Home / Current Issue / Paper 1708520
Systematic Review of Performance Metrics in Agile and Traditional Project Management
Subject area: Science,Engineering and Technology · Area of research: Agile Project Management
Abstract
The evolving landscape of project management has witnessed the parallel growth of Agile and Traditional methodologies, each offering distinct frameworks, tools, and success criteria. This systematic review aims to explore and evaluate the performance metrics employed in both Agile and Traditional project management practices, with the goal of identifying convergences, divergences, and performance implications across varying project environments. By critically analyzing peer-reviewed literature, empirical studies, and industrial reports published between 2010 and 2020, this review synthesizes insights from over 80 sources using PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological rigor. The findings reveal that Traditional project management, often associated with Waterfall and other linear models, emphasizes scope, cost, schedule adherence, and quality as primary performance indicators. In contrast, Agile methodologies prioritize velocity, customer satisfaction, team responsiveness, and adaptability to change. While Agile metrics such as sprint burndown charts and lead time enhance flexibility and rapid delivery, Traditional metrics like earned value management and critical path analysis remain instrumental for governance, planning accuracy, and resource control. A significant insight from the review is the emerging trend of hybrid models that integrate metrics from both paradigms to balance flexibility with control. Additionally, the review highlights the contextual relevance of metrics; for instance, Agile metrics perform better in software development and innovation-driven projects, whereas Traditional metrics are more effective in infrastructure and highly regulated environments. The study also identifies gaps in the literature, such as inconsistent definitions of success, limited cross-industry comparative studies, and underrepresentation of stakeholder satisfaction and long-term project impact as performance criteria. This systematic review concludes that no single set of metrics is universally superior. Instead, metric selection should align with organizational goals, project complexity, and stakeholder expectations. Future research is recommended to develop adaptive metric frameworks that can dynamically respond to changing project variables and organizational maturity.
Keywords
Agile Project Management, Traditional Project Management, Performance Metrics, Systematic Review, Hybrid Methodologies, PRISMA, Project Success Criteria, Earned Value, Sprint Velocity, Stakeholder Satisfaction.
References
[1] AL-Shboul, M. (2018). Towards better understanding of determinants logistical factors in smes for cloud erp adoption in developing economies. Business Process Management Journal, 25(5), 887-907. https://doi.org/10.1108/bpmj-01-2018-0004
[2] Alvarez-Dionisi, L. (2016). Toward defining the vibrant concept of agile project management. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 7(4), 38-51. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijitpm.2016100103
[3] Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Management Journal, 30(4), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697289903000405
[4] Baijens, J., Helms, R., & İren, D. (2020). Applying scrum in data science projects., 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1109/cbi49978.2020.00011
[5] Barbalho, S., Carvalho, V., Silva, G., & Toledo, J. (2016). Analyzing the impact of the functions of project management offices on triple constraints performance of new product projects. Product Management & Development, 14(2), 85-94. https://doi.org/10.4322/pmd.2016.009
[6] Bechini, A., Cimino, M., Marcelloni, F., & Tomasi, A. (2008). Patterns and technologies for enabling supply chain traceability through collaborative e-business. Information and Software Technology, 50(4), 342-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.017
[7] Besner, C. and Hobbs, B. (2008). Project management practice, generic or contextual: a reality check. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 16-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20033
[8] Bogdanova, M., Parashkevova, E., & Stoyanova, M. (2020). Agile project management in public sector–methodological aspects. Journal of European economy, 19(2), 283-298.
[9] Carrión, A., Caballer, M., Blanquer, I., Kotowski, N., Jardim, R., & Dávila, A. (2017). Managing workflows on top of a cloud computing orchestrator for using heterogeneous environments on e-science. International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 13(4), 375. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijwgs.2017.087326
[10] Chang, H. and Lu, S. (2013). Toward the integration of traditional and agile approaches. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2013.040202
[11] Dutta, A., Peng, G., & Choudhary, A. (2013). Risks in enterprise cloud computing: the perspective of it experts. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 53(4), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645649
[12] Emden, Z., Calantone, R., & Dröge, C. (2006). Collaborating for new product development: selecting the partner with maximum potential to create value. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), 330-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00205.x
[13] Faizi, S. and Rahman, S. (2019). Securing cloud computing through it governance. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3360869
[14] Ferreira, P., Shamsuzzoha, A., Toscano, C., & Cunha, P. (2012). Framework for performance measurement and management in a collaborative business environment. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(6), 672-690. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401211249210
[15] Fukazawa, Y., Sakamoto, K., Kuboaki, S., Washizaki, H., & Shiohama, R. (2016). Investigating the relationship between project constraints and appropriate iteration length in agile development through simulations. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 54(4), 311. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijcat.2016.10001351
[16] Fullerton, R. and Wempe, W. (2009). Lean manufacturing, non‐financial performance measures, and financial performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(3), 214-240. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570910938970
[17] Gandomani, T. and Nafchi, M. (2015). An empirically-developed framework for agile transition and adoption: a grounded theory approach. Journal of Systems and Software, 107, 204-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.06.006
[18] Gren, L., Torkar, R., & Feldt, R. (2015). The prospects of a quantitative measurement of agility: a validation study on an agile maturity model. Journal of Systems and Software, 107, 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.05.008
[19] Grundler, A. and Westner, M. (2019). Scaling agile frameworks vs. traditional roject portfolio management: comparison and analysis., 51-62. https://doi.org/10.33965/its2019_201901l007
[20] Hinkelmann, K., Gerber, A., Karagiannis, D., Thoenssen, B., Merwe, A., & Woitsch, R. (2016). A new paradigm for the continuous alignment of business and it: combining enterprise architecture modelling and enterprise ontology. Computers in Industry, 79, 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.009
[21] Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435-449. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635
[22] Huang, L., Liu, F., & Liu, C. (2013). Design and research on collaborative learning program based on cloud-services. Advanced Materials Research, 756-759, 1199-1203. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.756-759.1199
[23] Huijgens, H. and Solingen, R. (2014). A replicated study on correlating agile team velocity measured in function and story points., 30-36. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593868.2593874
[24] Idris, A. A., Asokere, A. S., Ajemunigbohun, S. S., Oreshile, A. S., & Olutade, E. O. (2012). An empirical study of the efficacy of marketing communication mix elements in selected insurance companies in Nigeria. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 2(5), 8.
[25] Ika, L. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20137
[26] Joslin, R. and Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1377-1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.005
[27] Khurum, M., Gorschek, T., & Wilson, M. (2012). The software value map — an exhaustive collection of value aspects for the development of software intensive products. Journal of Software Evolution and Process, 25(7), 711-741. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1560
[28] Koi-Akrofi, G., Akrofi, J., & Matey, H. (2019). Understanding the characteristics, benefits and challenges of agile it project management: a literature based perspective. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 10(5), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijsea.2019.10502
[29] Lappi, T., Karvonen, T., Lwakatare, L., Aaltonen, K., & Kuvaja, P. (2018). Toward an improved understanding of agile project governance. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 39-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818803482
[30] Law, K., Cheng, J., Fruchter, R., & Sriram, R. (2016). Engineering applications of the cloud., 489-504. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118821930.ch40
[31] Luftman, J. (2003). Assessing it - business alignment.. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420031393.ch1
[32] Lyneis, J. and Ford, D. (2007). System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research. System Dynamics Review, 23(2-3), 157-189. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.377
[33] Manikandasaran, S. S. (2016). Cloud computing with data confidentiality issues. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering, 5(1), 97-100.
[34] Mateo, R., Yang, H., & Lee, J. (2012). Collaboration framework based on social semantic web for cloud systems. Journal of Internet Computing and Services, 13(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.7472/jksii.2012.13.1.65
[35] McGregor, C. and Schiefer, J. (2004). A web-service based framework for analyzing and measuring business performance. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-003-0027-x
[36] Melander, L. (2017). Achieving sustainable development by collaborating in green product innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(8), 1095-1109. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1970
[37] Miller, G. (2019). Project management tasks in agile projects: a quantitative study., 18, 717-721. https://doi.org/10.15439/2019f117
[38] Milosevic, D. and Srivannaboon, S. (2006). A theoretical framework for aligning project management with business strategy. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 98-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280603700310
[39] Min, L., Zhao, D., & Yu, Y. (2015). Toe drivers for cloud transformation: direct or trust-mediated?. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 27(2), 226-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-03-2014-0040
[40] Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M., & Murray, A. (2004). Applying knowledge management principles to enhance cross‐functional team performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 127-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410541097
[41] Momm, C., Gebhart, M., & Abeck, S. (2009). A model-driven approach for monitoring business performance in web service compositions., 343-350. https://doi.org/10.1109/iciw.2009.57
[42] Mustapha, S. D., Adeoye, B. A. I., & AbdulWahab, R. (2017). Estimation of drivers’ critical gap acceptance and follow-up time at four-legged unsignalized intersection. CARD International Journal of Science and Advanced Innovative Research, 1(1), 98-107. CARD International Journal of Science and Advanced Innovative Research.
[43] Neelu, L., & Kavitha, D. (2020). Software development technique for the betterment of end user satisfaction using agile methodology. TEM Journal, 9(3), 992.
[44] Norta, A. and Grefen, P. (2007). Discovering patterns for inter-organizational business process collaboration. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 16(03n04), 507-544. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218843007001664
[45] Nussbaumer, N. and Liu, X. (2013). Cloud migration for smes in a service oriented approach., 457-462. https://doi.org/10.1109/compsacw.2013.71
[46] Oh, W., & Pinsonneault, A. (2007). On the Assessment of the Strategic Value of Information Technologies: Conceptual and Analytical Approaches. MIS Quarterly, 31(2), 239–265. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148790
[47] Olague, H., Etzkorn, L., Messimer, S., & Delugach, H. (2008). An empirical validation of object‐oriented class complexity metrics and their ability to predict error‐prone classes in highly iterative, or agile, software: a case study. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution Research and Practice, 20(3), 171-197. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.366
[48] Olamijuwon, O. J. (2020). Real-time Vision-based Driver Alertness Monitoring using Deep Neural Network Architectures (Master's thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (South Africa)).
[49] Olutade, E. O. (2020). Social media as a marketing strategy to influence young consumers' attitude towards fast-moving consumer goods: a comparative study (Doctoral dissertation, North-West University (South Africa)).
[50] Olutade, E. O., & Chukwuere, J. E. (2020). Greenwashing as Influencing Factor to Brand Switching Behavior Among Generation Y in the Social Media Age. In Green Marketing as a Positive Driver Toward Business Sustainability (pp. 219-248). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
[51] Olutade, E. O., Potgieter, M., & Adeogun, A. W. (2019). Effect of social media platforms as marketing strategy of achieving organisational marketing goals and objectives aong innovative consumers: Acomparative study. International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 8(1), 213-228.
[52] Oprins, R., Frijns, H., & Stettina, C. (2019). Evolution of scrum transcending business domains and the future of agile project management., 244-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19034-7_15
[53] Oprins, R., Frijns, H., & Stettina, C. (2019). Evolution of scrum transcending business domains and the future of agile project management., 244-259. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19034-7_15
[54] Oxley, J. and Pandher, G. (2015). Equity‐based incentives and collaboration in the modern multibusiness firm. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7), 1379-1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2392
[55] Paletta, M. and Herrero, P. (2010). An awareness-based learning model to deal with service collaboration in cloud computing., 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15034-0_6
[56] Pan, H., Wu, C., & Lin, S. (2013). The preliminary discussion about key problems of cross-organizational business process collaboration. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 411-414, 2148-2151. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.411-414.2148
[57] Panagiotou, G. and Wijnen, R. (2005). The “telescopic observations” framework: an attainable strategic tool. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(2), 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500510589912
[58] Park, J., An, G., & Chandra, D. (2007). Trusted p2p computing environments with role-based access control. Iet Information Security, 1(1), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-ifs:20060084
[59] Pavlou, P. and Sawy, O. (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 239-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00287.x
[60] Pearson, S. and Benameur, A. (2010). Privacy, security and trust issues arising from cloud computing., 693-702. https://doi.org/10.1109/cloudcom.2010.66
[61] Pellathy, D., Mollenkopf, D., Stank, T., & Autry, C. (2019). Cross‐functional integration: concept clarification and scale development. Journal of Business Logistics, 40(2), 81-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12206
[62] Pérez, A., Moltó, G., Caballer, M., & Calatrava, A. (2018). Serverless computing for container-based architectures. Future Generation Computer Systems, 83, 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.01.022
[63] Petrillo, A., Bona, G., Forcina, A., & Silvestri, A. (2018). Building excellence through the agile reengineering performance model (arpm). Business Process Management Journal, 24(1), 128-157. https://doi.org/10.1108/bpmj-03-2016-0071
[64] Poberschnigg, T., Pimenta, M., & Hilletofth, P. (2020). How can cross-functional integration support the development of resilience capabilities? the case of collaboration in the automotive industry. Supply Chain Management an International Journal, 25(6), 789-801. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm-10-2019-0390
[65] Pope-Ruark, R. (2014). Introducing agile project management strategies in technical and professional communication courses. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(1), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651914548456
[66] Pope-Ruark, R. (2014). Introducing agile project management strategies in technical and professional communication courses. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(1), 112-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651914548456
[67] Prange, C. and Hennig, A. (2019). From strategic planning to strategic agility patterns. Journal of Creating Value, 5(2), 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394964319867778
[68] Rajpoot, Q., Jensen, C., & Krishnan, R. (2015). Attributes enhanced role-based access control model., 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22906-5_1
[69] Rajpoot, Q., Jensen, C., & Krishnan, R. (2015). Integrating attributes into role-based access control., 242-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20810-7_17
[70] Redmond, J. and Walker, E. (2008). A new approach to small business training: community based education. Education + Training, 50(8/9), 697-712. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910810917073
[71] Ruotsala, R. (2014). Developing a tool for cross-functional collaboration: the trajectory of an annual clock. Outlines Critical Practice Studies, 15(2), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.7146/ocps.v15i2.16830
[72] Sabherwal, R. and Chan, Y. (2001). Alignment between business and is strategies: a study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. Information Systems Research, 12(1), 11-33. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.1.11.9714
[73] Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., & Goles, T. (2001). The dynamics of alignment: insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science, 12(2), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.179.10113
[74] Saini, H., Upadhyaya, A., & Khandelwal, M. (2019). Benefits of cloud computing for business enterprises: a review. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463631
[75] Salah, A., Ramadan, N., & Ahmed, H. (2017). Towards a hybrid approach for software project management using ontology alignment. International Journal of Computer Applications, 168(6), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2017914438
[76] Salah, A., Ramadan, N., & Ahmed, H. (2017). Towards a hybrid approach for software project management using ontology alignment. International Journal of Computer Applications, 168(6), 12-19. https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2017914438
[77] Sanders, N. (2007). An empirical study of the impact of e‐business technologies on organizational collaboration and performance. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1332-1347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.008
[78] Sandhu, R., Bhamidipati, V., Coyne, E., Ganta, S., & Youman, C. (1997). The arbac97 model for role-based administration of roles., 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1145/266741.266752
[79] Sandhu, R., Coyne, E., Feinstein, H., & Youman, C. (1996). Role-based access control models. Computer, 29(2), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.485845
[80] Sandhu, R., Ferraiolo, D., & Kühn, R. (2000). The nist model for role-based access control.. https://doi.org/10.1145/344287.344301
[81] Sarin, S. and McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross‐functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 707-739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5414.2003.02350.x
[82] Senarathna, I., Wilkin, C., Warren, M., Yeoh, W., & Salzman, S. (2018). Factors that influence adoption of cloud computing: an empirical study of australian smes. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 22. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v22i0.1603
[83] Shepperd, M. and Schofield, C. (1997). Estimating software project effort using analogies. Ieee Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(11), 736-743. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.637387
[84] Shepperd, M. and Schofield, C. (1997). Estimating software project effort using analogies. Ieee Transactions on Software Engineering, 23(11), 736-743. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.637387
[85] Skafi, M., Yunis, M., & Zekri, A. (2020). Factors influencing smes’ adoption of cloud computing services in lebanon: an empirical analysis using toe and contextual theory. Ieee Access, 8, 79169-79181. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2987331
[86] Sow, M. and Aborbie, S. (2018). Impact of leadership on digital transformation. Business and Economic Research, 8(3), 139. https://doi.org/10.5296/ber.v8i3.13368
[87] Subashini, S. and Kavitha, V. (2011). A survey on security issues in service delivery models of cloud computing. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 34(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2010.07.006
[88] Swink, M. and Schoenherr, T. (2014). The effects of cross‐functional integration on profitability, process efficiency, and asset productivity. Journal of Business Logistics, 36(1), 69-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12070
[89] Tereso, A., Ribeiro, P., Fernandes, G., Loureiro, I., & Ferreira, M. (2018). Project management practices in private organizations. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 6-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818810966
[90] Tereso, A., Ribeiro, P., Fernandes, G., Loureiro, I., & Ferreira, M. (2018). Project management practices in private organizations. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 6-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818810966
[91] Trent, R. and Monczka, R. (1994). Effective cross‐functional sourcing teams: critical success factors. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 30(3), 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493x.1994.tb00267.x
[92] Vrieze, P. and Xu, L. (2015). An analysis of resilience of a cloud based incident notification process., 110-121. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24141-8_10
[93] Wells, H. (2012). How effective are project management methodologies? an explorative evaluation of their benefits in practice. Project Management Journal, 43(6), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21302
[94] Wells, H. (2012). How effective are project management methodologies? an explorative evaluation of their benefits in practice. Project Management Journal, 43(6), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21302
[95] White, D. and 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
[96] Wilson, B., Khazaei, B., & Hirsch, L. (2016). Towards a cloud migration decision support system for small and medium enterprises in tamil nadu.. https://doi.org/10.1109/cinti.2016.7846430
[97] Wu, D., Thames, J., Rosen, D., & Schaefer, D. (2012). Towards a cloud-based design and manufacturing paradigm: looking backward, looking forward., 315-328. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2012-70780
[98] Yauch, C. (2011). Measuring agility as a performance outcome. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 22(3), 384-404. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381111112738
[99] Yigitbasioglu, O. (2015). The role of institutional pressures and top management support in the intention to adopt cloud computing solutions. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(4), 579-594. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-09-2014-0087
[100] Zdravković, J. & Johanesson, P. (2004). Cooperation of processes through message level agreement., 564-579. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25975-6_40
How to cite this paper
@article{1708520,
author = {Ejielo Ogbuefi, Jeffrey Chidera Ogeawuchi, Abraham Ayodeji Abayomi, Andrew Ifesinachi Daraojimba, Oyinomomo-emi Emmanuel Akpe},
title = {Systematic Review of Performance Metrics in Agile and Traditional Project Management},
journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
year = {2020},
volume = {3},
number = {8},
pages = {244-258},
issn = {2456-8880},
url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1708520.pdf},
abstract = {The evolving landscape of project management has witnessed the parallel growth of Agile and Traditional methodologies, each offering distinct frameworks, tools, and success criteria. This systematic review aims to explore and evaluate the performance metrics employed in both Agile and Traditional project management practices, with the goal of identifying convergences, divergences, and performance implications across varying project environments. By critically analyzing peer-reviewed literature, empirical studies, and industrial reports published between 2010 and 2020, this review synthesizes insights from over 80 sources using PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological rigor. The findings reveal that Traditional project management, often associated with Waterfall and other linear models, emphasizes scope, cost, schedule adherence, and quality as primary performance indicators. In contrast, Agile methodologies prioritize velocity, customer satisfaction, team responsiveness, and adaptability to change. While Agile metrics such as sprint burndown charts and lead time enhance flexibility and rapid delivery, Traditional metrics like earned value management and critical path analysis remain instrumental for governance, planning accuracy, and resource control. A significant insight from the review is the emerging trend of hybrid models that integrate metrics from both paradigms to balance flexibility with control. Additionally, the review highlights the contextual relevance of metrics; for instance, Agile metrics perform better in software development and innovation-driven projects, whereas Traditional metrics are more effective in infrastructure and highly regulated environments. The study also identifies gaps in the literature, such as inconsistent definitions of success, limited cross-industry comparative studies, and underrepresentation of stakeholder satisfaction and long-term project impact as performance criteria. This systematic review concludes that no single set of metrics is universally superior. Instead, metric selection should align with organizational goals, project complexity, and stakeholder expectations. Future research is recommended to develop adaptive metric frameworks that can dynamically respond to changing project variables and organizational maturity.},
keywords = {Agile Project Management, Traditional Project Management, Performance Metrics, Systematic Review, Hybrid Methodologies, PRISMA, Project Success Criteria, Earned Value, Sprint Velocity, Stakeholder Satisfaction.},
month = {February},
}