Software Processes Used in University, Government, and Industry: A

Systematic Review

Caroline Guterres Silva, Evandro Luis Fensterseifer Filho and Lisandra Manzoni Fontoura

Computer Science Post Graduate Program, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM),

Avenida Roraima, nº1000, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil

Keywords: Software Process Development, Agile Methods, Plan-driven Methodology, Hybrid Methodology.

Abstract: Software processes are essential for software development organizations to deliver quality software. There

are currently several software processes to meet different needs. However, it is difficult to find in the

literature software processes focused on university projects involving other institutions, such as government

and industry. This article aims to conduct a systematic literature review to identify the characteristics and

limitations of agile and plan-oriented methodologies, which processes were used in software development

projects and to establish a relationship between organizational characteristics and best methodologies

successful. As a research method, we conducted a systematic study of the literature associated with a

snowball strategy, identified and structured the literature on the use of agile and plan-oriented

methodologies. We selected 12 studies using the systematic review and added 5 more using the snowball

method, totaling 17 selected articles. We note that there is no specific methodology to be used in software

development, each organization has its characteristics. The lack of specific processes for university projects

is evident, and the differences between this environment and industry require processes tailored. Beside, a

large number of projects use practices of more than one method, called hybrid methodologies, to exploit the

best of agile and plan-oriented methodologies.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the late 1970s, the software crisis occurred,

leading to a change in the way software was

developed, requiring companies to conduct their

projects in a standardized way (Pressman, 2011).

Since then, various software development methods

have emerged, and since the mid-1990s, various

processes have been proposed.

In general, software processes can be grouped

into two different approaches according to their

characteristics, which are: plan-driven (or

traditional) and agile methods (Silva, Oliveira,

Canedo & Martins 2016). Agile methods focus on

people rather than processes, communication, and

interaction between people. Less documentation is

created, and code is seen as part of the

documentation. On the other hand, plan-driven

methodologies focus on predictability and detailed

planning. To define the process to be used in each

project, it is necessary to consider the characteristics

of each methodology and the application context.

University projects are different from

government and industry projects (Abbas, Avdic,

Xiaobao, Hasan, & Ming, 2018). Identify the

characteristics of each project, such as developer

profile, work time, criticality, team size; It is

relevant to define the most appropriate processes for

each development (Silva & Melo, 2016).

Besides, today projects involving more than one

of these organizations are common, following the

Triple Helix model, especially in projects involving

science, research, and innovation. This model

focuses on university-industry-government relations

as a strategy to encourage the dynamics of

innovation (Mineiro, Souza, Vieira, Castro & Brito

2019).

Therefore, rethinking and redesigning the

software development process is an essential task to

address different application contexts, executing it

more effectively, thereby reducing software

development costs and increasing end-product

quality and customer satisfaction (Canedo, Martins,

Oliveira & Silva, 2016).

314

Silva, C., Filho, E. and Fontoura, L.

Software Processes Used in University, Government, and Industry: A Systematic Review.

DOI: 10.5220/0009419203140321

In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2020) - Volume 2, pages 314-321

ISBN: 978-989-758-423-7

In this sense, it is essential to analyze the ideal

characteristics of the use of each of the process

approaches, the characteristics of projects developed

in universities, government, and industry to establish

a relationship between the characteristics of process

approaches versus the characteristics of

project/organization.

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to

investigate the characteristics and limitations of

using agile and planned methods and which

processes are used in software projects involving at

least one of these organizations (university-business-

government).

To this end, a systematic literature review and

snowballing technique were applied as a research

methodology to identify studies related to the area

that meet the research objectives.

The paper was organized as follows: Section 2

describes a background with concepts relevant to the

understanding of the work. Section 3 describes the

research methodology, and section 4 describes the

final considerations and future work.

2 BACKGROUND

The term Triple Helix was coined by Henry

Etzkovitz in the 1990s to describe the model of

innovation based on the Government-University-

Enterprise relationship (Etzkowitz, 1994). The

authors Etzkowitz and Zhou (2017) define that

Triple Helix as a model of innovation in which the

university/academy, industry, and government

interact to promote development through innovation

and entrepreneurship.

This representation seeks the production of new

knowledge, technological innovation, and economic

development through dynamic processes of

experiences in the relationships between science,

technology, research, and development, in a spiral of

endless transitions (Mikosz, 2017). Based on this

assumption, it is analyzed that university-industry-

government interactions, which form a “triple helix”

of innovation, are critical points for knowledge-

based economic growth and social development

(Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017).

Given the scenario described, using

methodologies in the implementation of projects that

meet the diversity of this market with precision and

without fail is paramount (Silva & Melo, 2016).

Cereci and Karakaya (2018), define that software

development methodologies are used to organize

and monitor the software process.

Currently, it is considered that there are two

main approaches related to software processes,

which are: plan-driven methodologies and agile

methods (Fowler, 2005).

The basic idea of the plan-driven methodology is

that projects are relatively simple, predictable, and

linear with clearly defined boundaries, which

facilitates detailed planning and follow-up without

significant changes (Boehm & Turner, 2003). Plan-

driven methodologies focus on planning, and work

begins by collecting and documenting a complete set

of requirements, followed by the development and

inspection of high-level architectural designs

(Mushashu & Mtebe, 2019).

Agile methods, according to Koskella (2003), are

related to rapid software development focusing on

less time in analysis and design, thus being an

iterative and incremental approach. According to

Pressman (2011), the agile methodology employs

simplicity in development, focused on customer

satisfaction, with small and motivated teams.

Mamoghli and Cassivi (2019) describe that the

implementation of agile practices allows gaining

experience with software throughout the project. In

this development, communication between

developers and clients is prioritized, giving

preference to delivery over project analysis.

However, according to Comfort and Amaral

(2016), due to an innovation environment, the form

of software development has changed, implying new

strategies and techniques to combine simplicity,

speed, and flexibility.

According to Kruchten (2011), due to routine

and constant changes in software design

requirements, the team should use a dynamic and

adaptive software process. Software projects are

affected by various factors such as cost, scope,

quality, and success criteria vary from project to

project. Adaptive processes can facilitate these

changes.

Hybrid methodologies, that is, combining

practices from agile and traditional methods, have

also been used to deal with the dynamism of specific

projects, increase productivity, and improve the

quality of the final product. Hybrid methodologies

can be characterized by the combined adoption of

principles, practices, techniques, and tools from

different methodologies to adapt management to the

context of software design and provide the balance

between flexibility and predictability, reducing risk

and increasing innovation (Conforto, Amaral, Silva,

& Rebentisch, 2015).

In general, to define the most appropriate

processes for developing a project, it is necessary to

Software Processes Used in University, Government, and Industry: A Systematic Review

315

consider the project objectives, the development

team, and the software business domain. Silva et al.

(2015) state that traditional and agile methods have

their advantages and disadvantages so the choice of

one depends on the context of the application.

Given this Silva and Melo (2016) highlight that it

is necessary to have a clear understanding of the

characteristics of the project, of the structure and

strategy of the company when defining the process.

These understandings will support the definition of

the best and most appropriate practices of each

methodology to be associated with the achievement

of the project objective (Silva & Melo, 2016).

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A systematic literature review aims to provide a fair

assessment of a research topic using a reliable,

rigorous, and auditable review methodology

(Kitchenham, 2004). This review evaluates and

interprets the relevant literature available to

understand and analyze the development

methodologies used in projects in universities,

companies, and governments. This study followed

the guidelines proposed by (Kitchenham and

Charters, 2007), which involve three main phases:

planning, conducting, and reporting the review

results.

After SLR, we performed a manual search using

the snowballing guidelines proposed by Wohlin

(2014), to perform an analysis of primary studies

and obtain secondary studies in the face of the

research proposal.

3.1 Planning the Review

This step aims to define the search plan, determining

the issues of interest, data sources, strategy and

search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria,

detailed below.

The quality of the systematic review is related to

the proper definition of the research questions. The

questions guide the review, so they are elaborated to

meet the proposed objectives (Kitchenham, 2004).

For this research, we defined the following

questions:

RQ1: What are the characteristics and

limitations of plan-driven and agile methodology?

RQ2: What are the characteristics of each

organization (university, government, and industry)?

RQ3: What methodologies are used in projects

developed at universities, government, and industry?

RQ4: What works describes the use of hybrid

development methodologies?

For the analysis and selection of primary studies,

we searched the following sources: IEEE, ACM, and

Google Scholar. To perform the search, we define

the search strings, in Portuguese and English, using

the logical operators “AND” and “OR”; so the

search string used was:

(“software development” AND “process” AND

(university OR company OR industry OR govern)

AND ("agile method" OR "planned methodology"

OR hybrid))

We have defined a set of precise selection

criteria (inclusion and exclusion) to select the most

relevant articles for systematic review, ie, those that

help answer the survey questions. Studies were

selected according to the following criteria:

1. Articles describing software processes

adopted in software development projects

involving universities/academia, government

and /or industry;

2. Case studies involving the adoption of

software processes by organizations;

3. Articles published between 2013 and 2019;

4. Works wrote in Portuguese or English;

The exclusion criteria defined were:

1. Articles outside the scope of the research;

2. Articles other than Portuguese or English;

3. Published outside the defined date range;

4. Availability of title and abstract only;

5. Full document access unavailable;

6. Duplicate works.

3.2 Conducting the Review

According to the research protocol explained earlier,

we searched the databases and retrieved the relevant

studies. Using search strings, we analyze the title

and summary of each search and apply the exclusion

criteria. This first round resulted in 24 candidate

articles.

In the second iteration, we read the articles in

their whole to make sure the papers cover the scope

of the research. In this analysis, 3 articles were

excluded because they were duplicate, and 6 articles

did not cover the scope of the search. Also, 2 articles

were not found full text, which was deleted,

resulting in 12 articles selected.

The snowballing technique was used (Wohlin,

2014), which refers to the use of reference lists of

selected articles or citations of these articles, that is,

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

316

it allows the search of works from references of

selected articles through a systematic review. It is

possible to refine the searches with the articles being

cited, thus allowing us to find new articles. The

application of Snowballing allowed the selection of

5 new works, thus totaling 16 works in all.

After selecting the articles, data were extracted,

considering the questions defined in the research.

Besides, we extracted information such as year of

publication, authors, proposal of each study and

source of publication, and the research method used.

Table 1 lists the resulting works.

After data extraction, a synthesis of such data

was performed to facilitate data analysis. The

synthesis lists the characteristics of each

methodology, as well as its limitations and

characteristics. Based on the similarity of the

extracted data, a categorization was performed for

each research question.

3.3 Reporting the Results

This section summarizes the search results. The

analysis of the information is presented, considering

each research question.

RQ1: What are the characteristics and

limitations of plan-driven and agile methodology?

The authors Jusoh, Gorment, Nor and Muhamad

(2017) [E08] describe that agile methodology is

widely used, especially in the education sector,

because it contributes to reducing waste, increasing

speed, as well as improving productivity, decision

making and confidence.

Already the authors Vijayasarathy and Butler

(2016), in addition to an online survey, state that the

approaches are used in statistics with a small number

of employees in low budget and medium or high

critical projects, in a single and small team.

Meanwhile, traditional approaches are used by

organizations with large numbers of employees,

high-budget and risky projects, and in medium and

multiple teams.

The authors Boehm and Turner (2003) define

several characteristics that can be used to choose

between these two approaches, which are: as

application characteristics (size and environment);

management resources, including customer

relations, planning and control; technical

characteristics, including requirements, development

and testing approaches; and personal resources,

including customer, developer, and organizational

culture particularities. In Table 2, the characteristics

and limitations of agile and plan-driven

methodology are summarized.

RQ2: What are the characteristics of each

organization (university, government, and industry)?

In the university, authors Cereci and Karakaya

(2018) [E01] report that meetings occur less

frequently because people work part-time on

projects, reconciling them with academic activities.

Also, there are not always exist end users to perform

software testing.

Brondani, Mello, Fontoura (2019) [E08] state

that university teams are composed of workers with

different skill levels, including undergraduate,

graduate, and highly experienced researchers. These

teams, in addition to focusing on development

activities, need to investigate highly complex

research solutions. Another characteristic pointed

out by the authors is the high turnover of the team..

As they develop projects in partnership with

different organizations, the team is unfamiliar with

the business domain, making it challenging to define

software requirements.

According to Dias, Kodikara, and Jayawardena

(2013) [E02], academic institutions focus on

learning, research, and innovation, as the result of

research projects intended to works publications.

Already in organizational contexts, Cereci and

Karakaya (2018) [E01], who report that work is

done full time, software development is for-profit

and limited budget product delivery (Dias, Kodikara

& Jayawardena, 2014) [E02]. Kuhrmann et al.

(2019) [E05] declare that company policy must be

strictly followed, and this often limits the choice of

the most appropriate process.

When referring to the government, it is possible

to verify aspects related to government laws, and the

need for transparency in data and control of internal

organs related to the institution (Dos Santos and

Canedo, 2014) [E06].

In the case studies by the authors, Benedicenti et

al. (2016) [E07], describe how army software

development should be of high quality and have

specific and complex requirements.

Cotugno and Messina (2014) [E17] describe that,

in military environments, system reliability is

essential. The criticality of systems is usually high.

Planning costs must be within budget, and there is a

need to follow software development standards.

Table 3 shows the characteristics of each institution.

RQ3: What methodologies are used in projects

developed at universities, government, and industry?

Table 3 describes the methods proposed by the

works selected by the organization in which they

were applied.

Software Processes Used in University, Government, and Industry: A Systematic Review

317

Table 1: All the papers included in the SLR.

Id Authors Year Title

E01 Cereci and Karakaya 2018

Need for Software Development Methodology for Research Based Software

Projects

E02 Dias et al. 2013

The Need for Novel Development for Software Projects in Universities: A Sri

Lankan Case Study

E03

Dias, Kodikara, and

Ekanayaka

2014 Differences between universities and industry in software development

E04 Turke, France, and Rumpe 2014 Limitations of Agile Software Processes

E05 Kuhrmann et al. 2019 Hybrid Software Development Approaches in Practice: A European Perspective

E06 Dos Santos, and Canedo 2014 Development Methodology Case Study: Brazilian Electoral Justice

E07 Benedicenti et al. 2016 Applying Scrum to the Army - A Case Study

E08 Brondani et al. 2017 A Case Study of a Software Development Process Model for SIS-ASTROS

E09 Vijayasarathy and Butler 2016

Choice of Software Development Methodologies Do Organizational, Project and

Team Characteristics Matter?

E10 Mushashu and Mtebe 2019

Investigating Software Development Methodologies and Practices in Software

Industry in Tanzania

E11 Awad 2005

A Comparison between Agile and Traditional Software Development

Methodologies

E12

Fitriani, Rahayue and

Sensuse

2016 Challenges in Agile Software Development: A Systematic Literature Review

E13 Spundak 2013 Mixed agile/traditional project management methodology reality or illusion?

E14 Riesener, Dölle, and Ays 2018

Hybridization of Development Projects Through Process-related Combination of

Agile and Plan-Driven Approaches

E15

Klunder, Hohl, Fazal-Baqaie,

Krusche, Küpper, Linssen &

Prause

2017

HELENA study: Reasons for combining agile and traditional software development

approaches in german companies

E16

Marinho, Noll Richardson

and Beecham (2019)

2019

Plan-Driven Approaches Are Alive and Kicking in Agile Global Software

Development

E17 Cotugno and Messina 2014 Adapting SCRUM to the Italian Army: Methods and (Open) Tools

Table 2: Characteristics and limitations of plan-driven and agile methodologies.

Characteristics Limitations

Agile methodology

Turke, France and Rumpe (2014) [E04]; Fitriani, Rahayue and Sensuse

(2016) [E12]:

• Customer communication;

• Software requirements evolve as software is developed;

• Change-adapted software development process;

• Project visibility can be achieved mainly through the delivery of

increments and some metrics;

• Software can be developed in increments.

Awad (2005) [E11]:

• Customer collaboration.

Dos Santos and Canedo (2014) [EO6]:

• Well defined roles;

• Anticipated deliveries of key system features;

• Simplicity;

• Deliver frequently running software.

Turke, France and Rumpe (2014) [E04]:

• Distributed development environment;

• Development involving several teams;

• Limited to software with high criticality;

• Complex software development.

Awad (2005) [E11]:

• Large scale software.

Mushashu and Mtebe(2019) [E10]:

• Lack of documentation;

• Insufficient software design.

Dos Santos and Canedo (2014) [EO6]:

• Requires team members greater skill and

responsibility.

Plan-driven

methodology

Spundak (2013) [E13]:

• Formal documentation;

• Used in critical projects;

• Work control;

• Projects with high criticality;

• Focus on verification and validation;

• Used in larger projects.

Spundak (2013) [E13]:

• Robustness;

• Project isolated from its environment;

• Time constraints;

• Uncertainty in setting goals.

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

318

Table 3: Characteristics of each institution and methods used.

Given this information, it was found that in the

university environment, according to the study by

authors Cereci and Karakaya (2018) [E01], the

methodologies are similar to the prototyping and

software development process is based on

experiences from other projects. According to Dias

et al. [03] describes that projects carried out at a

university use whiteboard to draw diagrams and

concept maps to illustrate their ideas.

According to Dias, Kodikara, and Ekanayaka

(2013) [E02], there is no standard method to be used

in the university context, which focuses on

innovation, research, and learning.

Brondani et al. (2019) [E08] point out that in the

development of a project for the government, carried

out at a university, a hybrid methodology was used.

Practices related to plan-driven methodologies were

used for the activities of analysis, design, and

verification activities, supporting the development of

documents related to each phase of the project, as

the condition of the project contract required formal

deliverables. Agile methodologies were used to

manage implementation and testing activities,

emphasizing short development cycles, team, and

end-user communication and collaboration

principles, enabling incremental deliveries, and

change requests without affecting the project.

Regarding industries, Kuhrmann et al., (2019)

[E05] state that traditional and agile methodologies

are used, with a more significant predominance of

the cascade and scrum method of structure, as well

as Kanban.

In a research conducted by the authors Dias et al.

(2014) [E03], they observed that the industries that

participated in the interview, use the Scrum software

development standard, emphasizing on-going user

engagement to understand requirements and improve

as feedback

In contrast, in a study by the authors Klunder et

al. (2017) [E15] and Marinho et al. (2019) [E16],

they report that most projects use a combination of

agile and traditional approaches called the hybrid

methodology.

Authors Mushashu and Mtebe (2019) [E10],

describe that the methods chosen by companies are:

plan-driven methodologies, such as cascade and

prototyping method.

In the context related to government, Dos Santos

and Canedo (2014) [E06] report that agile methods

are widely used because they are objective, roles are

well defined, easy to learn and provide project

visibility to the team. The authors describe some

aspects of implementing agile government-related

project methodologies such as response to changes,

delivery of key system functionality, increased

customer collaboration in the development process,

and the possibility of effort estimation.

RQ4: What works describes the use of hybrid

development methodologies?

Theocharis et al. (2015) argue that instead of

using only traditional or agile processes individually,

various methods should be combined to adapt their

development process to a specific context. Thus, it is

considered that the combination of agile and plan-

driven methods should be used to leverage the

strengths of both approaches. The authors describe

that agile methods emphasize communication,

knowledge sharing, and project visibility. The plan-

driven methodology proposes detailed planning,

control, and estimation of tasks.

Software Processes Used in University, Government, and Industry: A Systematic Review

319

Riesener et al. (2018) [E14] describe that plan-

driven development processes are described by

attributes such as predictability and stability. On the

other hand, agile processes apply to projects with

many requirements changes and where the customer

is heavily involved in the development process.

Given this perspective, it is suggested to adopt

hybrid development approaches, which will allow

the benefits of both methodologies, providing secure

management and a flexible environment (Kuhrmann

et al., 2019) [E05]. Thus, it is necessary to balance

the need for planning and control with time and

flexibility when adopting different methodologies

Marinho et al. (2019) [E16].

The authors Comfort and Amaral (2016) argue

that the adoption of hybrid methodologies proves

improvements in process performance, especially

issues related to added value, flexibility, and

accuracy of project information.

The authors Vijayasarathy and Butler (2016)

[E09] describe that the choice of a methodology for

a project depends on the type of organization,

project characteristics, and team. According to the

research described by the authors, 45.3% of the

projects use hybrid approaches, which are relevant

to organizations of different sizes, with medium and

high criticality budget and in small teams.

Brondani et al. (2019) [E08] used a hybrid

approach in which contract assets (deliverables)

were managed using planned approaches, while

short development cycles were defined to manage

internal deliveries, bringing agility.

4 CONCLUSION

This research discussed the importance of adequate

methods for the specifications of each context and

project in software development, as well as the

appropriate combination of methods proposed by

different approaches, leveraging their potentials and

consequently improving the quality of the software

process. There is no single methodology that can

cover the needs of all software projects, as well as

different contexts.

Plan-driven and agile methodologies have their

advantages and disadvantages, so it is not possible to

standardize and claim that one approach is better

than another. Some factors influence the choice of

software methodologies, such as project type,

project size, project duration, level of understanding

of user requirements, project complexity, customer

involvement, and team size.

It is observed that, by answering the questions

raised, there is a lack of studies related to projects

developed in universities. This issue is understood to

be necessary, especially at a time when the

university is no longer having a secondary, though

important, social role in providing higher education

and research, and is assuming a primary role

equivalent to that of industry and government, as a

generator of new industries and companies.

As future work, it is proposed to expand the

research to deepen the requirements for a process

involving university and government and/or

industry.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from

CAPES-Brazil, and the Brazilian Army for the

financial support through the SIS-ASTROS Project

(813782/2014), developed in the context of the PEE-

ASTROS 2020.

REVIEW REFERENCES

Awad, M. A., 2005. A Comparison between Agile and

Traditional Software Development Methodologies. In

2nd National Conference on Applied Research.

Computer Science and Information Technology.

Benedicenti, L., Cotugno, F., Ciancarini, P., Messina, A.,

Pedrycz, W., Sillitti, A. & Succi, G., 2016. Applying

scrum to the army: a case study. In IEEE/ACM 38th

International Conference on Software Engineering

Companion (ICSE-C), Austin, TX. 725-727.

10.1145/2889160.2892652.

Brondani, C., Mello, O., & Fontoura, L., 2019. A Case

Study of a Software Development Process Model for

SIS-ASTROS. 600-605. 10.18293/SEKE2019-098.

Cereci, I., & Karakaya, Z., 2018. Need for a Software

Development Methodology for Research-Based

Software Projects. In 3rd International Conference on

Computer Science and Engineering (UBMK),

Sarajevo: pp. 648-651.

Cotugno, F., & Messina, A., 2014. Adapting SCRUM to

the Italian Army: Methods and (Open) Tools. In IFIP

Advances in Information and Communication

Technology. 61-69. 10.1007/978-3-642-55128-4_7.

Dias, D. M. P., Kodikara, N. D., & Jayawardena, M.,

2013. The Need for Novel Development Methodo-

logies for Software Projects in Universities: A Sri

Lanka Case Study. In International Journal of Future

Computer and Communication (January): 494–98.

Dias, M, Kodikara, N., & Ekanayaka, Y., 2014.

Differences between Universities and Industry in

Software Development. In 32nd National Information

ICEIS 2020 - 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

320

Technology Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka

(August): 207–11.

Dos Santos, V., Alves, S., & Canedo, E. D., 2014.

Metodologia Ágil No Desenvolvimento de Software:

Estudo de Caso: Justiça Eleitoral Do Brasil. In

Iberian Conference on Information Systems and

Technologies, CISTI: 1–6.

Fitriani, W R, Rahayu, Puji & Sensuse, D. I., 2017.

Challenges in Agile Software Development: A

Systematic Literature Review. In International

Conference on Advanced Computer Science and

Information Systems, ICACSIS 2016: 155–64.

Klunder, J., Hohl, P., Fazal-Baqaie, M., Krusche, S.,

Küpper, S., Linssen, O. & Prause, C., 2017. HELENA

Study: Reasons for Combining Agile and Traditional

Software Development Approaches. German

Companies. 10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_32.

Kuhrmann, M. (Ed.). n/a et al., 2019. Hybrid Software

Development Approaches in Practice: A European

Perspective. In IEEE Software 36(4): 20–31.

Marinho, M., Noll, J., Richardson, Ita, & Beecham, S.,

2019. Plan-Driven Approaches Are Alive and Kicking

in Agile Global Software Development. In

International Symposium on Empirical Software

Engineering and Measurement Septe: 1–11.

Mushashu, E. T. & Mtebe, J. S., 2019. Investigating

Software Development Methodologies and Practices

in Software Industry in Tanzania. In IST-Africa Week

Conference, IST-Africa 2019: 1–11.

Riesener, M., C. Dölle, Ays, J., & Ays. J. L., 2019.

Hybridization of Development Projects Through

Process-Related Combination of Agile and Plan-Driven

Approaches. In IEEE International Conference on

Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management.

Turk, D., France, R. & Rumpe, B., 2014. Limitations of

Agile Software Processes. In Third International

Conference on Extreme Programming and Flexible

Processes in Software Engineering, XP2002, Italy.

Vijayasarathy, L. R., & Butler, C. W., 2016. Choice of

Software Development Methodologies: Do

Organizational, Project, and Team Characteristics

Matter?. In IEEE Software 33(5): 86–94.

REFERENCES

Abbas, A., Avdic, A., Xiaobao, P., Hasan, M. M., & Ming,

W., 2018. University-government collaboration for the

generation and commercialization of new knowledge

for use in industry. Journal of Innovation &

Knowledge. doi:10.1016/j.jik.2018.03.002

Boehm, B., & Turner, R., 2003. Balancing agility and

discipline: A guide for the perplexed. Boston, MA:

Addison Wesley.

Canedo, E.D., Martins, H, Oliveira, E. C. & Silva, D.,

2016. Adapted Software Requirements Management

for Public Organization. 1234-1246. 10.5748/978859

9693124-13CONTECSI/PS-3832.

Conforto, E. C., Amaral, D. C., Silva, F. B., & Rebentisch,

E., 2015. Modelos Híbridos: Unindo Complexidade,

Agilidade e Inovação. Revista Mundo PM.

Etzkowitz, H, & Zhou, C., 2017. Hélice Tríplice: inovação

e empreendedorismo universidade-indústria-governo.

Estudos Avançados, 31(90), 23-48. https://dx.doi.org/

10.1590/s0103-40142017.3190003.

Etzkowitz, H., 1994. Academic-industry relations: a

sociological paradigm for economic development.

Evolutionary Economics and Chaos Theory: New

Directions in Technology Studies, p. 139 – 151.

Fowler, M., 2005. The New Methodology. Viewed 21 Feb

2020. https://www.martinfowler.com/articles/

/newMethodology.html

Jusoh, Y. Y., Gorment, R. N. H., Nor, S. A. M. &

Muhamad, S., 2017. A study on the current practices of

software development in Malaysia. In 3rd International

Conference on Science in Information Technology:

Theory and Application of IT for Education, Industry

and Society in Big Data Era, ICSITech -Janua: 716–21.

Kitchenham, B., 2004. Procedures for Performing

Systematic Reviews. In: Relatório Técnico, TR/SE-

0401 ISSN: 1353-7776.

Kitchenham, B. & Charters, S., 2007. Guidelines for

performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software

Engineering, Technical Report EBSE 2007-001, Keele

University and Durham University Joint Report.

Kruchten, P., 2013, Contextualizing agile software

development. In Journal of Software: Evolution and

Process 25 (4): 351-361.

Mamoghli, S., & Cassivi, L., 2019. Agile ERP

Implementation: The Case of a SME. ICEIS.

Mikosz, V. M., 2017. A Relação Universidade-Empresa-

Governo no contexto no Sistema Nacional de Ciência,

Tecnologia e Inovação Brasileiro: um estudo de caso

dos mecanismos de cooperação e seus intervenientes

em uma universidade pública. Dissertação (Mestrado

em Planejamento e Governança Pública) – Programa

de Pós-Graduação em Planejamento e Governança

Pública – Universidade Tecnológica Federal do

Paraná. Curitiba.

Mineiro, A., Souza, D. L, Vieira, K. C., Castro, C & Brito,

M. J., 2019. Da hélice tríplice a quíntupla: uma revisão

sistemática. In: Revista Economia & Gestão. 18. 77-

93. 10.5752/P.1984-6606.2018v18n51p77-93.

Pressman, R. S., 2011. Engenharia de Software: uma

abordagem profissional. 7º Ed. Porto Alegre: AMGH.

Silva, D., Oliveira, E. C., Canedo, E. D., & Martins, H. F.,

2016. Application of a hybrid process software

requirements management. In 11th Iberian Conference

on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Las

Palmas, doi: 10.1109/CISTI.2016.7521442

Silva, R. F; Melo, F. C., 2016. Modelos Híbridos de

Gestão de Projetos Como Estratégia na Condução de

Soluções em Cenários Dinâmicos e Competitivos.

Revista Brasileira de Gestão e Desenvolvimento

Regional, p. 443-457.

Wohlin, C., 2014. Guidelines for snowballing in

systematic literature studies and a replication in

software engineering. In ACM International

Conference Proceeding Series. 10.1145.2601268.

Software Processes Used in University, Government, and Industry: A Systematic Review

321