A critical analysis of agile methodologies compared to traditional, structured methodologies: a case study of requirements engineering in ERP operations management

Abstract

The objective of this research was to critically assess the application of agile methodologies, and to compare their effectiveness in large scale ERP operations management. As the examined case faced difficulties in the past using a traditional methodology, the aim of the study was not only to understand if agile can address the case problems but also to improve the situation. Action research was therefore chosen for this research, which was done in the form of a case study. A comprehensive literature review on traditional plan driven and agile methodologies was carried out at the beginning of the research and resulted in the subsequent. Traditional methodologies follow an engineering approach implying that all required information is available at the beginning, and work can be fully predicted and planned. Their limitation remain within the way change is handled and requirements management is carried out. Non-collaborative environments with stable requirements, or regulated environments, remain the domain of traditional. Agile methodologies are value based and an 'agile mindset' is more important than using agile practices. Agile promotes an adaptive way of working that allows to react to changing environments. This can be described as the biggest differentiator. Favorable for agile are complex problems where customer preferences change frequently and incremental development provides value. There is not one methodology that fits to all requirements and project types. Therefore, a careful selection is required. The learnings from literature review were used to define the new agile methodology for the team. Furthermore, the literature review resulted in the formulation of the two research questions, that asked about effectiveness of agile compared to traditional (RQ1), and to which extend agile methodologies are appropriate (RQ2) for ERP operations in the advanced engineering sector. Their purpose was to understand if agile provided the desired results. Based on the research questions, hypotheses for each RQ were defined, and finally an anonymous survey was carried out to gather the required data. The analysis of the survey resulted in the confirmation of all five hypotheses. RQ1: Are agile methodologies more effective than traditional methodologies for large scale ERP operations management in the advanced engineering sector? Effectiveness was defined as 'getting the right things done at the right time', when the RQ1 and the related hypotheses were defined. Accepting 'H1.1 fit for purpose', 'H1.2 flexibility and prioritization', and 'H1.3 cycle time' through the results of the survey, gave strong evidence for RQ1. This concludes that agile methodologies were more effective than traditional methodologies for large scale ERP operations management in the examined case in the advanced engineering sector. RQ2: To what extent are agile methodologies appropriate for large scale ERP operations management in the advanced engineering sector? To answer RQ2, H2.1 and H2.2 were examined through the survey and accepted after the analysis of the results. It was proven that agile methodologies can be applied in large, multinational, and non-collocated team. The results of the survey showed that agile had a positive impact on increased communication, collaboration, and visibility. The participants of the survey were asked, if they would like to go back to traditional, if they recognized a difference, or if they would like to continue with agile. Nobody wanted to return to traditional, only two out of 27 respondents saw no difference, and the remaining 25 wanted to continue to work with agile. This message was confirmed by some team members, when in the survey, they were asked to compare agile with traditional: 'it greatly improved collaboration', 'we made very good improvement with agile, please keep this', 'the agile method is better than the traditional. more flexible'. The results also showed that future improvements should be related to cross-functional work, as this field showed the lowest improvement of all dimensions analyzed.