## 3 Research Design
### Research Methods  
First and foremost, content analysis was used as the primary research method. By definition, according to [PERSON], content analysis is \"any technique for making inferences by systematically and objectively identifying special characteristics of messages\" [64]. In this case, we followed the guidelines defined by [PERSON] [65], along with their practical assessment elaborated by [PERSON] [66]. Therefore, the following six questions have been addressed and answered. 1. **Which data are analyzed? ** Due to the project complexity, considering the number of planned tasks, time frames and the total number of hardware and software deliverables, the further investigation was strictly oriented toward issues and concerns related to the project management. More specifically, the focus was on the identification, analysis and evaluation of only those processes that regarded planning, organizing, leading and controlling the efforts of the project members, engaged on the side of both the leader and the partner. 2. **How are they defined? ** The data throughout the project was collected in a few digital repositories, including the data gathered by the online tools throughout the project duration, as well as the documents library available in the cloud storage. 3. **What is the population from which they are drawn? ** The population is limited to one project, in particular two data repositories owned by the leader and the partner. 4. **What is the context relative to which the data are analyzed? ** The context is specified by the goal of the study, which precisely indicates the scope and objectives for the researcher to follow. In particular, the data (information) must concern the implementation of agile practices throughout the project. In other words, a precedent or unrepeatable application of any agile practice was not considered for further investigation due to the limited analysis and evaluation. 5. **What are the boundaries of the analysis? ** Obviously, when the study concerns a single case, the results are not meant to be generalized. Therefore, it is correct to name generalizability as a limitation of the current, and any other, qualitative research. To sum up, the content analysis was aimed at identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the project's documentation, including documents, reports, spreadsheets, information from work communication and collaboration tools, to extract the agile practices implemented throughout the project. The second research method, applied to validate the obtained results from the documentation study, was an in-depth interview. According to [PERSON] and [PERSON], the in-depth interviewing technique involves \"conducting intensive individual interviews with a small number of respondents to explore their perspectives on a particular idea, program, or situation\" [67]. Moreover, regarding the interview format, the standardized open-ended interview was adopted, since such a design allows the interviewees to \"contribute as much detailed information as they desire\" [68]. Moreover, the interview was supported by a questionnaire (see Appendix A). For the needs of this study, the process for conducting in-depth interviews consisted of five steps:  
1. **Plan**. The identified stakeholders involved two representatives, one from the leader, and one from the partner. To reduce the bias resulting from insufficient experience and knowledge, the inclusion criteria were as follows: 1. at least five years of professional experience; 2. involvement in the project throughout its duration; 3. managerial role in the project. The two respondents were both males with over 20 years of professional experience in the IT sector. In the project, the first respondent (R1) worked in the position of project manager, while the second respondent (R2) held the role of research and development manager. Therefore, they were both positively classified;
2. **Develop instruments**.