我们都应该在冲刺阶段工作吗?敏捷项目管理如何提高性能

Tobias Lieberum, S. Schiffels, R. Kolisch
{"title":"我们都应该在冲刺阶段工作吗?敏捷项目管理如何提高性能","authors":"Tobias Lieberum, S. Schiffels, R. Kolisch","doi":"10.1287/msom.2022.1091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Problem definition: Agile project management, in particular Scrum, is enjoying increased use in practice despite only scant scientific validation. This article explores how agile project management impacts project performance and execution. We compare the effects of agile sprints—short-term project phases characterized by time-boxed progression from one sprint to the next and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals—with those of traditional project management. Methodology/results: We decompose the two sprint elements of time-boxed progression and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals as factors in a 2 × 2 experimental design. We then conceptualize project execution as a simple real-effort task and conduct a controlled laboratory study. For a given duration, participants perform better with time-boxed progression as, without it, that is, with flexible progression, they spend too much time on early project phases at the expense of later ones. We refer to this effect as “progression fallacy” and show how it differs from well-known behavioral effects that cause project delays. Introducing self-imposed, phase-specific output goals in combination with time-boxed progression, as proposed by Scrum, does not significantly improve performance when compared with time-boxed progression alone. However, the combination of self-imposed, phase-specific output goals and flexible progression, as is common in traditional project management, amplifies the progression fallacy with the result that goal-setting has a negative performance effect. In two control treatments, we show that the progression fallacy is robust to planning and progression prompts despite some mitigation. Managerial implications: This study contributes evidence of higher project performance when working in agile sprints, which mitigate behavioral flaws present in traditional project management. Not only do these behavioral insights apply to project management; they are also relevant in the broader context of task completion.","PeriodicalId":18108,"journal":{"name":"Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.","volume":"91 1","pages":"2293-2309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should We All Work in Sprints? How Agile Project Management Improves Performance\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Lieberum, S. Schiffels, R. Kolisch\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/msom.2022.1091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Problem definition: Agile project management, in particular Scrum, is enjoying increased use in practice despite only scant scientific validation. This article explores how agile project management impacts project performance and execution. We compare the effects of agile sprints—short-term project phases characterized by time-boxed progression from one sprint to the next and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals—with those of traditional project management. Methodology/results: We decompose the two sprint elements of time-boxed progression and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals as factors in a 2 × 2 experimental design. We then conceptualize project execution as a simple real-effort task and conduct a controlled laboratory study. For a given duration, participants perform better with time-boxed progression as, without it, that is, with flexible progression, they spend too much time on early project phases at the expense of later ones. We refer to this effect as “progression fallacy” and show how it differs from well-known behavioral effects that cause project delays. Introducing self-imposed, phase-specific output goals in combination with time-boxed progression, as proposed by Scrum, does not significantly improve performance when compared with time-boxed progression alone. However, the combination of self-imposed, phase-specific output goals and flexible progression, as is common in traditional project management, amplifies the progression fallacy with the result that goal-setting has a negative performance effect. In two control treatments, we show that the progression fallacy is robust to planning and progression prompts despite some mitigation. Managerial implications: This study contributes evidence of higher project performance when working in agile sprints, which mitigate behavioral flaws present in traditional project management. Not only do these behavioral insights apply to project management; they are also relevant in the broader context of task completion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.\",\"volume\":\"91 1\",\"pages\":\"2293-2309\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2022.1091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

问题定义:敏捷项目管理,特别是Scrum,在实践中得到了越来越多的应用,尽管只有很少的科学验证。本文探讨了敏捷项目管理如何影响项目性能和执行。我们比较了敏捷冲刺与传统项目管理的效果。敏捷冲刺是指短期项目阶段,其特点是从一个冲刺到下一个冲刺的时间限制进展,以及自我强加的、特定阶段的输出目标。方法/结果:我们在2 × 2实验设计中将时间限制的进度和自我强加的、特定阶段的输出目标这两个冲刺元素分解为因素。然后,我们将项目执行概念化为一个简单的实际任务,并进行受控的实验室研究。在给定的持续时间内,参与者在有时间限制的进度下表现得更好,因为没有时间限制,也就是说,在有弹性的进度下,他们会在项目的早期阶段花费太多时间,而牺牲了后期阶段的时间。我们将这种效应称为“进展谬误”,并说明它与导致项目延迟的众所周知的行为效应有何不同。引入自我强加的、特定阶段的输出目标,结合Scrum提出的限时推进,与单独的限时推进相比,并不能显著提高性能。然而,像传统项目管理中常见的那样,将自我强加的、特定阶段的输出目标与灵活的进度相结合,放大了进度谬论,其结果是目标设定具有负面的绩效效应。在两种对照处理中,我们表明进展谬误对计划和进展提示具有鲁棒性,尽管有一些缓解。管理意义:这项研究提供了在敏捷冲刺中工作时更高的项目绩效的证据,它减轻了传统项目管理中存在的行为缺陷。这些行为洞察不仅适用于项目管理;它们在任务完成的更广泛背景下也是相关的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Should We All Work in Sprints? How Agile Project Management Improves Performance
Problem definition: Agile project management, in particular Scrum, is enjoying increased use in practice despite only scant scientific validation. This article explores how agile project management impacts project performance and execution. We compare the effects of agile sprints—short-term project phases characterized by time-boxed progression from one sprint to the next and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals—with those of traditional project management. Methodology/results: We decompose the two sprint elements of time-boxed progression and self-imposed, phase-specific output goals as factors in a 2 × 2 experimental design. We then conceptualize project execution as a simple real-effort task and conduct a controlled laboratory study. For a given duration, participants perform better with time-boxed progression as, without it, that is, with flexible progression, they spend too much time on early project phases at the expense of later ones. We refer to this effect as “progression fallacy” and show how it differs from well-known behavioral effects that cause project delays. Introducing self-imposed, phase-specific output goals in combination with time-boxed progression, as proposed by Scrum, does not significantly improve performance when compared with time-boxed progression alone. However, the combination of self-imposed, phase-specific output goals and flexible progression, as is common in traditional project management, amplifies the progression fallacy with the result that goal-setting has a negative performance effect. In two control treatments, we show that the progression fallacy is robust to planning and progression prompts despite some mitigation. Managerial implications: This study contributes evidence of higher project performance when working in agile sprints, which mitigate behavioral flaws present in traditional project management. Not only do these behavioral insights apply to project management; they are also relevant in the broader context of task completion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Introduction to Special Section on Data-Driven Research Challenge Food Donations, Retail Operations, and Retail Pricing The Design of Optimal Pay-as-Bid Procurement Mechanisms Asymmetric Information of Product Authenticity on C2C E-Commerce Platforms: How Can Inspection Services Help? Believing in Analytics: Managers' Adherence to Price Recommendations from a DSS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1