No Access

Dysfunctional Agile–Stage-Gate Hybrid Development: Keeping Up Appearances

Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

E-mail Address: [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Search for more papers by this author

Sharon Dolmans

Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author

Kim E. van Oorschot

BI Norwegian Business School, Department of Accounting and Operations Management, Oslo, Norway

Search for more papers by this author

Arno L. P. Nuijten

Open Universiteit, Department of Management Science and Technology, Heerlen, The Netherlands

Erasmus University, Erasmus School of Accounting and Assurance, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author

Mark Keil

Georgia State University, Department of Computer Information Systems, Atlanta, USA

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Stefan van Hellemond

Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877022400041Cited by:3 (Source: Crossref)

This article is part of the issue:

Special Issue on Innovation, Management, and Governance for Sustainable Growth
Guest Editors: Alba Yela Aránega, University of Alcala, Spain and Kun Huang Huarng, National Taipei University, Taiwan

View article

Abstract

Increasingly, the development of today’s “smart” products requires the integration of both software and hardware in embedded systems. To develop these, hardware firms typically enlist the expertise of software development firms to offer integrated solutions. While hardware firms often work according to a plan-driven approach, software development firms draw on Agile development methods. Interestingly, empirically little is known about the implications and consequences of working according to contrasting development methods in a collaborative project. In response to this research gap, we conducted a process study of a collaborative development project involving a software firm and a hardware firm, within which the two firms worked according to contrasting development methods. We found that the software firm was gradually compelled to forgo its Agile method, creating a role conflict in terms of its way of working. As such, our results contribute to the literature on Agile–Stage-Gate hybrids by demonstrating how, in collaborative embedded systems development, hybridization of development methods may cause projects to fail. Our main practical implication entails the introduction of the “sequential Agile approach.”

Keywords:

References

Ågerfalk, P. J., Fitzgerald, B. and Slaughter, S. A. [2009] Flexible and distributed information systems development: State of the art and research challenges. Information Systems Research, 20, 3: 317–328. Crossref, Google Scholar
Alvarez, S. A. and Barney, J. B. [2001] How entrepreneurial firms can benefit from alliances with large partners. Academy of Management Perspectives, 15, 1: 139–148. Crossref, Google Scholar
Annosi, M. C., Martini, A., Brunetta, F. and Marchegiani, L. [2020] Learning in an agile setting: A multilevel research study on the evolution of organizational routines. Journal of Business Research, 110: 554–566. Crossref, Google Scholar
Austin, R. D. and Devin, L. [2009] Weighing the benefits and costs of flexibility in making software: Toward a contingency theory of the determinants of development process design. Information Systems Research, 20, 3: 462–477. Crossref, Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. Y. and Clark, K. B. [2006] Modularity in the Design of Complex Engineering Systems. In A. Minai, D. Braha and B. Y. Yaneer (Eds.), Complex Engineered Systems: Science Meets Technology, 175–205. New York, NY: Springer. Crossref, Google Scholar
Belderbos, R., Carree, M. and Lokshin, B. [2004] Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33, 10: 1477–1492. Crossref, Google Scholar
Bianchi, M., Marzi, G. and Guerini, M. [2020] Agile, Stage-Gate and their combination: Exploring how they relate to performance in software development. Journal of Business Research, 110: 538–553. Crossref, Google Scholar
Brem, A., Bilgram, V. and Gutstein, A. [2018] Involving lead users in innovation: A structured summary of research on the lead user method. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 15, 03: 1850022. Link, Google Scholar
Bstieler, L. [2005] Trust formation in collaborative New Product Development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 1: 56–72. Crossref, Google Scholar
Cantamessa, M. and Villa, A. [2000] Product and process design effort allocation in concurrent engineering. International Journal of Production Research, 38, 14: 3131–3157. Crossref, Google Scholar
Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T. [1991] Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar
Conboy, K. [2009] Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20, 3: 329–354. Crossref, Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. [2001] Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. [2008] The Stage-Gates idea-to-launch process—Update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 3: 213–232. Crossref, Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. [2016] Agile-Stage-Gate hybrids: The next stage for product development. Research-Technology Management, 59, 1: 1–9. Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. [2017] Idea-to-launch gating systems: Better, faster, and more agile. Research-Technology Management, 60, 1: 48–52. Crossref, Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. and Sommer, A. F. [2016] The Agile–Stage-Gate Hybrid Model: A promising new approach and a new research opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35, 5: 513–526. Crossref, Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G. and Sommer, A. F. [2018] Agile–Stage-Gate for manufacturers — Changing the way new products are developed. Research-Technology Management, 61, 2: 17–26. Crossref, Google Scholar
Cooper, R. G., Dreher, A. and Fürst, P. (2019). How Agile development works for manufacturers”, Parts 1 & 2. Center for Innovation Management Studies Management Report, Part 1 in March-April 2019 & Part 2 in May-June 2019. Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L. and Pollock, N. [2014] Performing modularity: Competing rules, performative struggles and the effect of organizational theories on the organization. Organization Studies, 35, 12: 1813–1843. Crossref, Google Scholar
Das, T. K. and Teng, B. S. [2000] A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26, 1: 31–60. Crossref, Google Scholar
Datar, S., Jordan, C., Kekre, S., Rajiv, S. and Srinivasan, K. [1997] New development structures and time-to-market. Management Science, 43, 4: 452–464. Crossref, Google Scholar
Dingsøyr, T., Dyba, T. and Moe, N. B. [2010] Agile Software Development, Current Research and Future Directions. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Crossref, Google Scholar
Dougherty, D. [1996] Organizing for innovation. In Handbook of Organization Studies, eds. S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord, pp. 424–439. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Edwards, K., Cooper, R. G., Vedsmand, T. and Nardelli, G. [2019] Evaluating the Agile-Stage-Gate hybrid model: Experiences from three SME manufacturing firms. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16, 08: 1950048. Link, Google Scholar
Faems, D., Van Looy, B. and Debackere, K. [2005] Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 3: 238–250. Crossref, Google Scholar
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. [2001] The agile manifesto. Software Development, 9: 28–35. Google Scholar
Gerwin, D. [2004] Coordinating new product development in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Review, 29, 2: 241–257. Crossref, Google Scholar
Ghezzi, A. and Cavallo, A. [2020] Agile Business Model Innovation in Digital Entrepreneurship: Lean Startup Approaches. Journal of Business Research, 110: 519–537. Crossref, Google Scholar
Golden, B. R. [1992] The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 4: 848–860. Crossref, Google Scholar
Gonzalez, W. [2014] Applying agile project management to predevelopment stages of innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 11, 04: 1450020. Link, Google Scholar
Gulati, R. [1995] Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1: 85–112. Crossref, Google Scholar
Hofman, E., Faems, D. and Schleimer, C. [2017] Governing collaborative New Product Development: Towards a configurational perspective on the role of contracts. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34, 6: 739–756. Crossref, Google Scholar
Johansson, C. [2014] Managing uncertainty and ambiguity in gates: Decision making in aerospace product development. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 11, 02: 1450012. Link, Google Scholar
Kahn, B. K., Barczak, G., Nicholas, J., Ledwith, A. and Perks, H. [2012] An examination of New Product Development best practice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 2: 180–192. Crossref, Google Scholar
Kaisti, M., Rantala, V., Mujunen, T., Hyrynsalmi, S., Könnölä, K., Mäkilä, T. and Lehtonen, T. [2013] Agile methods for embedded systems development: A literature review and a mapping study. EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems, 15: 1–16. Google Scholar
Karlström, D. and Runeson, P. [2005] Combining agile methods with stage-gate project management. IEEE Software, 22, 3: 43–49. Crossref, Google Scholar
Karlström, D. and Runeson, P. [2006] Integrating agile software development into stage-gate managed product development. Empirical Software Engineering, 11, 2: 203–225. Crossref, Google Scholar
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. L. [1978] The Social Psychology of Organizations. Oxford, UK: Wiley. Google Scholar
Kortelainen, S. and Lättilä, L. [2013] Hybrid modelling approach to competitiveness through fast strategy. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 10, 5: 1340016. Link, Google Scholar
Langley, A. [1999] Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 4: 691–710. Crossref, Google Scholar
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. and Van de Ven, A. H. [2013] Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1: 1–13. Crossref, Google Scholar
Lenfle, S. and Loch, C. [2010] Lost Roots: How project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. California Management Review, 53, 1: 32–55. Crossref, Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W., Welsh, M. A., Dehler, G. E. and Green, S. G. [2002] Product development tensions: Exploring contrasting styles of project management. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 3: 546–564. Crossref, Google Scholar
Lin, C. H., Tung, C. M. and Huang, C. T. [2006] Elucidating the industrial cluster effect from a system dynamics perspective. Technovation, 26, 4: 473–482. Crossref, Google Scholar
Lin, J., Chai, K. H., Wong, Y. S. and Brombacher, A. C. [2008] A dynamic model for managing overlapped iterative product development. European Journal of Operational Research, 185, 1: 378–392. Crossref, Google Scholar
Loch, C. H. and Terwiesch, C. [2005] Rush and be wrong or wait and be late? A model of information in collaborative processes. Production and Operation Management, 14, 3: 331–343. Crossref, Google Scholar
Macionis, J. J. and Gerber, L. M. [2010] Sociology. Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada. Google Scholar
Magnusson, M., Boccardelli, P. and Börjesson, S. [2009] Managing the efficiency-flexibility tension in innovation: Strategic and organizational aspects. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18, 1: 2–7. Crossref, Google Scholar
Meredith, J. R. and Mantel, S. J. [2011] Project Management: A Managerial Approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Google Scholar
Metallo, C., Agrifoglio, R., Briganti, P., Mercurio, L. and Ferrara, M. [2021] Entrepreneurial Behaviour and New Venture Creation: The Psychoanalytic Perspective. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6, 1: 35–42. Crossref, Google Scholar
Mitchell, V. L. and Nault, B. R. [2007] Cooperative planning, uncertainty, and managerial control in concurrent design. Management Science, 53, 3: 375–389. Crossref, Google Scholar
Nagappan, N., Maximilien, E. M., Bhat, T. and Williams, L. [2008] Realizing quality improvement through test driven development: Results and experiences of four industrial teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 13: 289–302. Crossref, Google Scholar
Paluch, S., Antons, D., Brettel, M., Hopp, C., Salge, T.-O., Piller, F. and Wentzel, D. [2020] Stage-gate and agile development in the digital age: Promises, perils, and boundary conditions. Journal of Business Research, 110: 495–501. Crossref, Google Scholar
Pechmann, F., von Midler, C., Maniak, R. and Charue-Duboc, F. [2015] Managing systemic and disruptive innovation: Lessons from the Renault Zero Emission Initiative. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24, 3: 677–695. Crossref, Google Scholar
Peng, D. X., Heim, G. R. and Mallick, D. N. [2014] Collaborative product development: The effect of project complexity on the use of information technology tools and new product development practices. Production and Operation Management, 23, 8: 1421–1438. Crossref, Google Scholar
Perlow, L. A., Okhuysen, G. A. and Repenning, N. P. [2002] The speed trap: Exploring the relationship between decision making and temporal context. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 5: 931–955. Crossref, Google Scholar
Port, D. and Bui, T. [2009] Simulating mixed agile and plan-based requirements prioritization strategies: Proof of concept and practical implications. European Journal of Information Systems, 18, 4: 317–331. Crossref, Google Scholar
Ring, P. S. and Van de Ven, A. H. [1994] Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19, 1: 90–118. Crossref, Google Scholar
Senge, P. M. [1990] The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York City, NY: Doubleday Business. Google Scholar
Sheremata, W. A. [2000] Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25, 2: 389–408. Crossref, Google Scholar
Smets, L. P. M., Van Oorschot, K. E. and Langerak, F. [2013] Don’t trust trust: A dynamic approach to controlling supplier involvement in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 6: 1145–1158. Crossref, Google Scholar
Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I. and Steger-Jensen, K. [2015] Improved product development performance through Agile/Stage-Gate hybrids. Research-Technology Management, 58, 1: 34–45. Crossref, Google Scholar
Sterman, J. D. [2000] Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. New York City, NY: McGraw Hill. Google Scholar
Terwiesch, C., Loch, C. H. and De Meyer, A. [2002] Exchanging preliminary information in concurrent engineering: Alternative coordination strategies. Organization Science, 13, 4: 402–419. Crossref, Google Scholar
Tiberius, V., Schwarzer, H. and Roig-Dobón, S. [2021] Radical innovations: Between established knowledge and future research opportunities. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6, 3: 145–153. Crossref, Google Scholar
Tripsas, M. and Gavetti, G. [2000] Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 10/11: 1147–1161. Crossref, Google Scholar
Tura, N., Hannola, L. and Pynnönen, M. [2017] Agile methods for boosting the commercialization process of new technology. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 14, 03: 1750013. Link, Google Scholar
Van Echtelt, F. E. A., Wynstra, F., Van Weele, A. J. and Duysters, G. [2008] Managing supplier involvement in new product development: A multiple-case study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 2: 180–201. Crossref, Google Scholar
Van Oorschot, K. E., Akkermans, H., Sengupta, K. and Van Wassenhove, L. N. [2013] Anatomy of a decision trap in complex new product development projects. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1: 285–307. Crossref, Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. [1995] Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 3: 510–540. Crossref, Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., Angle, H. L. and Poole, M. S. [2000] Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. Crossref, Google Scholar
Vatananan, R. S. and Gerdsri, N. [2012] The current state of technology roadmapping (TRM) research and practice. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 9, 04: 1250032. Link, Google Scholar
Vigden, R. and Wang, X. [2009] Coevolving systems and the organization of agile software development. Information Systems Research, 20, 3: 355–376. Crossref, Google Scholar
Walrave, B., Van Oorschot, K. E. and Romme, A. G. L. [2011] Getting trapped in the suppression of exploration: A simulation model. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 8: 1727–1751. Crossref, Google Scholar
Wood, S., Michaelides, G. and Thomson, C. [2013] Successful extreme programming: Fidelity to the methodology or good teamworking? Information and Software Technology, 55, 4: 660–672. Crossref, Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. [2009] Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Žužek, T., Gosar, Ž., Kušar, J. and Berlec, T. [2020] Adopting agile project management practices in non-software SMEs: A case study of a Slovenian medium-sized manufacturing company. Sustainability, 12, 21: 9245. Crossref, Google Scholar