Empirical Evaluation of Hybrid Framework in Telecommunications and Security Projects (2025-2026)

Diogo Augusto Massimino Siqueira; Luciano Azevedo de Souza

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602836

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The application of agile methodologies in traditional project management processes was evaluated, with the proposition and implementation of a hybrid framework in a company in the telecommunications and security systems sector. The research adopted a mixed approach, combining documentary analysis and mapping of organizational processes by project lifecycle phase. Recurrent conflicts were identified between predictive and agile models, such as scope rigidity, decision-making centralization, long feedback cycles, and static risk treatment. In response, an action plan was structured based on two-level governance, layered planning, differentiated cadences by track, incremental quality, and risk integration into the backlog. The framework was implemented between January 2025 and March 2026 in four projects of the organization. After implementation, favorable differences were observed in operational indicators, including reduction in lead time for critical items, late rework, and operational decision time, as well as an increase in incremental acceptances. The results suggest an association between the adoption of the framework and the evolution of these indicators, but do not allow for the causal attribution of the observed differences solely to the framework’s implementation due to the pre- and post-design, absence of a control group, and reduced number of projects. It was concluded that the model presented operational viability in the studied context and exploratory results compatible with the literature on hybrid management.

Keywords: Project performance; Risk management; Project governance; Continuous improvement; Telecommunications.

1. Introduction

The accelerated advancement of information and communication technologies, combined with the intensified digitalization process in the post-pandemic period, has demanded greater agility from organizations in project execution and, simultaneously, rigor in risk and cost control. In the telecommunications sector, characterized by high technical complexity, dependence on critical infrastructures, and a rapid cycle of technological obsolescence, the need for governance models that reconcile predictability and adaptability has become particularly relevant. Recent studies indicate that hybrid approaches, resulting from the selective integration of agile practices and predictive project management models, have been adopted as a strategy to enhance organizational responsiveness without compromising formal control mechanisms (GONÇALVES; REIS; CASTRO, 2020; REIFF; SCHLEGEL, 2022).

Predictive methodologies, consolidated in guides and standards such as the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), favor sequential planning, rigorous scope definition, and formal control of costs and deadlines (PMI, 2021). In turn, agile approaches, exemplified by frameworks such as Scrum and Kanban, emphasize iterative deliveries, continuous feedback, and adaptation in the face of uncertainty (SCHWABER; SUTHERLAND, 2020; BECK et al., 2001; SERRADOR; PINTO, 2015). The literature indicates that the isolated adoption of a single paradigm may be insufficient in projects that simultaneously present regulatory requirements, integration of multiple technologies, and demands for implementation speed, circumstances typical of network expansion projects and the deployment of integrated security systems in the context of telecommunications companies (KERZNER, 2022; SILVA; LIMA; ROCHA, 2021).

In practical terms, medium-sized companies operating in telecommunications and security services face specific challenges in project management, such as the efficient allocation of human and material resources in field works, the identification and mitigation of technical and regulatory risks in the initial project phases, and maintaining communication between geographically distributed multidisciplinary teams. Empirical experience reported in sectoral studies suggests that the customization of hybrid practices, i.e., the intentional combination of predictive processes with agile execution and control cycles, can reduce response times and improve risk management, provided it is accompanied by clear governance and organizational adaptation mechanisms (GIDO; CLEMENTS, 2021; ABNT, 2023). However, recurring conflicts between predictive and agile models are observed, especially regarding the rigidity of the initial scope, decision-making centralization, long feedback cycles, and static risk treatment.

The literature, while acknowledging the importance of hybrid management, presents relevant gaps. Heterogeneity is observed in the characterization of hybrid management, with different studies using distinct combinations of practices. Furthermore, a significant portion of the studies focuses on software or product development, with less emphasis on telecommunications and security systems projects that integrate software, configuration, field, and supplier activities. There is also a need for more longitudinal studies and comparative designs that allow distinguishing intervention effects from concomitant factors. In this context, the present study seeks to contribute by applying and monitoring a hybrid framework in real telecommunications and security systems projects, using operational indicators and organizational records throughout the analyzed period.

Thus, the central objective of this work is to analyze how agile project management practices can be adapted and integrated into traditional processes in connectivity solutions and security systems implementation projects, in a medium-sized telecommunications company, from January 2025 to March 2026, aiming at proposing a hybrid framework, based on the literature, focused on improving risk management and resource allocation.

2. Material and Methods

This research adopted a mixed methodological approach, combining quantitative and qualitative elements to analyze the integration of project management practices. The study was structured in four stages and executed between January 2025 and March 2026. The unit of analysis comprised four implementation projects for connectivity solutions and security systems, carried out by a medium-sized telecommunications company. The selection was intentional, based on criteria such as complete execution or critical phases completed within the period, availability of consistent documentary records, and similarity of technical scope and operational context.

Regarding the ethical aspects, the research was conducted with formal authorization from the studied organization. All collected information was treated confidentially, with anonymization of sensitive data, including names of clients, projects, and collaborators. The limits of organizational information disclosure were respected, ensuring compliance with ethical research principles and protection of the analyzed data.

To theoretically ground the study, a structured bibliographic review was conducted in the Scopus database in March 2025. The search string used was: (“hybrid project management” OR “agile and traditional” OR “hybrid approach”) AND (“project management” OR “project governance”) AND (“IT projects” OR “telecommunications” OR “complex projects”). After deduplication and screening, 12 articles formed the core of the systematic review, complemented by 8 classic and normative references, totaling 20 bibliographic sources.

The first stage, Data Survey, focused on collecting information and mapping the company’s current project management processes. This process combined the analysis of documentary sources with evidence from actual work. Existing records were gathered, such as schedules, work plans, scopes, budgets, progress reports, risk logs, meeting minutes, construction checklists, service orders, change requests, and delivery evidence. This set allowed for the identification of the expected formal flow and the artifacts used for decision-making.

In the second stage, Process Mapping, the project management processes were detailed based on documentary analysis and validated with key stakeholders. The information was systematized by project lifecycle phase, describing predictive practices, conflict points with agile approaches, and recommendations for hybrid integration. This mapping supported the development of the hybrid project management model, offering guidelines for integrating predictive and adaptive elements.

The third stage, Analysis of Mapping Results, involved the interpretation and validation of the collected information. The data were organized by project lifecycle phase to identify recurring patterns, conflict points, and operational gaps. Moderation and validation were carried out with the project manager, the technical team, and the operational managers, aiming to confront initial interpretations and reduce analytical biases. An additional interpretive validation focused on the internal consistency of operational records and the convergence between documentary sources.

The fourth stage, Action Plan, consisted of operationalizing a hybrid project management system. To this end, governance was structured in two levels, and planning was operationalized in layers, combining a macro predictive structure with detailed activities through short cycles. Differentiated cadences by type of activity were adopted, separating software/configuration and field/supplier tracks. Quality and acceptance were incorporated as a continuous flow, and risk management became a dynamic process, with recurring reviews and integration of mitigating actions into the backlog. An integrated performance dashboard was structured for monitoring. Finally, the implemented practices were consolidated into an organizational playbook, detailing roles, governance flows, operational templates, cadences, and acceptance criteria, aiming to standardize and replicate the model.

On the quantitative axis, project performance indicators were analyzed, including average lead time of critical items, late rework rate, and average decision-making time. The analysis compared the period before the framework implementation (January to June 2025) with the stabilized post-implementation period (October 2025 to March 2026). The transition period (July to September 2025) was excluded from the main comparison to mitigate the influence of initial operational adaptation. For the comparison between periods, Welch’s t-test was applied, using aggregated monthly averages of operational indicators. Additionally, for exploratory and sensitivity purposes, the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test and checks by excluding monthly observations were used for indicators with complete time series.

3. Results and Discussion

This section of results and discussion begins with the theoretical foundation that supported the study, detailing the bibliographic survey process and the critical synthesis of the literature. Next, the empirical findings derived from process mapping and the implementation of the hybrid framework are presented, including the analysis of operational indicators and the evaluation of the sensitivity of the results. Finally, the critical aspects and potential adverse effects of the implementation are discussed, maintaining the analytical rigor and the limitations of the original work.

Theoretical survey

To contextualize the research problem and support the proposition of the hybrid model, a structured literature review of recent literature was conducted. The focus encompassed hybrid project management, agile methodologies, and the integration between predictive and adaptive approaches in complex organizational environments, with an emphasis on technology and telecommunications projects. This stage was fundamental to establishing the conceptual foundations of the developed framework.

The bibliographic survey was conducted in the Scopus database, in March 2025, taking advantage of its broad coverage of scientific journals in the areas of technology and project management. The search strategy was formulated with combinations of English terms, aiming to maximize the retrieval of relevant studies in the international scenario. The search string used included terms such as “hybrid project management”, “agile and traditional”, “hybrid approach”, “project management”, “project governance”, “IT projects”, “telecommunications” and “complex projects”.

The initial search resulted in 481 records. After deduplication, which did not identify relevant overlaps due to the search in a single database with pre-applied filters, the process moved to screening. 321 records were excluded due to thematic misalignment, resulting in 160 articles for preliminary reading. Subsequently, 148 studies were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria, such as direct alignment with the theme and methodological consistency, resulting in 12 scientific articles eligible for the systematic review. To complement the theoretical foundation, 8 classic and normative references were included, totaling a final bibliographic base of 20 references.

Critical synthesis of the selected literature

The joint analysis of the selected studies revealed a significant convergence regarding the inadequacy of a rigid opposition between predictive and agile approaches in organizational contexts that simultaneously demand control and adaptability. The works indicate that the choice of management practices should consider project characteristics, the organizational environment, the level of uncertainty, and governance requirements, which reinforces the need for a selective and contextualized use of hybrid practices (REIFF; SCHLEGEL, 2022).

Studies also converge on the importance of organizational adaptation for the adoption of agile or hybrid practices. Authors such as Conforto et al. (2016), Hobbs and Petit (2017), and Rigby et al. (2016) highlight that the adoption of adaptive practices goes beyond specific tools, involving changes in governance, distribution of responsibilities, and decision-making processes. This perspective is compatible with the proposed framework, which is not limited to the introduction of sprints or backlogs, but redefines roles and scaling mechanisms.

Another important convergence lies in the need to preserve planning and control mechanisms, even in environments that require greater adaptability. Contributions from Binder et al. (2014), Cooper and Sommer (2016), Kerzner (2022), PMI (2021), and Reiff and Schlegel (2022) reinforce the coexistence of formal governance structures with iterative execution mechanisms. This characteristic is particularly relevant for telecommunications projects, where contracts, milestones, and supplier dependencies require formal controls, while technical activities benefit from short planning and validation cycles.

Despite the convergences, the literature does not present consensus on the superiority of a hybrid approach over purely agile or predictive approaches. Serrador and Pinto (2015) and Gemino, Reich, and Serrador (2021) comparatively discuss the success of different approaches, recommending caution in interpreting that the simple combination of practices guarantees superior results. Performance seems to depend more on the suitability of the practices to the specific characteristics of the project and the organization than on the methodological classification itself.

There are also differences in the focus of the studies analyzed. Part of the literature concentrates on software development, products, and innovation, while other references address project management more broadly or normatively. This conceptual heterogeneity, although it broadens the understanding of the phenomenon, limits the direct transfer of conclusions to contexts such as the present study, which simultaneously involves field activities, suppliers, physical infrastructure, contracts, and security systems.

From a critical perspective, the sources used present different levels of evidence. Guides and standards, such as PMI (2021) and ABNT (2023), are relevant for principles and best practices, but do not provide empirical evidence of superiority. Conceptual works provide bases for hybrid models, but do not replace empirical performance studies. Quantitative research and applied studies offer more direct evidence, but are conditioned by their contexts, samples, and methodological designs.

The analysis of the selected studies allowed for the identification of relevant gaps. Firstly, there is heterogeneity in the characterization of hybrid management, with different combinations of predictive and adaptive practices. Secondly, the literature is more restricted to telecommunications and security systems projects that integrate software, configuration, field, and suppliers. Finally, there is a need for more longitudinal and comparative studies to distinguish the effects of the intervention from concomitant factors, such as team maturity or changes in project complexity, which limits causal conclusions about the impact of hybrid practices.

In this context, the present study sought to contribute by applying and monitoring a hybrid framework in real telecommunications and security systems projects, using operational indicators and organizational records. However, in line with the limitations of the literature, the results obtained should be interpreted as contextual and exploratory evidence of association between the implementation of the framework and the behavior of the indicators, and not as a demonstration of causality.

Treatment and analysis of results

To highlight the study, an empirical scope was structured with monthly consolidation of operational indicators until February 2026. The data were anonymized by project and rounded to preserve confidentiality. The analysis focused on the behavior of the indicators before, during, and after the implementation of the hybrid framework in four projects for the deployment of connectivity solutions and security systems.

The temporal scope was divided into three phases: a period prior to the implementation of the hybrid framework (January to June 2025), a transition and implementation phase (July to September 2025), and a stabilized post-implementation period (October 2025 to March 2026). The exclusion of the transition period from the main comparison aimed to reduce the immediate influence of operational adaptation and the learning curve, allowing for an examination of indicator behavior after the stabilization of implemented practices.

The consolidated results showed expressive differences between the analyzed periods. The average lead time for critical items, which was 17.9 days in the pre-implementation period, reduced to 10.2 days in the post-implementation period, representing a decrease of 42.9%. The average operational decision time also showed a significant drop, going from 5.2 days to 1.6 days, a reduction of 68.5%. These findings indicate greater agility in the workflow and in the organization’s tactical response capacity.

The late rework rate, which was 25.0% before implementation, decreased to 9.2% after framework stabilization, a reduction of 63.3%. In parallel, the incremental acceptance of validated deliveries within the cycle increased from 24.0% to 73.0%, a growth of 204.2%. These indicators suggest a substantial improvement in delivery quality and validation anticipation, reducing the need for costly corrections in the final phases of projects.

Additionally, the resolution time for external dependencies decreased from 13.6 days to 8.0 days, a reduction of 41.4%. The proportion of risks with mitigation executed increased from 38.0% to 78.3%, an increment of 106.1%. These results indicate more proactive and effective risk management, with greater traceability and execution of mitigating actions, contributing to project predictability and stability.

In managerial terms, the behavior of these indicators is compatible with a favorable evolution of the flow, coordination, and quality dimensions in the period after the implementation of the framework. However, such differences should be interpreted as temporal associations, since the research design, of a pre- and post-observational nature, does not allow them to be attributed exclusively to the hybrid framework due to the absence of a control group and the reduced number of projects.

Sensitivity analysis of the results

In order to verify the robustness of the general interpretation of the results, an exploratory sensitivity analysis was performed. The non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used as a complementary check to Welch’s t-test for the indicators of lead time, operational decision time, late rework, and incremental acceptance. The direction of the differences remained the same for all four indicators, with p-values of approximately 0.002 for lead time, 0.005 for decision time, 0.005 for late rework, and 0.005 for incremental acceptance. Although less extreme than in Welch’s test, the difference between the periods remained statistically identifiable.

In a second check, the month of October 2025 was removed from the post-implementation window, producing a more conservative comparison between the pre-implementation period and November 2025-March 2026. In this scenario, the average lead time was 10.0 days, the average decision time was 1.58 days, late rework was 8.8%, and incremental acceptance was 74.0%. The direction of the differences, therefore, remained unchanged even with the exclusion of the first month considered stabilized, reinforcing the consistency of the findings.

Additionally, an influence check was performed by excluding one monthly observation at a time. In all evaluated scenarios, the direction of the differences between periods remained unchanged: lead time, decision time, and rework remained lower in the post-implementation period, while incremental acceptance remained higher. This behavior suggests that the observed differences are not explained by a single extreme month in the series, lending greater confidence in the stability of the results’ direction.

Taken together, the complementary analyses indicate stability in the direction of the results despite changes in the comparison premises. However, this robustness should be interpreted within the exploratory scope of the study. Sensitivity analysis reduces the possibility that the findings are exclusively a consequence of choosing a particular window or a single observation, but it does not resolve limitations related to the absence of a control group, temporal autocorrelation, or the influence of unmeasured external factors. For indicators of external dependencies and risk mitigation, sensitivity analysis was not extended due to the lack of a complete corresponding monthly series.

Materialization of the action plan as a hybrid operating system

Based on the empirical results observed and the conflicts identified in process mapping, the fourth stage of the study, originally proposed as an action plan, was operationalized as a structured system of hybrid execution. This materialization transformed the proposed framework from a conceptual proposition into an applied model, with explicit rules, defined roles, and verifiable execution mechanisms, configuring a true project operating system. The implementation did not occur as a method substitution, but as a controlled integration between predictive governance and adaptive execution, supported by eight interdependent operational levers.

The first lever was the two-level governance, formal and lightweight. Lightweight governance, at the operational level, focused on short-term tactical adjustments, such as reprioritizations and technical adaptations, with decisions made locally by the Project Manager and Product Owner within defined limits. Formal governance, at the strategic level, was applied to changes with an impact on contractual scope, cost, deadline, or high risk, operationalized through Change Requests and committee deliberation. The adoption of this separation was associated with a reduction in operational response time, without apparent loss of traceability in the analyzed records.

The second lever was the definition of roles and delegation of authority, formalizing a clear structure. The Executive Sponsor was responsible for strategic decisions and macro prioritization, the Project Manager for baseline, contract, and critical integrations management, and the local Product Owner for continuous prioritization and tactical decisions. This configuration aimed to mitigate decision-making centralization, and in the period following its adoption, a reduction in the average operational decision time and greater fluidity in removing impediments were observed, which is consistent with the proposed mechanism.

The layered planning, predictive macro and iterative micro, constituted the third lever. The macro, predictive layer maintained the WBS, schedule, and contractual milestones as a reference for organizational commitment. The micro, adaptive layer used a living backlog, continuously prioritized and structured by increments with acceptance criteria. This approach sought to preserve contractual predictability and expand the capacity for continuous adaptation. The reduction in average lead time observed in the subsequent period is compatible with this design.

The fourth lever was the separation of tracks and synchronization by integration windows. The execution was structured in two tracks with distinct cadences: Track 1 (software/configuration) with iterative execution in sprints, and Track 2 (field/suppliers) with execution in scheduled integration windows. Synchronization occurred through minimum integratable packages and planned buffers. This architecture was accompanied by a reduction in the integration queue effect and less late rework, behavior compatible with the synchronization mechanism proposed for the main bottleneck identified in the diagnosis.

The fifth lever was quality and acceptance as a continuous flow. Validation shifted from a model focused on the end to a continuous model, with definition of readiness and completion criteria, standardized quality checklists, evidence of incremental testing, and recurring demos and reviews with stakeholders. In the period after the adoption of these practices, an increase in incremental acceptance and a reduction in late-detected failures were observed, an association compatible with the anticipation of validations throughout the cycles.

Integrated risk management in the backlog was the sixth lever. Risk management ceased to be static and began to operate as a living artifact, with reviews at each execution cycle, transformation of risks into backlog items, and definition of responsible party, deadline, and verification criteria. The incorporation of mitigating actions into the backlog was associated with a higher proportion of risks with actions executed in the analyzed period and greater traceability regarding responsible parties, deadlines, and mitigation evidence.

The seventh lever was the integrated dashboard, combining predictive and flow metrics. A unique monitoring model was implemented with two reading levels: an executive one, with schedule, cost, and earned value (EVM), and a tactical one, with lead time, throughput, WIP, rework, and incremental acceptance. This integration increased the availability of objective evidence for decision-making and was accompanied by less dependence on cycles exclusively based on reports and formal committees.

Finally, the eighth lever was the institutionalization via playbook of the hybrid framework. The model’s elements were consolidated into an institutional playbook, containing roles and responsibilities, governance flows (light and formal), operational templates (backlog, dashboard, checklist, change log), cadences per track, and acceptance and quality criteria. This playbook favors the replicability, standardization, and scalability of the model, transforming the framework into an applied and verifiable organizational product.

Critical aspects, costs, and potential adverse effects of implementation

Although the analyzed indicators showed favorable behavior after the implementation of the framework, the evaluation of an organizational change should not be restricted to the benefits potentially associated with the new model. The adoption of hybrid practices can also introduce coordination costs, the need for behavioral adaptation, and new demands for operational discipline, which were not quantitatively measured in the present study.

The coexistence between predictive and adaptive mechanisms implies the simultaneous maintenance of different artifacts and routines, such as macro schedule, formal change records, backlog, follow-up meetings, dashboards, acceptance criteria, and recurring risk reviews. Consequently, implementation may initially increase the administrative burden and the effort of updating information, especially during the transition period. Although this dimension has not been measured, it constitutes a potential operational cost of the model that should be considered in future applications.

The redistribution of decision-making authority also represents a potential source of resistance. The introduction of a local Product Owner and the delegation of tactical decisions alter patterns previously characterized by greater centralization. Changes of this nature can generate doubts about responsibilities, overlap of roles, or resistance from actors accustomed to more hierarchical structures. The records used in this research allowed us to follow decisions and operational flows; however, specific data were not collected through structured interviews to systematically measure participants’ perceptions of these changes.

Another relevant trade-off involves the balance between agility and control. Overly formal governance can reduce the response speed sought by the framework, while excessive levels of autonomy can compromise traceability, contractual management, or the control of impacts on deadlines, costs, and scope. Thus, the model’s functioning depends on the objective definition of the boundaries between operational decisions and changes that require formal escalation, which demands continuous discipline in the application of the framework.

Possible effects of an increase in the number of meetings, the need for continuous backlog updates, and dependence on discipline in maintaining indicators should also be considered. If these practices are incorporated only as additional activities, without replacing or simplifying previous routines, there is a risk of increased administrative overload. The value of the hybrid model, therefore, depends not on the simple accumulation of predictive and agile practices, but on the integration and rationalization of these practices to optimize workflow.

In the set of quantitative indicators examined in this study, no systematic deteriorations were identified between the pre- and post-implementation periods. However, the research did not include specific indicators for implementation costs, additional coordination hours, meeting load, administrative effort, or perception of organizational resistance. Consequently, the absence of worsening in the evaluated indicators should not be interpreted as evidence of the non-existence of adverse impacts or adoption costs, which constitutes a limitation of the present study.

In summary, the proposed hybrid framework constitutes an operationally viable alternative for reconciling formal control mechanisms with adaptive practices in telecommunications and security systems projects. The evidence obtained points to favorable associations between its implementation and the behavior of the analyzed indicators, such as the reduction of critical item lead time, late rework, and operational decision time, in addition to an increase in incremental acceptances. These findings, although they do not allow for definitive causal inference, indicate that the model responded coherently to the objectives of improving risk management and resource allocation, according to the research problem and the applied methodology.

4. Conclusion

This study analyzed the adaptation and integration of agile practices into traditional project management processes in a medium-sized company in the telecommunications and security systems sector, with the objective of proposing a hybrid framework to improve risk management and resource allocation. The presence of recurring conflicts between predictive and agile models was verified, such as scope rigidity and decision centralization, which were addressed by the proposition and implementation of a hybrid operational system. After implementation, a reduction in the lead time of critical items, late rework, and operational decision time was observed, in addition to an increase in incremental acceptances and the proportion of risks with executed mitigation. These findings indicate a favorable association between the adoption of the framework and the evolution of operational indicators, demonstrating the practical viability of the model in the studied context and its coherence with the literature on Hybrid Management.

The main contribution of this work lies in the structuring and empirical application of a framework that integrates predictive governance and adaptive execution in real telecommunications and security systems projects, materialized in an organizational playbook. However, the pre- and post-observational design, the absence of a control group, and the reduced number of projects limit direct causal inference of the results, which should be interpreted as contextual and exploratory evidence. Additionally, implementation costs or participant perception were not measured. For future studies, it is recommended to expand the project sample, use comparative groups, extend the time series, and incorporate interviews with participants, in order to strengthen the evaluation of the robustness and mechanisms associated with the observed results.

Bibliographic References

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS (ABNT). NBR ISO 21502:2023 – Gestão de projetos, programas e portfólios: diretrizes. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT, 2023.

BECK, Kent et al. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. 2001. Disponível em: https://agilemanifesto.org. Acesso em: 2026.

Binder et al., 2014 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

Conforto et al., 2016 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

Cooper e Sommer, 2016 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

GEMINO, Andrew; REICH, Blaize Horner; SERRADOR, Pedro M. Agile, traditional, and hybrid approaches to project success: is hybrid a poor second choice? Project Management Journal, v. 52, n. 2, p. 161–175, 2021. DOI: 10.1177/8756972820973082.

GIDO, Jack; CLEMENTS, James P. Gestão de projetos. 8. ed. São Paulo: Cengage Learning, 2021.

GONÇALVES, Ana Paula; REIS, Juliana Silva; CASTRO, Rodrigo Moreira. Hibridismo em gerenciamento de projetos: uma análise das práticas ágeis e preditivas em organizações brasileiras. Revista de Gestão e Projetos, v. 11, n. 3, p. 54–73, 2020. DOI: 10.5585/gep.v11i3.17710.

Hobbs e Petit, 2017 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

KERZNER, Harold. Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. 13. ed. Hoboken: Wiley, 2022.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (PMI). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). 7. ed. Pennsylvania: PMI, 2021.

REIFF, Janine; SCHLEGEL, Dennis. Hybrid project management: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, v. 10, n. 2, p. 45–63, 2022. DOI: 10.12821/ijispm100203.

Rigby et al., 2016 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

SCHWABER, Ken; SUTHERLAND, Jeff. The Scrum Guide. 2020. Disponível em: https://scrumguides.org. Acesso em: 2026.

SERRADOR, Pedro; PINTO, Jeffrey K. Does agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, v. 33, n. 5, p. 1040–1051, 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006.

SILVA, Bruno Henrique; LIMA, Carla Fernanda; ROCHA, Eduardo Vieira. Integração entre metodologias ágeis e preditivas: proposta de um modelo híbrido para o setor de telecomunicações. Revista Brasileira de Administração Científica, v. 11, n. 2, p. 229–247, 2021. DOI: 10.6008/CBPC2179-684X.2021.002.0020.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Project Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform