Traditional versus agile project management in public sector in Poland

• Autorzy: Kaczorowska Anna

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2020.149.25

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: In recent years more and more agile methods of software production have been used in information projects (IT projects). Apart from some common features with other measures, IT projects have their own specificity which should be considered prior to the choice of the Traditional Project Management (TPM) or Agile Project Management (APM) for management of a particular project. Owing to the specificity of the implemented projects the approach presented in agile methods is more and more frequently chosen and preferred both by the solutions providers and the clients. Furthermore, the use of one of the traditional or agile methods should be preceded by analysis of various types of conditions of the sector in which the public administration entity is functioning. Legal conditions, organizational and decision-making culture, project financing methods and maturity of teams and the whole organisation in the project management area, affect not only the choice of methods but also the final success of the project. The multicriterial analysis of limitations in information projects implementation in the public sector allowed identification of the most important recommendations within necessary changes. The article points out that agile methods will not entirely replace the traditional management of IT projects in the public sector, with the most effective approach being their harmonious coexistence. Design/methodology/approach: The recommendation to use the TPM and APM approaches in Polish public administration entities was preceded by analysis of the most important legal acts for this purpose and comparison of the position of our country (or cluster to which Poland is qualified) in the acknowledged European study from the cycle of eGovernment Benchmark dating back to the years 2004-2018. Recommendations for implementation of IT projects in the public sector were supported by analysis of CHAOS reports dating back to 2012-2018 and 11th, 12th and 13th Annual State of Agile Reports respectively from 2016, 2017 and 2018. The article does not treat separately each of the best known methodologies and methodologies of confirmed effectiveness, but considers the shared philosophy of traditional or agile approach. Findings: The development of e-government proceeds due to the implementation – from the private sector – of the form of management through the development of projects. Analysis of the position of the Polish e-government in the eGovernment Benchmark points to a high backwardness of the public sector in Poland as compared to other countries. The backwardness may be made up for through implementation of effective methods of IT project management. However, the choice of an agile method should be preceded by an analysis of specific achievable benefits and conditions which have to be fulfilled as they are necessary to achieve such benefits. The public sector conditions connected with the Public Procurement Law and informal limitations resulting, among other, from organisational and decisive culture will not allow, as for now, to fully use agile methods. Originality/value: The public sector in Poland is the largest but at the same time the most difficult customer of services and products from the ICT sector in Poland. For a large purchaser of the ICT sector solutions the choice of the most effective project management method becomes a significant determinant of the project’s success. In practice, there is no organization or project in which a methodology in its pure form could be used. Therefore, a given methodological approach has to be adjusted to the conditions of the sector in which the organisation is functioning and to a specific project.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

project management; IT project; public sector; traditional methodologies; agile methodologies

PL

zarządzanie projektami; projekt IT; sektor publiczny; metodyki klasyczne; metodyki zwinne

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: z. 149
• Strony: 287--302
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 44 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Kaczorowska Anna

• University of Lodz

Bibliografia

• 1. A look at 25 years of software projects. What can we learn? Available online https://speedandfunction.com/look-25-years-software-projects-can-learn/, 2019.06.10.
• 2. Aid Delivery Methods – Project Cycle Management Guidelines Vol 1 – Guidelines. Available online https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/methodology-aid-delivery-methods-project-cycle-management-200403_en_2.pdf, 2019.06.15.
• 3. Apello, J. (2012). How to Change the World: Change Management 3.0. Rotterdam: Kindle Edition.
• 4. Atkinson, S., and Benefield, G. Software Development: Why the Traditional Contract Model Is no Fit for Purpose. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52c7ec69e4b0b1f6fe574925/t/52cbe684e4b09298835e74ae/1389094532520/HICSS-2013-Why-the-traditional-contract-is-not-fit-for-purpose.pdf, 2019.06.15.
• 5. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, Politecnico di Milano (2015). Future-proofing eGovernment for a Digital Single Market. Retrieved from https://www.capgemini.com/resources/full-report-future-proofing-egovernment-for-a-digital-single-market/.
• 6. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, Politecnico di Milano (2016). A turning point for eGovernment development in Europe? Retrieved from http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/b3627b36-b212-11e6-871e-01aa75ed71a1.0001.01/DOC_1.
• 7. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, Politecnico di Milano (2017). Taking stock of user-centric design and delivery of digital public services in Europe. Retrieved from https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-egovernment-benchmark_background_v7.pdf.
• 8. Capgemini, IDC, Sogeti, Politecnico di Milano (2018). Securing eGovernment for all. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/image/document/2018-47/egovernment_benchmark_2018_background_report_F21FA84B-0254-F4DB-7B2FC4567D4AA925_55487.pdf.
• 9. CHAOS MANIFESTO 2012: The Year of the Executive Sponsor. Available online https://cs.calvin.edu/courses/cs/262/kvlinden/resources/CHAOSManifesto2012.pdf.
• 10. CHAOS REPORT 2015. Available online https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2015-Final.pdf, 2019.06.12.
• 11. CHAOS REPORT: 21st Anniversary Edition. Available online https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2014.pdf, 2019.06.10.
• 12. Chmielarz, W. (2012). Kryteria wyboru metod zarządzania projektami informatycznymi. Problemy Zarządzania, 10(3), 25-40. doi: 10.7172.1644-9584.38.2.
• 13. Cohn, M. (2010). Succeeding with Agile: Software Development Using Scrum. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.
• 14. CollabNet, VersionOne. 12th annual state of agiletm report. Available online https://www.stateofagile.com/#ufh-i-423641583-12th-annual-state-of-agile-report/473508, 2019.06.12.
• 15. CollabNet, VersionOne. 13th annual state of agiletm report. Available online https://www.stateofagile.com/#ufh-i-521251909-13th-annual-state-of-agile-report/473508, 2019.06.13.
• 16. Dorsey, P. 10+3 główne powody, dla których projekty systemów się nie udają. Część I. Retrieved from https://zarzadzanieprojektami.org/warsztat/10-3-glowne-powody-dla-ktorych-projekty-systemow-sie-nie-udaja-czesc-i_338, 2019.06.15.
• 17. Dorsey, P. 10+3 główne powody, dla których projekty systemów się nie udają. Część II. Retrieved from https://zarzadzanieprojektami.org/warsztat/10-3-glowne-powody-dla-ktorych-projekty-systemow-sie-nie-udaja-czesc-ii_343, 2019.06.15.
• 18. Gasik, S. Dlaczego nie udają się wielkie projekty publiczne? Retrieved from https://zarzadzanieprojektami.org/warsztat/dlaczego-nie-udaja-sie-wielkie-projekty-publiczne-_332, 2019.06.10.
• 19. Jeremiah, J. Agile vs. waterfall: Survey shows agile is now the norm. Retrieved from https://techbeacon.com/survey-agile-new-norm, 2019.06.14.
• 20. Johnson, J., and Mulder, H. (2016). CHAOS Chronicles, focusing on failures and possible improvements in IT projects. SYSTEMICS, CYBERNETICS AND INFORMATICS, 14(5), 11-15. Retrieved from http://www.iiisci.org/journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/SA136MM16.pdf, 2019.06.11.
• 21. Juchniewicz, M. (2012). Dojrzałość projektowa organizacji. In: M. Trocki (Ed.), Nowoczesne zarządzanie projektami (pp. 372-386). Warszawa: PWE.
• 22. Juchniewicz, M. (2009). Dojrzałość projektowa organizacji. Warszawa: Bizarre.
• 23. Kaczorowska, A. (2013). E-usługi administracji publicznej w warunkach zarządzania projektami. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
• 24. Kaczorowska, A., and Ciach, K. (2013). The effectiveness of e-government development in Poland in 2004-2013. Information Systems in Management, 2(4), 274-288.
• 25. Kański, Ł. (2017). Prawne i organizacyjne uwarunkowania implementacji zwinnych metod zarządzania projektami IT. Organizacja i Zarządzanie: kwartalnik naukowy, 2, 27-45. Retrieved from http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.baztech-c2c85401-5410-4bd1-830a-7b714f5a8535, 2019.06.14.
• 26. Layton, M. (2012). Agile Project Management. New Jersey: John Wiley&Sons Ltd.
• 27. Łubiarz, M. (2015). Zwinne organizacje. Zarządzanie projektami, 1(8), 87-91.
• 28. Lynch, J. (2018). Project Resolution Benchmark Report. Retrieved from https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/DemoPRBR.pdf, 2019.06.11.
• 29. Ministerstwo Rozwoju (2017). Perspektywy rozwoju polskiej branży ICT do roku 2025. Warszawa: Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości.
• 30. PMI. Pulse of the Profession 2017. 9th Global Project Management Survey. Retrieved from https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2017.pdf, 2019.06.14.
• 31. PMI. Pulse of the Profession 2018. 10th Global Project Management Survey. Retrieved from https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2018.pdf, 2019.06.14.
• 32. Project Success in Agile Development Projects. Available online https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1711/1711.06851.pdf, 2019.06.15.
• 33. Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów w sprawie Planu Informatyzacji Państwa na rok 2006, Dz.U. nr 147, poz. 1064 (2006).
• 34. Shaydulin, R., and Sybrandt, J. To Agile, or not to Agile: A Comparison of Software Development Methodologies. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316471308_To_Agile_or_not_to_Agile_A_Comparison_of_Software_Development_Methodologies, 2019.06.10.
• 35. Trocki, M. (2012). Nowoczesne zarządzanie projektami. Warszawa: PWE.
• 36. Trocki, M. (2017). Metodyki i standardy zarządzania projektami. Warszawa: PWE.
• 37. Ustawa z dnia 17 lutego 2005 r. o informatyzacji podmiotów realizujących zadania publiczne, Dz.U. nr 64, poz. 565 z późn. zm. (2005).
• 38. Ustawa z dnia 20 lipca 2018 r. zmieniająca ustawę – Prawo zamówień publicznych oraz ustawę o zmianie ustawy – Prawo zamówień publicznych oraz niektórych innych ustaw, Dz.U. poz. 1603 (2018).
• 39. Ustawa z dnia 22 czerwca 2016 r. o zmianie ustawy Prawo zamówień publicznych oraz niektórych innych ustaw, Dz.U. poz. 1020 (2016).
• 40. Ustawa z dnia 27 sierpnia 2009 r. o finansach publicznych, Dz.U. nr 157, poz. 1240 z późn. zm. (2009).
• 41. Ustawa z dnia 29 stycznia 2004 r. Prawo zamówień publicznych, Dz.U. nr 19, poz. 177 z późn. zm. (2004).
• 42. VersionOne. 11th annual state of agiletm report. Available online http://www.agile247.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/versionone-11th-annual-state-of-agile-report.pdf, 2019.06.11.
• 43. Wendler, R. (2014). Develompent of the Organizational Agility Maturity Model. Proceedings of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, 2, 1197-1206. doi: 10.15439/2014F79.
• 44. Wysocki, R. (2013). Efektywne zarządzanie projektami. Tradycyjne, zwinne, ekstremalne. Gliwice: Helion.