Software project complexity and project success: Mediating role of project dynamism and moderating role of agility-based project management

Razzaq, Mahram; Hanif, Aamer; Afzal, Nimra Article Software project complexity and project success: Mediating role of project dynamism and moderating role of agility-based project management Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS) Provided in Cooperation with: Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK) Suggested Citation: Razzaq, Mahram; Hanif, Aamer; Afzal, Nimra (2025) : Software project complexity and project success: Mediating role of project dynamism and moderating role of agility-based project management, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, Vol. 19, Iss. 3, pp. 522-542, https://doi.org/10.64534/Commer.2025.515 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/330360 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 2025, Vol. 19(3), 522-542 https://doi.org/10.64534/Commer.2025.515 Software Project Complexity and Project Success: Mediating Role of Project Dynamism and Moderating Role of Agility-Based Project Management Mahram Razzaq1, Aamer Hanif 2, Nimra Afzal3 1 Tecbrix Cloud, Garhoud, Dubai, UAE 2 NUST Business School, National University of Sciences & Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan 3 Faculty of Management Sciences, Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan *Corresponding author’s Email: [email protected] Article History Received: 30 June 2025 Revised: 23 Sept 2025 Accepted: 26 Sept 2025 Published: 30 Sept 2025 Abstract This article examines the relationship between project complexity and project success while investigating the mediating role of project dynamism, and the moderating role of agility-based project management approach with the application of contingency theory. Quantitative approach has been used for data collection and analysis throughout this study. Data was collected [n = 341] from employees working at different management levels in software project-based firms across Pakistan. For data analysis, SPSS Process Macro was used with simple mediation (model 4) and moderated mediation analysis (model 14). The moderated mediation model 14 depicted that project complexity does not have a significant negative effect on a project’s success, whereas project dynamism mediates the relationship between project complexity and project success. Furthermore, the agility-based project management approach plays a vital role being the only moderator between project dynamism and project success. The present study findings suggested to policy or decisions makers that adoption of agility-based project management practices in dynamic environment can significantly enhance the chances of project success. This study has highlighted the concern that projects with greater number of complexities and dynamism should be handled using agility-based project management approach in order to achieve project success. Organizations must learn implementing agility-based project management approach for projects that are both complex and dynamic in nature. Keywords: Project dynamism, software projects, agile project management, project success, project complexity. 1. Introduction Rapid technological progress in the software industry has significantly increased the complexity of software-based projects. Coupled with rapid changes that take place in organizations, projects frequently experience alteration in identified scopes, leading to Razzaq, Hanif & Afzal 523 repeated re-works, recycling of project phases, inclusion of contingencies that involve additional costs, and inherent risk of failure in terms of both application and currency (Cooper & Sommer, 2016; Boehm, 2002). The desire of clients to include intricacies and refinements at different stages of projects has driven the transition from traditional practices to agile practices in recent years (Grepan, 2025; Jabar et al., 2019). As a response to this shift, research on agile practices has been conducted on a global scale with assistance from multiple teams to meet the growing demand of the software industry and to solidify guidelines for the smooth implementation of agile practices, particularly in large and complex projects (Shastri et al., 2021). This background sets the stage for understanding why agility has emerged as a central approach in managing dynamically complex projects. Several studies have been conducted to understand the negative effects of different elements present in projects (Al-Mohammad et al., 2023; Kukah et al., 2022). These elements directly impact the success of projects, which has been explained as the extent to which a project achieves its established goals, meets schedule requirements, stays within the allocated budget, ensures quality control, and maintains efficiency and overall productivity (Butler et al., 2020; Monserrat et al., 2025). Prior research (Li et al., 2022; TASA et al., 2023) confirmed that two problematic factors—project complexity and project dynamism—have the most profound influence on project outcomes. Scholars such as Ahsan et al. 2022 and Marnewick et al. 2017 emphasized that the intertwined nature of complexity and dynamism makes it nearly impossible to perform reliable forecasting, which is a core necessity for achieving project success. This difficulty strengthens the rationale for exploring adaptive project management approaches capable of managing uncertainty while still enabling project success. Earlier research in this field has predominantly relied on case studies and scenario-based investigations, most of which were qualitative in nature. While such studies provided valuable insights into the significance of aligning project factors with appropriate project management approaches (Batra et al., 2010; Boehm & Turner, 2005) they left certain gaps unaddressed. Specifically, the moderating role of agility-based project management approach (APMA) in managing the relationship between project dynamism and project success has not been thoroughly investigated. Furthermore, although international literature highlights the benefits of agile methodologies, there is a lack of quantitative, empirical research that investigates how these methodologies actually impact the success of dynamically complex projects in practice. This limitation is even more pronounced when considering the context of Pakistan, where software firms often face challenges in coping with complexity and dynamism due to limited familiarity and lesser experience with APMA. The scarcity of such research in the Pakistani context establishes a clear and significant research gap. To address this research gap, the present study sets out to examine three specific objectives. First, it investigates the impact of project complexity on project success. Second, it Software Project Complexity and Project Success 524 explores whether project dynamism mediates the relationship between project complexity and project success. Third, it examines whether the agility-based project management approach moderates the relationship between project dynamism and project success (Chow & Cao, 2008; Young et al., 2016). The focus on software project-based firms in Pakistan allows this study to provide insights that are both contextually relevant and practically valuable. In doing so, the study not only develops a deeper understanding of the dynamics between complexity, dynamism, and success but also extends the empirical foundation of project management research. The usefulness of this study lies in its potential contributions to both theory and practice. Theoretically, it builds upon contingency theory by examining how the selection of project management approaches should depend on specific project characteristics. By empirically testing the role of APMA, the study enhances the literature on project complexity, project dynamism, and their combined influence on success. It enriches existing knowledge by going beyond descriptive and case-based accounts and offering a quantitative, evidencebased perspective on how firms can respond effectively to complexity and change. Practically, the study provides guidance to firms that are struggling to achieve success in dynamically complex environments by offering evidence on the benefits of adopting agile practices. For Pakistani software firms, which often lack experience in implementing APMA, these insights can be especially valuable in informing management strategies. The implications of this research extend to multiple stakeholders. For project managers, the study offers insights into how agility can be leveraged to counter the negative effects of complexity and dynamism, thereby improving the likelihood of achieving project success. For practitioners and employees, the study underscores the importance of training and capacity building in agile concepts, ensuring that skilled manpower is equipped to navigate uncertainty and dynamic change. For policymakers and leaders in the software industry, the findings provide a stimulus to design initiatives that promote the adoption of agile methodologies and support organizational learning. From an academic perspective, this study contributes to the line of inquiry on project complexity and success by filling a context-specific research gap and advancing empirical evidence on APMA. In summary, the study contributes to project management literature by focusing on a critical and under-researched area: the interplay between project complexity, project dynamism, and project success in the context of Pakistan’s software industry. By exploring the moderating role of agility-based project management approaches, it adds depth to the understanding of how adaptive methodologies can safeguard projects against the risks of failure that often accompany complexity and dynamism. The insights derived from this study will enrich academic literature, provide practical tools for managers, and inform broader organizational strategies aimed at improving project performance in rapidly evolving environments. The importance of this study lies not only in its academic contribution but also in its practical implications for organizations striving to remain Razzaq, Hanif & Afzal 525 competitive and successful in the face of ever-increasing technological and organizational challenges. The paper is organized as follows: After identifying the study’s objectives and implications, the theoretical context and hypotheses development are presented in the second section. The next sections present data collection methods, findings, and discussion. Finally, the study's conclusion is presented together with its limitations and suggested future directions. 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development 2.1 Underpinning Theory The present study research model is based on contingency theory. As this theory is developed by (Fiedler, 1964). In 2001 (Donaldson, 2001) claimed that it can be used for organizational effectiveness. The contingency theory emphasizes that there is no best way to manage, rather it depends on the fit between context. In simple words, there is no universal approach to manage organizational effectiveness, decision making regarding organizations depends on context. In the context of project management, this theory emphasizes that the need of flexible and adaptive strategies for project with high degree of complexity and dynamism. Agility-based project management is iterative and flexible approach that can change in accordance with requirements and context, which is effective for complex and dynamic environment. According to the theoretical lens of contingency theory, the study proposes a model where project complexity cause dynamism that negatively influence the success of a project. However, agility-based project management mitigates the adverse effects of complexity and dynamic environment on the project success in the context of software industry. 2.2 Project Complexity and Project Success Project complexity based on diverse 'difficulty' factors in particular project prominence, accountability, precision of scope and criticality of a project (Wozniak, 1993). (Morcov et al., 2021) defined project complexity as something which creates difficulty in understanding, anticipating and managing a project’s behavior, even when reasonable amount of information is provided regarding the project. A higher degree of project complexity infers to the presence of additional dependencies and difficulties in executing and supervising the project. In case of software-based projects, the degree of complexity is a function of its scope and technical requirements. According to (Jaiswal et al., 2025; Nguyen & Mohamed, 2020), project complexity tends to be a critical factor in managing projects because it adds more trouble in accomplishing the aim of the project. (Elia et al., 2020) stated that complexity affects the projects processes and their outcome. Higher number of requirements equate to more complex projects. (Ominde et al., 2025; Zolin et al., 2009) views a complex project as one which involves inconsistencies in various fields of PM at different stages of currency of a project, thereby Software Project Complexity and Project Success 526 affecting the project in terms of controls and smooth management with lowest level of predictions for its success. Consequently, (Damasiotis et al., 2018) outlines that softwarebased projects are complex by nature and in most cases their outcome is uncertain. Similarly, project success has always been controversially discussed in the literature. (Butler et al., 2020; Rehman, 2020) defines project success as the degree to which a project achieves its recognized goals, such as its schedule, obligatory requirements, costs to be incurred, allocated budget, quality control, efficiency, and overall productivity. (Hoxha & Mcmahan, 2019; Luo et al., 2020) states that project success is regarded as the vital goal which is pursued by the project team members and all stakeholders in project management. Attributing factors identified by (Iriarte & Bayona, 2020) for success of a project include trust, keenness and seamless & uninterrupted communication between all stakeholders which are instrumental in effective and efficient progression during each phase of development of the project. According to (Tam et al., 2020) time, cost, and quality are recognized as the iron triangle of project management and these measures are used to evaluate project success whereas, (Radhakrishnan et al., 2022) argued that actual measure of the success of a project is found in client’s satisfaction. Moreover, an undesirable influence on the success triggers by adding more to scope and requirements of the project. An increased number of requirements means more complexity involved which results in delays in completion of the project (Clark, 1989). Existing literature indicates that project complexity has a negative effect on project success. Projects also fail due to prevailing complexities in a project which are able to cause cost overruns (Kaming et al., 2010). The presence of complexities in a project tends to enhance risks associated to the success of the project. Considering the aforementioned information, the following hypothesis has been proposed: ➢ H1: Project complexity will have a significant effect on project success. 2.3 Project Complexity, Project Dynamism and Project Success Project dynamism refers to the “Rapid Changes” made or encountered in a project (Collyer & Warren, 2009). (Maylor et al., 2008) defines project dynamism in terms of inconsistency and variability whereas, (Geraldi & Adlbrecht, 2007) suggest that project dynamism relates to the sum of variations in scope and the negative effects it induces upon the success of the project. Projects that go through constant changes in scope are considered as highly dynamic projects. These highly dynamic projects are prone to greater postponements in schedule and unexpected incurred costs (Reichelt & Lyneis, 1999), which are presumed as a threat to the success of a project (Collyer et al., 2013). However, in certain projects, it has been experienced that dynamism due to supportive technological advancements and downward revision of scope by the end users have simplified the scope of project thereby facilitating the project’s success both in terms of costs and duration of the project. Furthermore, in some cases a ripple effect of reworks is produced in projects where continuous and frequent changes in scope and requirements is observed (Chritamara et al., 2001; Mookerjee & Chiang, 2002). (Wang et al., 2017) stated that unforeseen events are Razzaq, Hanif & Afzal 527 always present while working on projects. These unforeseen events can only be conceived or examined once the project starts to progress, thus from this perspective it is quite evident that project dynamism has a significant negative effect on project success. (Maylor et al., 2008) suggested that project dynamism refers to the number of changes and their effect on scope and client’s requirements. Frequent changes in the project scope also causes negative impact on team morale which subsequently effects the success of the project (Thamhain, 2004). Project complexity is not the only challenge software-based firms face while executing projects but dynamism is also a formidable barrier to project’s success (Butler et al., 2020). It was abstracted in many researches that the term project dynamism is one dimension of project complexity. Dynamic characteristics if present in a project, result into uncontrollable large changes (Jabar et al., 2019). (Tam et al., 2020) suggested that dynamism can be handled by establishing a cooperative working connection between the client and project manager, with both perceiving the project as a partnership. (Wu et al., 2021) pointed out that the complex nature of the project (i.e., project complexity) and consecutive changes (i.e., project dynamism) make it nearly impossible to perform reliable forecasting in order to achieve success for the project. Therefore, following hypothesis has been proposed: ➢ H2: Project dynamism will mediate the relationship between project complexity and project success. 2.4 Moderating Effect of APMA on the Relationship Between Project Dynamism and Project Success The agility-based project management approach (APMA) is also known to be a changedriven approach (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). According to (Baskerville & Pries-Heje, 2004) this approach focuses on life cycles of projects which have a tendency of being adaptive in nature as projects tend to face fluctuations in assumptions, incremental increase in requirements, and quite a few limitations and constraints. APMA is viewed to be more about swiftly managing the variation in requirements linked with the uncertainty present in a project, while becoming a positive force for both the project and the project team (Jugdev & Müller, 2005; Sandstø & Reme-Ness, 2021) According to (Morcov et al., 2020) in today’s dynamic environment, projects experience more issues relating to complexity and dynamism, which are observed through numerous methods used for acquiring tools and technologies during the development process. In APMA, elementary outcomes are defined, initial targets are established, and the project outcomes are consistently revisited & further refined using an adaptive process (Gemino et al., 2020). (Trippensee & Remané, 2021) emphasized upon the need for organizing meetings for the entire organization, wherein the project management team, developers and agile trainers can collectively share ideas and define core agile values. As APMA is more Software Project Complexity and Project Success 528 about managing and dealing with the negative effects of complexity and uncertainty (i.e., dynamism), present in a project (Dybå et al., 2014). Henceforth, in order to adjust to technological advancements, projects’ changing scope and clients’ requirements, agile practices must be adopted. (Collyer et al., 2010) stated that project complexity is solely managed by project teams using the conventional project management approaches although implementing agility-based project management approach will facilitate project teams in managing dynamically complex projects with greater efficiency. Therefore, it has been agreed by many researchers that agility-based project management approach helps overcome dynamism through adaptation, improvisation and incremental and iterative processes (Cao et al., 2009; Harris et al., 2009). In this regard, contingency theory supports the phenomenon that there is no single practice or method to handle the complexities and their impact on project success due to various characteristics or a project and its dynamic atmosphere. However, agility-based project management is considered as effective and vital approach for managing complexities and dynamic environment of projects, as it provides framework and enables firms to quickly adapt changes and flexibility in their processes in accordance with the situation and characteristics of a project (Ahimbisibwe et al., 2015; Conforto et al., 2016). Hence, the following hypothesis has been proposed: ➢ H3: Agility-based project Management approach will moderate the relationship between project dynamism and project success in such a way that this relationship will be weak when agility-based project management approach is high. Based on the above literature of existing studies, the conceptual model developed for this study is shown in Fig 1. Figure 1: Proposed Research Framework Razzaq, Hanif & Afzal 529 3. Research Methodology 3.1 Data Collection and Sample Size The data was gathered through a self-administered questionnaire using purposive sampling technique since the researchers wanted to use their best judgment in selecting participants for the survey (Black, 2010). The questionnaire was forwarded to suitably experienced employees working in the field of software all across Pakistan. Some participants received it by email and some received a direct link to the created questionnaire on google form. Six hundred fifty questionnaires were distributed out of which 390 were received back however only 341 were usable after removing outliers. Hence, the final sample size of the study was 341 constituting a response rate of 52%. The authors took into account each respondent's autonomy when conducting this study, and everyone's response to the survey was optional. Participants' anonymity was expressly guaranteed. Everyone was made aware that their answers and identities would be kept strictly confidential and used solely for this study. In the questionnaire, there were two main sections. The first section comprised of all the demographic information such as gender, level of management, and total job experience. 75% of the participants were male and 25% were female. 53% of participants were in a middle-level management position, 27% of participants were in a top-level management position whereas, 20% of participants were in a lower-level management position. 50% of participants had a total job experience between zero to five years, 20% of participants had a total job experience between six to ten years, 28% of participants had a total job experience between eleven to fifteen years and lastly 2% of participants had a total job experience between sixteen to twenty years. 3.2 Measures The second section of the questionnaire covered items from each variable i.e., project complexity, project dynamism, APMA and project success. The items from each variable were to contribute towards acquiring data relevant to the subject of the study. For all study variables, a five-point response scale for measurement was used, where 1 represents “strongly disagree” and 5 represents “strongly agree”. Project complexity was measured via a 3 items scale, developed by (Butler et al., 2020). A sample item is “Project complexity was high”. Project dynamism was developed by (Butler et al., 2020) using a 3 items scale for measurement. The items for Project Dynamism were reverse coded. A sample item is “Scope was clearly defined”. Agility-based project management approach (APMA) was measured via a 10 items scale, derived from (Butler et al., 2020). A sample item was “The project team anticipated and adapted to changing assumptions, constraints, and requirements”. Project success was measured using a 10 items scale, derived from (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; White & Fortune, 2002). A sample item was “The project met reliability goals.” Software Project Complexity and Project Success 536 the dynamic environment project complexities significantly and negatively influence success of a project. This finding significantly contributes to the contingency theory and highlights dynamic environment can create hurdles for projects. In case of agility-based project management it can undermine the effects of complexity and dynamism. This outcome emphasizes adaptability, flexibility and agility as vital contingencies for project success. Similar to every other research, this study also inherits a few limitations. The respondents for this study were based in Pakistan, and the study was conducted only for project-based software firms. As this study only focused on one industry, the results obtained only specify the projects which are software technology-related projects. Future studies could be replication of study in various contexts or countries like developed and underdeveloped to strengthen and validate the findings generalizability. This research can also be conducted to validate results from other industries such as construction, and telecom. Furthermore, future research could also focus specifically on examining the influence of agile project management on project performance with the application of resource-based view. This could produce some interesting differences in project management approaches and project outcomes. Lastly, future studies can statistically determine the moderating role of organizational support. Research Funding The authors received no research grant or support for this research study. REFERENCES Ahimbisibwe, A., Cavana, R. Y., & Daellenbach, U. (2015). A contingency fit model of critical success factors for software development projects: A comparison of agile and traditional plan-based methodologies. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(1), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2013-0060 Ahsan, Q., Abdullah, M. I., Chughtai, M. A., & Hafeez, H. (2022). The impact of project managers’ transformational leadership on work crafting: explaining a moderating role of environmental dynamism in software project teams. Middle East J. of Management, 9(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1504/MEJM.2022.119354 Al-Mohammad, M. S., Haron, A. T., Aloko, M. N., & Rahman, R. A. (2023). Factors affecting BIM implementation in post-conflict low-income economies: the case of Afghanistan. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 21(1), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-04-2021-0205 Barry, C., & Lang, M. (2003). A comparison of ‘traditional’ and multimedia information systems development practices. Information and Software Technology, 45(4), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(02)00207-0 Razzaq, Hanif & Afzal 537 Baskerville, R. L., & Pries-Heje, J. (2004). Short cycle time systems development. Information Systems Journal, 14(3), 237–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.13652575.2004.00171.X Batra, D., Xia, W., van der Meer, D., & Dutta, K. (2010). Balancing Agile and Structured Development Approaches to Successfully Manage Large Distributed Software Projects: A Case Study from the Cruise Line Industry. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02721 Bergmann, T., & Karwowski, W. (2019). Agile project management and project success: A literature review. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 783, 405–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94709-9_39 Black, K. (2010). Business Statistics For Contemporary Decision Making 6th edition. Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 22(5), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2005.129 Boonstra, A., & Reezigt, C. (2023). A Complexity Framework for Project Management Strategies. Project Management Journal, 54(3), 253-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728221142229 Butler, C. W., Vijayasarathy, L. R., & Roberts, N. (2020). Managing Software Development Projects for Success: Aligning Planand Agility-Based Approaches to Project Complexity and Project Dynamism. Project Management Journal, 51(3), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819848251 Cao, L., Mohan, K., Xu, P., & Ramesh, B. (2009). A framework for adapting agile development methodologies. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(4), 332–343. https://doi.org/10.1057/EJIS.2009.26 Chakko, J. P., Huygh, T., & De Haes, S. (2021). Achieving Agility in IT Project Portfolios – A Systematic Literature Review. In Lean and Agile Software Development: 5th International Conference, LASD 2021, 408(January), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783-030-67084-9_5 Chow, T., & Cao, D. B. (2008). A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(6), 961–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSS.2007.08.020 Chritamara, S., Ogunlana, S. O., & Luong Bach, N. (2001). Investigating the effect of initial scope establishment on the performance of a project through system dynamics modelling. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(5–6), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/EB021198 Software Project Complexity and Project Success 538 Ciric, D., Delic, M., Lalic, B., Gracanin, D., & Lolic, T. (2021). Exploring the link between project management approach and project success dimensions: A structural model approach. Advances in Production Engineering and Management, 16(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.14743/apem2021.1.387 Clark, K. B. (1989). Project Scope and Project Performance: The Effect of Parts Strategy and Supplier Involvement on Product Development. Management Science, 35(10), 1247– 1263. https://doi.org/10.1287/MNSC.35.10.1247 Collyer, S., Management, C. W.-I. J. of P., & 2009, undefined. (2013). Project management approaches for dynamic environments. Elsevier, 27(4), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.004 Collyer, S., Warren, C., Hemsley, B., & Stevens, C. (2010). Aim, Fire, Aim—Project Planning Styles in Dynamic Environments. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/PMJ.20199 Collyer, S., & Warren, C. M. J. (2009). Project management approaches for dynamic environments. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2008.04.004 Conforto, E. C., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., Di Felippo, A., & Kamikawachi, D. S. L. (2016). The agility construct on project management theory. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 660–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.007 Cooper, R. G., & Sommer, A. F. (2016). The Agile–Stage-Gate Hybrid Model: A Promising New Approach and a New Research Opportunity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(5), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/JPIM.12314 Damasiotis, V., Fitsilis, P., & O’Kane, J. F. (2018). Modeling Software Development Process Complexity. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 9(4), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITPM.2018100102 Donaldson, L. (2001). The Contingency Theory of Organizations. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229249 Dybå, T., Dingsoyr, T., & Moe, N. B. (2014). Agile project management. [chapter in] Software Project Management in a Changing World, 9783642550355, 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55035-5_11 Elia, G., Margherita, A., & Secundo, G. (2020). Project management canvas: a systems thinking framework to address project complexity. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(4), 809–835. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-04-2020-0128 Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1(C), 149–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00652601(08)60051-9 Razzaq, Hanif & Afzal 539 Floricel, S., Piperca, S., & Tee, R. (2018). Strategies for Managing the Structural and Dynamic Consequences of Project Complexity. Complexity, 2018(1), 3190251. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3190251 Gemino, A., Horner Reich, B., & Serrador, P. M. (2020). Agile, Traditional, and Hybrid Approaches to Project Success: Is Hybrid a Poor Second Choice? Project Management Journal, 52(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820973082 Geraldi, J. G., & Adlbrecht, G. (2007). On Faith, Fact, and Interaction in Projects. Project Management Journal , 38(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800104 Grepan, V. (2025). Approaches to Implementing Agile Within Traditional Project Management Standards. The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations, 07(05), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajmei/Volume07Issue05-09 Harris, M. L., Collins, R. W., & Hevner, A. R. (2009). Control of Flexible Software Development Under Uncertainty. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1287/ISRE.1090.0240 Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100 Hoxha, L., & Mcmahan, C. (2019). The Influence of Project Manager’s Age on Project Success. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 9(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-2019-0003 Iriarte, C., & Bayona, S. (2020). IT projects success factors: a literature review. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 8(2), 49-78. https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm080203 Jabar, M. A., Abdullah, S., Jusoh, Y. Y., Mohanarajah, S., & Ali, N. M. (2019). Adaptive and dynamic characteristics in hybrid agile management model for software development project success. International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems, ICRIIS, December-2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRIIS48246.2019.9073337 Jaiswal, A., Raikwal, J., & Raikwal, P. (2025). Importance of Addressing Complexity Factors to Improve Project Success Rates and the Overall Effectiveness of Software Development (pp. 734–746). https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-716-8_55 Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A Retrospective look at our Evolving Understanding of Project Success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600403 Kaming, P. F., Olomolaiye, P. O., Holt, G. D., & Harris, F. C. (2010). Factors influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia. Construction Management and Economics, 15(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461997373132 Software Project Complexity and Project Success 540 Keyworth, C., Epton, T., Goldthorpe, J., Calam, R., & Armitage, C. J. (2020). Acceptability, reliability, and validity of a brief measure of capabilities, opportunities, and motivations (“COM-B”). British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(3), 474–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJHP.12417 Kukah, A. S. K., Owusu-Manu, D. G., Badu, E., & Edwards, D. J. (2022). Delphi study for evaluating critical success factors (CSFs) for PPP power projects in Ghana. Journal of Facilities Management, 22(5), 828-848. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-04-2022-0040 Li, W., Yuan, J., Zhang, G., Wei, S., Zhang, B., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2022). Agent-Based Simulation Modeling for the Evaluation and Dynamic Adjustment of Project Benefits in Urban Rail Transit PPPs. Journal of Management in Engineering, 39(2), 04022074. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMENEA.MEENG-4682 Luo, L., He, Q., Xie, J., Yang, D., & Wu, G. (2017). Investigating the Relationship between Project Complexity and Success in Complex Construction Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 33(2), 04016036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.19435479.0000471 Luo, L., Zhang, L., & He, Q. (2020). Linking project complexity to project success: a hybrid SEM–FCM method. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(9), 2591–2614. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2019-0241 Ma, L., & Fu, H. (2020). Exploring the influence of project complexity on the mega construction project success: a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) method. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(9), 2429–2449. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-12-2019-0679 Marnewick, C., Erasmus, W., & Nazeer, J. (2017). The symbiosis between information system project complexity and information system project success (p 184). Publisher: AOSIS. https://doi.org/10.4102/aosis.2017.itpsc45 Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., & Carver, S. (2008). Managerial Complexity in Project-Based Operations: A Grounded Model and Its Implications for Practice. Project Management Journal, 39(1_suppl), S15–S26. https://doi.org/10.1002/PMJ.20057 Monserrat, M., Mas, A., & Mesquida, A. L. (2025). A Study of Factors That Influence the Software Project Success. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 37(2), e2735. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.2735 Mookerjee, V. S., & Chiang, I. R. (2002). A dynamic coordination policy for software system construction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(7), 684–694. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2002.1019482 Morcov, S., Pintelon, L., & Kusters, R. (2020). Definitions, characteristics and measures of it project complexity-a systematic literature review. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.12821/ijispm080201 Razzaq, Hanif & Afzal 541 Morcov, S., Pintelon, L., & Kusters, R. J. (2021). A Practical Assessment of Modern IT Project Complexity Management Tools: Taming Positive, Appropriate, Negative Complexity. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 12(3), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITPM.2021070106 Nguyen, T. S., & Mohamed, S. (2020). Interactive Effects of Agile Response-to-Change and Project Complexity on Project Performance. In The 10th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1910-9_26 Ominde, D., Ochieng, E. G., & Zuofa, T. (2025). Multilateral analysis of stakeholder integration, project complexity and project performance on information technology (IT) projects. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 74(3), 709– 740. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2024-0135 Penny, K. I. (1996). Appropriate Critical Values When Testing for a Single Multivariate Outlier by Using the Mahalanobis Distance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 45(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2986224 Radhakrishnan, A., Zaveri, J., David, D., & Davis, J. S. (2022). The impact of project team characteristics and client collaboration on project agility and project success: An empirical study. European Management Journal, 40(5), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EMJ.2021.09.011 Rehman, S. U. (2020). Impact of Inclusive Leadership on Project Success. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 10(2), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-2020-0011 Reichelt, K. S., & Lyneis, J. (1999). The dynamics of project performance: benchmarking the drivers of cost and schedule overrun. European Management Journal, 17(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(98)00073-5 Sandstø, R., & Reme-Ness, C. (2021). Agile Practices and Impacts on Project Success. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 11(3), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.2478/jeppm-2021-0024 Serrador, P., & Pinto, J. K. (2015). Does Agile work? — A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2015.01.006 Shafique, M., Khan, M. Z., & Rahman, A. (2023). The impact of project complexity on project success with the mediating role of team performance. International Journal of Business and Management Sciences, 4(1), 181–202. Shastri, Y., Hoda, R., & Amor, R. (2021). The role of the project manager in agile software development projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 173, 110871. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSS.2020.110871 Software Project Complexity and Project Success 542 Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Project Management Research—The Challenge and Opportunity. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800210 Tam, C., Moura, E. J. da C., Oliveira, T., & Varajão, J. (2020). The factors influencing the success of on-going agile software development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38(3), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2020.02.001 Tasa, O., Gholabchi, M., & Ravanshadnia, M. (2023). Evaluating the Response to Risks in Complex Construction Projects Using the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method. Industrial Management Journal, 15(2), 335-364. Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Linkages of project environment to performance: lessons for team leadership. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2004.04.005 Trippensee, L., & Remané, G. (2021). Practices for Large-Scale Agile Transformations: A Systematic Literature Review. AMCIS 2021 Proceedings. Wang, L., Kunc, M., & Bai, S. jun. (2017). Realizing value from project implementation under uncertainty: An exploratory study using system dynamics. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2017.01.009 White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project management — an empirical study. International Journal of Project Management, 20(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00029-6 Wozniak, T. M. (1993). Significance vs. capability:" Fit for use" project controls. AACE International Transactions, 20(1), 1-11. Wu, G., Hu, Z., Zheng, J., Zhao, X., & Zuo, J. (2021). Effects of structure characteristics of project network on conflicts and project success. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(1), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-20190129 Young, D. K., Beebe, N. L., Dietrich, G., & Liu, C. Z. (2016). An Empirical Examination of an Agile Contingent Project/Method Fit Model. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 39(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03914 Zolin, R., Turner, R., & Remington, K. (2009). A model of project complexity: distinguishing dimensions of complexity from severity. In International research network of project management conference (IRNOP) (pp. 1-30).