to be an issue to address due to delays experienced in
projects and is considered a critical problem in the UAE. (Motaleb et al., 2010). Faridi
and El-Sayegh (2006) revealed that half of construction projects in the country
experience delays. Inherent risks are a part of projects due to the involvement of parties
such as clients, designers, contractors, suppliers etc. (El-Sayegh, 2008). Moreover,
significant research has not been carried out in assessing project failures in the
construction industry in the UAE (ibid.). Construction projects seem to experience
delays during all phases (Al-Saggaf, 1998). Also, significant delays have been observed
in the UAE industry from the consultant’s side due to inefficiency observed in drawings,
specifications, and quality control (ibid.). Some underlying factors for delays observed in
the UAE construction industry has been highlighted in Figure 16.

31
Figure 16: Factors for delay in UAE construction industry (Source: Faridi and El-Sayegh
(2006)
3.3. Introduction to Design phase
Gray et al. (1994, p.225) define design: ‘’ […] as a process of human interaction and
consequently the outcomes contain the interpretations, perceptions and prejudices of
the people involved’’. It is considered as a learning creative-development process that is
continuously extending in scope (Hirano, 2000). It is also viewed as an iterative process
with the designer or architect, developing a working solution which is tested and
redesigned for further review to meet the requirements of the end user. During the
project design phase, the limitations, objectives and specifications are highlighted by a
team of individuals (Leseure & Brookes, 2004). Certain uncertainties could be ruled out
in the beginning stages, if the scope of the project, the deliverables, cost involved and
the schedule for delivery are defined adequately (Steyn et al., 2007). The project quality
through functional management is achieved when the deliverables are resolute in this
phase (Carruthers, 1999). Client satisfaction is reflected as one of the project quality
pillars that originate from the conceptual foundation, and the user requirements at the
initial stages of the design phase should be clearly defined to avoid rework during the
implementation of the project (Darwish et al., 2007). The intensity of influence on the
project cost is relatively higher in the design phase and decreases gradually during the
project life cycle.

32
3.3.1. Design Management
The inception of the importance of Design management in construction is mostly
influenced by the complexities observed in projects and process with respect to
technical and functional requirements (Koskela et al., 2002; Owen et al., 2010).The
scheme of design, once the sole domain of a designer in a ‘black box’ manner, is
currently approaching towards a more open and transparent process, carried out by an
inter-disciplinary team (Novak, 2014). The role of the design manager is not efficiently
defined in a traditional design process (Mills & Glass, 2009). Similarly, the role of a
project manager in managing the interface between organizations and individuals is
challenging, with respect to increasing belief of constructability input in the design phase
(ibid.). A dynamic environment is observed usually with the addition of engineers in the
integrated design process (Magnet et al., 2009). The challenge to prevail sustainability
in the design process brings forth another dimension along with the fluctuating balance
of power between clients, designers and contractors (Rekola et al., 2012).
Fernandez-Solis (2008) assumes that the intertwined and dynamic character observed
in construction projects is an area where an anomalous co-dependency of process and
final product is noticed. Hanson and Olsson (2011) identify the design process and
design as consolidated elements. Certainly, it is evident that the design process is
advancing in counter to the increasing complexity of the projects (Novak, 2014). The
traditional concept of design management, where priority is given to the task being
carried out is seeing a gradual shift toward increasing consideration for information flow
and value generation (Hwang et al., 2013). A study of design teams has showed
interdependence between the quality of design documentation and information flow
(Tribelsky and Sacks, 2011). Magent et al. (2009) suggests that the design process
adds value when important decisions about target project value ‘brings forth’ information
and evaluation through well briefed consent, rather than ‘derailing’ project specifications
from design stage to construction phase.
Hanson and Olsson (2011) propose the existence of models that would help increase
flexibility through a procedure of layered decisions in the design process, thereby
enabling the layering of the building design. This sort of approach could lead to the
decentralization of design decisions, which would provide space for efficient decision
making with great flow of information and increasing reliability on well-defined project
values.
3.3.2. Stages of design & role of innovation in the UAE construction
industry
The UAE government has dedicated an extended fund of AED330 billion for
development projects across the capital (Abu Dhabi) with a focus on sectors such as
housing, healthcare and education (Kerr, M. et al., 2013). Expansion of Construction
projects across Dubai (UAE) is also witnessing rapid growth after the awarding of World
Expo 2020. In general, in the initial phase of a construction project, it is generally

33
headed by the client (Public or Private entity) which forms the basis of the framework for
the project (Baom, 2011). The subsequent phase involves extensive research that
involves the effective capture of requirements and setting out of project objectives.
Thereafter, in the conceptual design phase, the project team develops the conceptual
design as per the ideas that develop (ibid.). Further, a schematic design is developed as
the concept begins to get a clear understanding. Once the concept is finalized, further
design development takes place and detailed specifications and accurate drawings
covering all functions are produced. Once the design phase comes to a close, the
construction documents prepared by the design team are further submitted for bidding
to select an appropriate contractor for the project. The design consultants also tend to
act as a supervisory role across projects in order to ensure quality of implementation
during the execution phase of a project (ibid.). Since design is always characterized by
innovation, a conceptual model (Figure 17) highlights the major factors that are
essential for innovation phases across the design stages in a PLC.
Figure 17: Major influential factors for innovation across design stages (Source: Baom,
2011)

34
3.3.2. Challenges observed in the Pre-Design Phase
The researcher will explore further the possibilities of introducing agile concepts in the
pre-design phase. These will be pitted against the agile principles mentioned above and
try to analyse the extent to which APM may prove useful to the construction industry.
In the pre-design phase of a construction project, the three primary concepts
encountered are: development of ideas, planning involving procurement strategy, time
and cost, and creation of a conceptual design (Best and de Valence, 1999). The
objectives, management and organization beliefs range differently across projects and
client organizations, even if standard procedures for this have been implemented (Owen
et al., 2006). A range of complexities are observed in the pre-design phase (Pennanen
and Koskela, 2005). Since this phase forms the foundation for the subsequent phases,
the result should be rather extensive, reliable and integrated (Morris, 1991). This could
result in an inefficient, non-reliable and inconsistent control over the sequential phases
of the project (Owen et al., 2006). Organizational attitudes and practices also play a
prominent role in the construction industry. The suitability of implementing the agile
principles could be evaluated in terms of existing problems in the pre-design phase. The
iterative and incremental approach for better value seems to be imbedded naturally in
the pre-design phase (ibid.). Owen et al., 2006 has evaluated various agile
characteristics such as the nature of planning, capture of requirements, response to
change, client involvement and management style in order to streamline the design
process. Potentially, agile methodology could help achieve value delivery and
streamline the approach in the pre-design phase. An interactive nature is observed in
the design process, hence the design team needs to contemplate the impacts of change
on the final product and the design process itself (Crawford and Benedetto, 2000). It
could act as a relevant organized framework that incorporates changes and
simultaneously acts flexible for emerging opportunities.
3.4. Agile Project Management
APM has evolved within information systems development and could prove to be a
solution to address complexity or frequently occurring changes in a project (Owen et al,
2006). Agility can be considered as a state of mind or a set of methodologies, however
it is very frequently confused with lean (Sanchez & Nagi, 2001). In order to be agile,
project must be structured adequately such that it responds to changes, eliminates root
causes and enhances value delivery. Outline reasoning of adopting APM have been
explored (Owen & Koskela, 2006b). Its application on organizational learning, project
planning & execution can be described as shown in (Figure 18).

35
Figure 18: Agile Project Management method comparators (Source: Owen et al., 2006)
Figure 19: A Comparison between Lean Construction and Agile Project Management
(Source: Owen et al., 2006)
While some regard agility as a state of mind, it is often confused with lean methodology
(Owen et al, 2006). A comparison between lean construction and APM can be observed
in Figure 19. APM is said to rely on incremental and iterative development in order to
facilitate continuous learning in a complex project. Active client involvement through the
entire core processes of PM could be a key factor to achieve success and value
delivery. In APM, the use of small skilled project teams are a common site and it can be
argued that spontaneous, self-organizing teams would prove even more productive
(Anderson & McMillan, 2003). (Figure 20) depicts the Agile Development Model. APM

36
components involve : Visual Control, planning in short cycles, communication, Co-
located high performing teams, Adaptive control, Test-driven, Featured & Collaborative
development, move from (cost) to (revenue) focus & a continuous learning environment
(Kathleen, 2007). Thus, the „iron triangle of traditional PM can be inverted on its head,
as shown in Figure 21 (Cockburn, 2003).
Figure 20: Agile Project Life cycle model (Source: Kathleen (2007))
Figure 21: Traditional PM vs APM - Critical factors (Source: Owen et al., 2006)

37
Agile PM wave cannot be ignored in most organizations, but for those immersed deep
into Traditional PM, it could pose several challenges. The two methodologies have
opposing concepts (Figure 22). In traditional approach, processes are guided by the
waterfall model where roles are assigned to perform specific tasks to achieve the
desired outcome. Lot of documentation is produced which acts as a source of product
knowledge and formal channel of communication for project participants. APM
discourages documentation and sharing of knowledge among few individuals, whereas
emphasis is laid on collaboration and communication among various stakeholders. Key
issue is to identify the organizational, management, people, process, and technological
areas. APM has potentially more to offer in construction and its application can be
expressed in terms of organizational practices and its impact on the core processes of
Project Management (Owen et al., 2006). Traditional hierarchical management directs
on the largely top-down flow of communication, thus denying opportunities for
resonance which could be afforded through APM (Boehm and Turner, 2003).
Figure 22: Traditional vs Agile ( Neur et al., 2005)
3.4.1. Agile Manifesto & Scrum
The handling of a project with the waterfall model could require the need for resolute
planning and control methods. The traditional approach can be considered as a static
linear system that presumes all project requirements can be planned out in the initiation
phase (Highsmith and Cockburn, 2001). A dynamic project environment always
experiences change requirements in a project life cycle (Burlereaux et al., 2013).
Therefore, flexibility is an important aspect when a project is undertaken (Chin, 2004).
This resulted in the development of new PM methods that can handle change

38
requirements. The agile manifesto describes the four main ideologies that form the
basis of agile principles (Beck et al., 2001).
 Individuals and communication over processes and tools
 Client participation over contract negotiations
 Working software over extensive documentation
 Response to change requirements
Scrum is one of most adapted agile methodologies (Asproni, 2006). It has two principal
characteristics that make it relevant, comprehensible and maintains value delivery to all
stakeholders involved (ibid.). The iterative and incremental nature observed in its
implementation enables early prioritization of requirements (ibid.). This could lead to
complete control over the scope of a project that allows modification and addition of new
functionality. It increases visibility over the entire project to the project manager by the
provision of tools such as the burn-down chart, product backlog, sprint backlog and
practices such as daily meeting and sprint or review meetings (ibid). Scrum can also
seem to be implemented in small or large project teams (Schwaber & Beedle, 2002).
However, its implementation can be challenging as it relies mainly on communication,
assigning responsibilities and authority, teamwork and trust (Asproni, 2006). The Scrum
process can be described as shown in Figure 23.
Figure 23: Scrum Process (Source: Asproni, 2006)

39
The three main roles within the Scrum process are mainly the Product Owner, Scrum
Master and the Scrum Team (Hunt, 2006). The Product Owner communicates the
project vision and is in charge of project requirements (Backlog), arranged sequentially
according to priority (Schwaber, 2004). The role of a Scrum Master is to lead and coach
the practices involved in the Scrum process and the Scrum Team is mainly responsible
for the execution of the project work (ibid.). The main practices in the scrum process
that enable agility in a project has been highlighted in the Scrum body of Knowledge
(Appendix 21).
3.4.2. Challenges in adopting agile and its applicability in construction
Traditional project management methods (e.g., waterfall model – Figure 10), where
upfront planning is followed by stringent execution, has been often criticized in terms of
project planning and control (Baccarini, 1996). The solution could be in the provision of
a more flexible framework suitable to the occurrence of a project environment (Smith,
2007). This flexible approach is identified as the term agile project management (APM)
or agile methods (Conforto. et al., 2014). APM literature has stressed the need to
realise the use of APM as a pure approach, following its practises and methodologies
(Schwaber, 2004). Few studies have showcased that APM practises can be adapted in
any project environment similar to software projects that represent a dynamic
environment with constant change. (Highsmith, 2004). The main focus in this approach
is to determine the factors that dominate its usage (Conforto. et al., 2014). These
factors or enablers, to an organization, could act internally or externally as determinants
to the implementation of agile project management approach. They are grouped into
four categories, as summarized in figure 24.
Figure 24: Determinants of APM approach (Source: Conforto, 2014)
For ages, organizations have persistently pursued the aim to create an optimized and
continuous process (Neur et al., 2005). The stability they desired for turns out to be the
biggest obstacle in agile development methodologies (ibid.). The variations observed
between traditional and agile methodologies indicate that organizations must evaluate
their goals and identify the key management, organizational, people, process, and

40
technological issues in adopting agile methodologies. Figure 25 summarizes the main
issues under each component. However, the advocacy of agile methods is being
encouraged in government organizations in the UAE, thereby encouraging its
applicability (Cohan, 2009).
Koskela and Howell (2006) has highlighted the traditional approach of managing
construction projects. In the findings they have defined the underlying theory of Agile
with the emphasis on agile manifesto and principles. Also, Owen and Koskela (2006)
point out the applicability of agile methods in construction. While examining the
applicability of Agile in construction projects, pre-design and design phases have been
assessed separately (ibid.). There is great potential for improvement in performance by
the implementation of agile practices. While assessing the design phase, Owen et al.
(2006) assert that agile should be applied for projects, which include numerous
stakeholders presenting a challenge to capture requirements efficiently and provide
value delivery. On the contrary, Ribeiro and Fernandes (2010) has identified that Agile
principles show potential for implementation and managing an entire project, when
utilized by small and medium sized companies. In the same context, four primary
determinants have been recognized, namely, organizational structure, initiation of an
agile culture, client collaboration, and establishment of the required streamlined
structure (ibid.).
To summarize, Project management as practiced today rests on an absolute and
conventional theory that must be nurtured, extended and enriched. Indeed, it is the
inadequacy of current theory that explains the other problems of PM, such as persistent
project failures (Kharbanda & Pinto, 1996), lack of commitment towards PM methods
(Forsberg & al. 1996) and slow rate of methodological restoration (Morris, 1994).
Typically, customer requirements are poorly communicated at the beginning, and the
process of requirement change leads to disruption in the progress of the project. It is no
surprise that project management as a discipline could prove to be inefficient and that a
paradigm change needs to be realized. APM has potentially more to offer in
construction and its application can be expressed in terms of organizational practices
and its impact on the core processes of PM (Owen et al., 2006). Traditional hierarchical
management relies on the largely top-down flow of communication, thus denying
opportunities for resonance which could be afforded through APM (Boehm and Turner,
2003).

41
Figure 25: Key issues in migrating to Agile (Neur et al. 2005)
4. Methodology
Literature is often considered as a foundation for research work being carried out
(Sapsford, 2007). The grounded literature review provided a firm background in order to
advance closer towards the research objectives and focus on alternatives for further
research. A research always begins with the problem definition which further leads to
the development of a solution, based on the interpretation of evidence which prove vital
for the research purpose (ibid.). Crotty (1998) indicates four main areas of concern to
design a suitable research:
 What epistemology associated with the theoretical outlook enlightens the
research?
 What philosophical point of view relates to the methodology under consideration?
 What research methodology/strategy links the approach to outcomes and use of
methods (example: survey research, ethnography, etc.)?
 What are the research methods/techniques adopted for the research project (ex:
Questionnaire, Interview focus groups etc.)?
Research philosophy can be understood by examining the layers of the research onion
Figure 26 (Saunders et al., 2012). The type of methodology undertaken for any
research focuses on the main objectives & questions (Crabtree & Miller, 1999; Denzin &
Lincoln, 2011). The contrast between “Methodology” as an epistemological position &
“method” as a way of collecting data needs to be distinguished (Bryman, 1984).

42
“Methods act as a medium for the answering of research questions and not vice versa”
(Erzberger and Kelle, 2003:459). Qualitative research has been considered as a
valuable tool in the social sciences & mainly management studies (Denzin & Lincoln,
2011). Qualitative data put to use is usually in the form of participant observation,
interviews or focus groups (Ritchie & Spencer, 1994). Qualitative research is deemed
more adaptable as it exercises responsibility to see through the ideas of one’s subjects
closely involved.
Figure 26: Research Onion (Source: Saunders et al., 2012)
4.1. Individual Learning Style
The approach of individuals towards a learning scenario is acknowledged to have a
significant influence on the accomplishment and performance of learning outcomes
(Cassidy, 2004). To realize the objectives (chapter 5) the researcher has to interpret a
particular research style (philosophy) in order to comprehend and analyze the learning
outcomes. Paradigms can be described as the basic belief system or viewpoint that
directs the investigator (Guba & Lincoln, 1994:105). An individual’s learning style has
an effect on his research style (Collins & Hussey, 2003). Initially, the researcher’s
learning style was distinguished with the help of Kolb’s (1984) model. Kolb’s model
differentiates between four learning systems – converger, accommodator, diverger &
assimilator – which can be distributed either to a positivist or an interpretivist research
style. As per the learning style assessment (Kolb & McCarthy in Kolb, 1984), the
researcher’s preferred style is Assimilator, which points out towards an interpretivist
research style (Figure 27). The assimilator tends to analyze a wide range of information
and undergoes a process from contemplative observation to abstract conceptualization.
The score obtained by the researcher in abstract conceptualization points towards an

43
investigative, structured and systematic approach to learning that relies on logical and
reasonable evaluation (Kolb, 1984).
The post-positivist researcher often portrays a learning and adaptive nature rather than
a testing approach (Agar, 1988: Cited by Ryan, 2006). Ryan (2006) asserts that
positivist researchers postulate that a comprehensive understanding is achieved
through experiment and observation. The research style in this mode provides a holistic
view of the entire project. The researcher defined the research problem, followed by
literature review which highlights the uninvestigated knowledge areas. Thus, the
research necessitates interaction with a wide range of individuals, along with constant
observation, attitude to explore and interpretation. Cohen et al., (2011) suggests that
post-positivism incorporates an explicit view of social scientists and tends to examine or
analyze their subject matter. The adeptness that emerges through a post-positivist
approach relies on cautious observation and assessment of objective reality that
prevails in the real world (Creswell, 2013).
However, the main challenge that constitutes this approach is that the researcher has to
identify the human nature that establishes a relationship with the research participants
(ibid.). The researcher has to conduct the research in a manner that promotes learning
periodically along with the participants, instead of carrying out research on them
(Walcott, 1990). Post-positivist researchers identify that there are certain limits to
research and the analysis conducted tends to remain specific, and both combine to
provide support for conclusion (Ryan, 2006).

44
Figure 27: Learning Style Assessment (Source: Kolb’s Model, 1984)
Assimilator:
 Characteristics: Abstract Conceptualization (AC) & Reflective Observation (RO)
 Like to acquire right solution to the problem
 Value & respect experts opinion & advice
 Like accurate & organized delivery of information

45
4.2. Research Paradigm
Paradigm is a way of scrutinizing phenomena from which particular facts can be
apprehended and illustrations attempted. There are three main branch of research
philosophies: Ontology (nature of reality), Epistemology (Acceptable knowledge) and
Axiology (role of values) - (Saunders et al, 2012). (Burell & Moran, 1982) contribute to
clarification of epistemology & ontology. Easterby et al., (2008) indicate that there exists
three main philosophical positions in management research – positivism, realism and
social constructionism. The latter is also known as constructivism, interpretivism or
phenomenological paradigm (Bryman, 1984; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Collis & Hussey,
2003). The term Methodology tends to be referred to as an epistemological position,
while “Method” & “Technique” act as a measure to gather data (Bryman, 1984). To
recognize the appropriate methodology, it is essential to identify the disparity between
the two opposing concepts, as it guides the researcher with a clear distinction in the
field of inquiry (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).
Positivism has been a principal focus for a longer period of time whereas interpretivism
is developing over the years (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Collis and Hussey, 2003; Easterby
et al., 2008). Positivists are considered as natural scientists and collect data about
noticeable reality. They look out for regularities, relationships in data to generate
conventional outcomes as produced by scientists (Gill & Johnson, 2010). Emphasis is
always laid on quantifiable observations and statistical analysis. Realism generally
refers to scientific enquiry. It senses reality: that objects have an actuality separate of
the human mind. As such it is against idealism, the supposition that only the mind & its
contents exist (Crotty, 1998). Interpretivists focus on people’s apprehension, presuming
that reality is subjective and interaction is important in what is being researched (Collis
& Hussey, 2003). The positivist paradigm is commonly referred to as a quantitative
approach & the interpretivist paradigm is known as qualitative (Bryman, 1984; Creswell,
2003; Denzin and Lincoln, 2011).
The positivist & interpretivist research philosophies in management research is as
shown in Figure 28 (Saunders et al., 2009). The purpose of the investigation is to
examine ‘why’ traditional PM approach is failing to achieve value delivery and client
satisfaction, ‘what’ are the challenges observed in a paradigm shift of management
approach in the construction industry and ‘how’ the application of agile principles can
help achieve client satisfaction and streamline the pre-design phase in construction
projects. However, positivism does not comprehend people’s behavior, thereby
rendering interpretivism as the suitable philosophy for this research. (Guba & Lincoln,
1994; Arksey & Knight, 1999).

46
Figure 28: Research philosophies in Management Research (Source: Saunders et al,
2012)
4.3. Research Approach
Strauss & Corbin, (1990a) suggest that qualitative research is an adequate instrument
to study organizations, groups and individuals. Two main research approaches have
been identified with several research paradigms – inductive and deductive approach
(Strauss & Corbin, 2008). Deductive reasoning takes place when conclusion is obtained
articulately from a set of premises, the conclusion being true when set of premises is
true (ibid.). Inductive reasoning is the opposite, specific observations are made from the
collected data and theory developed by identifying themes, patterns through data
analysis (Collins & Hussey, 2003). Inductive approach is usually adopted by qualitative
researchers (Bryman & Bell, 2007) in order to develop theories and emerging themes or
concepts. Grounded theory involves the process of developing hypotheses from the

47
bottom and conducting research up to the top (Pope et al., 2000). It is referred to as the
epitome of the inductive research (Saunders et al., 2009). The researcher tends to
fluctuate between the two approaches during stages of constant comparison (Collis and
Hussey, 2003). The comparison of the two approaches is as described in Figure 29.
The essence of qualitative research involves recurrent analysis through redirection of
questions, emerging themes and generating hypothesis, which are considered critical
elements existing in an inductive approach. Also, Strauss & Corbin (1990a) assert that
qualitative research is a relevant mechanism in the enquiry of organizations, groups or
individuals. Various methods have been adopted by qualitative researchers to
investigate things in their natural settings, with an attempt to analyze and interpret value
of people and their perceptions in reality (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998).
Figure 29: Major Differences between Deductive and Inductive Research Approach
(Source: Saunders et al., 2009).
4.4. Research Design
The research design is the overall plan that forges a path towards answering the
research question (Saunders et al., 2012). It usually involves clear objectives obtained
from research question, strategies of collecting data, mode of data analysis, emerging
ethical issues and limitations that the researcher experiences (Ex: collection of data,
time, location) – (ibid.). The initial step involves the selection of a methodological choice
– single quantitative or qualitative method (mono method) or multiple methods research
design (ibid). Interpretive philosophy acts as the linkage to qualitative methodology
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). However, a multitude of opportunities in research sector has
led to the development of multiple methods research design (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
2010). Figure 30 shows the distinction between various research methods. Also,

48
multiple methods is being widely used in business and management research (Bryman,
2006).
Figure 30: Methodological Choice (Source: Saunders et al., 2012)
However, multiple methods are further classified into multi method research and mixed
method research. General observation in multi method research is the use of more than
one data collection approach and subsequently analyzed, but is restricted within
qualitative or quantitative design (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). For example, a
quantitative approach may utilize data in the form of questionnaires and survey, and
analyzed through statistical measures. On the other hand, a qualitative study would
involve the use of data collection through in-depth interviews, analyzed through
qualitative procedures referred to as multi method qualitative study (Saunders et al.,
2012). Therefore in a multi method research approach qualitative and quantitative would
not be amalgamated.
4.5. Research Strategy
Seven research strategies can be adopted under the interpretivist paradigm: action
research, case studies, ethnography, feminist perspective, grounded theory,
hermeneutics & participative enquiry. In an inductive approach, truth is established
through communication, where valid knowledge claims arise. Further, contradictory
interpretations are possible actions that are exchanged between members of a
community. Qualitative research is carried out to apprehend a phenomenon where little
exploration has been done (Collins & Hussey 2003; Bryman & Bell, 2007). The issues

49
that emerge during interviews and participant reactions or ideas are constantly
discussed which helps in the assessment of existing reality (Richie & Rigano, 2001).
Construction industry involves a wide variance of employees and employers. In order to
analyze the construction industry and recognize integration of agile methods with
traditional PM, human factors are considered relevant (Moe et al, 2010). In view of the
research objectives, the philosophy of interpretivism blended with a case-study
approach seems suitable for the research. Primary data will be collected through
interviews and secondary data through critical literature reviews. A research topic can
be investigated within a real-life context through the help of a case-study approach. Yin
(2009) asserts that the threshold within the phenomenon is being investigated and the
context within which it is being investigated need not be invariably obvious. It indirectly
enables to acquire a substantial understanding of the research context and processes
(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). It often leads to generation of responses to the
questions pertaining to ‘Why’, ‘What’ and ‘How’ while analyzing a phenomenon
(Saunders et al., 2012). Utilization of case study approach is considered effective while
conducting explanatory and exploratory research (ibid.). Triangulation involves the use
of various data collection methods within a single framework of study (ex: qualitative) to
ensure what the data informs us is interlinked with the researcher’s perception of the
data (ibid.). Yin 2009, identifies two distinct dimensions among four case study
strategies:
 Single case against multiple cases
 Holistic case against embedded case
The single case strategy is often applied in cases which are considered unique
(Saunders et al., 2012). It could be carried out to define the actual case through the
analysis of a phenomenon which has not been in consideration before (ibid.). The
reason behind the use of multiple cases would be the ability to replicate findings across
cases and similar results are anticipated, generally referred to as literal replication (Yin,
2009). However, cases could also be selected based on the difference on contextual
factors, such a prognosis causing imbalance is identified by the researcher and referred
to as theoretical replication (ibid.). Conclusively, this approach with respect to case
study would initially begin deductively relying on theoretical concept before the
amalgamation of an abductive or inductive approach (Saunders et al., 2012). On the
contrary, the second dimension (holistic approach) lays its foundation on the unit of
analysis (Yin, 2009). For example, while conducting research on an organization as a
whole, it is considered to be a holistic case study. Whereas, conducting research on the
subunits (sub – departments or groups) involving more than one unit of analysis is
termed as an embedded case study (Saunders et al, 2012).
Holistic Case study approach is adequate to understand the associated problems within
the interlinked processes (Saunders et al., 2003). Opinions and viewpoints of experts in
the field of PM in the UAE construction industry collected through interviews can help

50
understand the traditional PM approach. Similarly interviews conducted with agile
experts will help gain a deep understanding of its practices and application in projects.
People's understanding of circumstance’s do influence them and their social interaction
as well (Saunders et al., 2009). Construction projects are often characterized by
complexities in nature (Baccarni, 1996). Thus choosing a significant methodology for
research in the area of construction PM could result in a conflict (Collier, 2006).
However, categorization of construction industry could be observed at the cross-road of
natural and social science (Dainty, 2008). Since various other fields already showcase
glimpses of established research practices, the scope of construction projects due to its
dual nature could develop an inclination towards different research methodologies
(ibid.). However, an argument for choosing inductive approach and interpretivism is that
it is relevant to note and explore the relative intentions of people that constitute their
actions and behaviour. A survey would be inappropriate since it relates to questions like
‘who’ or ‘what’ and ‘how many’ (Yin, 2003). Case study approach is also criticized: the
strategy imparts little basis for generalization and may allow biased view to affect the
direction of the findings (Yin, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). To overcome this issue,
the researcher will utilize various data sources (data triangulation) to ensure validity
(Denzin & Lincoln, 1998). It will enhance depth, scope and uniformity in methodological
proceedings (Flick, 2002). Yin (2003) suggests that reliability of information can be
further strengthened with respect to case study by maintaining a string of evidence.
Interviews can help the researcher to identify causes for failure in reality which is
desirable in an inductive approach (Yin, 2003). A researcher always intends to
investigate the existing reality though knowledge gained through interviews and further
interpreting them to develop an interlinked concept (Ritchie & Rigano, 2001). To
advance towards this truth and collect adequate information with respect to an inductive
approach, the researcher will adopt a qualitative framework of study.
4.6. Research Methods
To collect data the following methods will be adopted:
4.6.1. Individual Interviews
DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree (2006), assert that interviews are the most recognized
strategy for the collection of qualitative data. In-depth interviews can help gain rich
information from experiences of individuals, since the inception of agile practices is still
considered relatively new in the construction industry. Investigation of such less
explored knowledge areas could benefit from a qualitative approach, where rich
narration of phenomenon is observed, with the researcher focusing towards its
interpretation (Warren & Karner, 2005). Seidman (1991), showcases the diverse scope
of interview styles such as open ended, structured and unstructured. However, DiCicco-
Bloom & Crabtree (2006) focus on the importance of semi-structured interviews.
Thorough literature review of the research study is undertaken prior to data collection,
so that sufficient information can be gathered that initiates comparisons across

Master Thesis- 2015_HFT StuttgartF_12-05-2015

Master Thesis- 2015_HFT StuttgartF_12-05-2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Master Thesis- 2015_HFT StuttgartF_12-05-2015

Similar to Master Thesis- 2015_HFT StuttgartF_12-05-2015 (20)

Master Thesis- 2015_HFT StuttgartF_12-05-2015