Adaptive Hybrid Frameworks in Software Engineering: A Comparative Analysis of Scrumban and Integrated Agile-Waterfall Methodologies on Project Efficacy and Team Dynamics
Keywords:
Hybrid Project Management, Scrumban, Agile Methodologies, Ontology AlignmentAbstract
Purpose: The software development industry has long grappled with the dichotomy between the predictability of traditional Plan-Driven approaches (Waterfall) and the flexibility of Agile methodologies. This paper investigates the emerging paradigm of Hybrid Project Management (HPM), specifically focusing on Scrumban and Ontology-Aligned frameworks. The study aims to evaluate how these integrated approaches address the limitations of singular methodologies regarding process efficiency, flow management, and teamwork quality.
Design/methodology/approach: Drawing upon a comprehensive review of literature ranging from foundational contingency theories to recent 2025 studies on Scrumban, this research synthesizes a theoretical framework for HPM. We analyze the efficacy of hybrid models through the lenses of Information Flow Interdependency and Social Capital theory, utilizing ontology alignment as a mechanism for integration.
Findings: The analysis suggests that Hybrid models, particularly Scrumban, offer statistically significant improvements in handling work-in-progress (WIP) limits and reducing bottlenecks compared to pure Scrum or Waterfall implementations. Furthermore, the integration of traditional governance with Agile execution via ontology alignment enhances Teamwork Quality (TWQ) by providing clear semantic structures that satisfy both executive reporting needs and developer flexibility.
Originality/value: This study contributes to the literature by providing a detailed mechanism for "how" hybridization occurs—not just as a random mixing of practices, but as a structured alignment of process ontologies. It validates the transition from "One Size Fits All" to context-specific, adaptive architectural frameworks in high-complexity software environments.
Downloads
References
Sai Nikhil Donthi (2025). A Scrumban Integrated Approach to Improve Software Development Process and Product Delivery. The American Journal of Interdisciplinary Innovations and Research, 7(09), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajiir/Volume07Issue09-07
Maneva, Magdalena and Koceska, Natasa and Koceski, Saso (2016) Introduction of Kanban methodology and its usage in software development. In: ITRO 2016, 10 June 2016, Zrenjanin, Serbia.
Maneva, Magdalena and Koceska, Natasa and Koceski, Saso (2017) Measuring agility in agile methodologies. Journal of Applied Economics and Business, 5 (3). pp. 21-30. ISSN 1857- 8721
Markovski, Goran and Koceska, Natasa and Koceski, Saso (2013) Improving enterprise efficiency using IT collaboration systems. Journal of Applied Economics and Business, 1 (4). pp. 95-103. ISSN 1857- 8721
McHugh, O., Hogan, M., 2011. Investigating the rationale for adopting an internationallyrecognised project management methodology in Ireland: The view of the project manager. Int. J. Proj.Manag. 29, 637–646.
Salah, A., Ramadan, N., Ahmed, H., 2017. Towards a Hybrid Approach for Software Project Management using Ontology Alignment. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 168, 12–19.
Agbejule, A., and L. Lehtineva. 2022. “The Relationship betweenTraditional Project Management, Agile Project Management andTeamwork Quality on Project Success.” International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis 30 (7): 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2022-3149.
Azenha, C. F., A. D. Reis, and L. A. Fleury. 2021. “The Role andCharacteristics of Hybrid Approaches to Project Management in theDevelopment of Technology-Based Products and Services.” ProjectManagement Journal 52 (1): 90–110.
Bashir, H., U. Ojiako, A. Marshall, M. Chipulu, and A. A. Yousif. 2022. “TheAnalysis of Information Flow Interdependencies within Projects.”1202 M. MIRZAEI ET AL.Production Planning & Control 33 (1): 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1821115.
Baxter, D., and N. Turner. 2021. “Why Scrum Works in New ProductDevelopment: The Role of Social Capital in Managing Complexity.”Production Planning & Control 34 (13): 1248–1260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1997291.
Bianchi, M. J., and D. C. Amaral. 2020. “A Systematic Review ofAssociation Rules in Project Management: opportunities for HybridModels.” Product Management & Development 18 (2): 136–144. https://doi.org/10.4322/pmd.2020.033.
Bianchi, M. J., E. C. Conforto, E. Rebentisch, C. D. Amaral, S. O. Rezende,and R. de Padua. 2022. “Recommendation of Project ManagementPractices: A Contribution to Hybrid Models.” IEEE Transactions onEngineering Management 69 (6): 3558–3571. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3101179.
Burgan, S. C., and D. S. Burgan. 2014. “One Size Does Not Fit All:Choosing the Right Project Approach.” Paper Presented at PMIVR GlobalCongress 2014—North America, Phoenix, AZ. Newtown Square, PA:Project Management Institute.
Burns, T., and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation.London, England: Tavistock.
Ahlemann, F., F. El Arbi, M. G. Kaiser, and A. Heck. 2012. “A ProcessFramework for Theoretically Grounded Prescriptive Research in theProject Management Field.” International Journal of ProjectManagement 31 (1): 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.008.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. Elias Thorne (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
