MAnGve: a step towards deploying Agile Governance
Alexandre J. H. de O. Luna1,2, Ivaldir H. de Farias Junior1, Philippe Kruchten2,
1 Informatics Center (CIn). Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE). Av. Jornalista
Anibal Fernandes, s/n, Cidade Universitária, 50740-560, Recife, PE, Brazil.
2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE). The University of British
Columbia (UBC). 2332 Main Mall. Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada.
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Abstract. Context: Agility at the business and organizational levels presents a challenge for many
enterprises. Business agility demands the ability to sense and respond to changes in competitive
environments, whereas organizational agility demands the dexterity to sense broader market
opportunities and respond with changes that are organization-wide. These challenges require an
information and communication technologies (IT) environment flexible and customizable
simultaneously with the coordination across multiple organization units, also demands effective
and responsive governance in order to deliver value faster, better, and cheaper to the business.
Objective: This presentation introduces an agile framework called MAnGve, as an alternative to
implement and improve governance processes and service management on an agile lifecycle. In
addition, we describe the MAnGve’s application in the context of the Brazilian government.
Method: Adopting an in-depth case study approach, we privileged the participant observation in
which the research is conducted within the company itself, and where the status of the researcher
is not highlighted. The case study was based on observation, interviews with the different actors
of the company, as well as by the metrics generated by the results achieved upon the application
of the framework. Results: After only two tides (complete lifecycle of the framework), along eight
months, the involved team had been capable to implemented three governance processes and one
service management function (service desk). At the same time, the team evolved from an operation
based on "firefighting" to a maturity stage, where they are able to express their initiatives in
terms of service management. Conclusion: Indeed, the framework's application generated a set of
positive and concrete evidences, such as: i) guiding the team: “where to begin?”, “how to
adapt?”, and “what to prioritize?”; ii) reducing the costs, timing and external dependencies.
Those evidences lead the authors to believe that the MAnGve’s application can be replicated
upon other organizations, achieving similar positive results. Moreover, those results encourages
future works in which through a relational integration mechanism as well as a better
understanding of the agile governance arrangements can help the organizations to attain greater
enterprise agility and support their overall strategy.
Keywords — Information Systems, Agile Governance, IT management, IT Governance, Service
Management, Software Engineering.
Governments and corporations are increasingly realizing the emerging importance of Information and
Communication Technologies (ICT) as catalyst factor of the driving aspects of change, renewal and
implementation cycle of their business. These organizations are deepening the perception about how the
Information Technologies (IT
) capabilities are becoming key factors of success in the evolving of their market
competitiveness and the achievement of their institutional mission [Gallagher and Worrell 2007; Tallon 2008].
“IT” and “ICT” in this study will be used as synonyms, and understood as the means by which are covered the infrastructure, services
and software as well as the organizational capabilities established to support the business.
In recent years, IT has seen an increase in investment and research focus in both the academic and the professional
environments. These initiatives have entailed efforts to improve management models and to implement practices
that make enterprises more competitive.
Competitiveness is related with the idea to make more, better and faster, with less resources [Janssen and Estevez
2013]. At the same time, governance is closely related with the ability to steer (to guide, to govern) an
organization, which may be a company, a government or a society [Bloom 1991]. In other words, governance is a
key driver to “make things happen” on organizational environment. On the other hand, to achieve good governance
demands capabilities such as flexibility, responsiveness and adaptability, as well as an effective and responsive
sense of coordination across multiple business units. Actually, these capabilities belong to the agility paradigm in
consonance with several authors, such as [Matt 2007], [Chen et al. 2008], [Li 2010].
Moreover, [Kruchten 2011] define agility as: “the ability of an organization to react to changes in its
environment faster than the rate of these changes”. In fact, this definition uses the ultimate purpose or function of
being agile for a business, unifying and standardizing agile and lean approaches as simply "agile", rather than
defining agility by a labeled set of practices or by a set of properties defined in opposition to the agile manifesto
approach [Beck et al. 2001]. Going beyond, a “good governance” requests particularly “organizational agility”,
which is stated by [Thomsett 2013] as: “the ability of an organization to respond quickly and effectively to
unanticipated events in its environment”.
As a result, agility became an important business aspect, and according to [Luftman et al. 1993], business agility
is: "the ability to change the direction of the environment and respond efficiently and effectively to that change".
In consonance with this definition, we distilled a new definition to business agility for use in this study as: “the
ability to deliver value
faster, better, and cheaper to the business”.
In line with these concepts, “agile governance” becomes the application of agile capabilities
in order to improve business agility, what we believe that can result in significant economic outcomes for
companies and governments. In the subsequent sections this paper gives an overview of the related theoretical
background, the related work, benefits to be achieved by the audience, the agenda summary, the suggested
audience's profile and a short Bio of the speaker.
1.2. Background and Related Work
In this scenario, IT governance, through which corporate governance
is applied, has emerged as an option to the
effective management and control of IT services in organizations, ensuring the payback of investments and the
improvement and innovation of business processes [IT Governance Institute 2001].
Through the influence of factors related to market regulation, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [Congress of the
United States of America 2002] and the Basel Accords [Bank for International Settlements 2010], the use of
governance is also motivated by other objectives, such as: i) reducing the costs of business unavailability; ii)
assurance of continuity of business processes; iii) guarantee of IT investments payback; and, iv) increasing
organizational competitiveness [Weill and Ross 2004].
Ribeiro and Barata  pointed out that to face competition; enterprises have adopted more efficient
organizational dynamics that enable them to respond to socio-economic pressures while tackling profitable but
volatile business opportunities. This led to the emergence of several types of networked interactions: supply
chains, extended enterprises, virtual enterprises, collaborative networks, among others. Overall, agility is
fundamental as the establishment of such networked organizations is not trivial. Partners will share profits, risks
and responsibilities and ultimately the performance and success of the entire structure will always be dragged
down by the less agile participant [Brown et al. 2013; Royce and Cantor 2013].
In practice, the design and maintenance of the IT systems for enterprise agility can be a challenge when the
competitiveness of organization’s products and services is depending of the application of models and frameworks
that have no guidance details of how to implement and deploy the necessary management instruments and
governance mechanism [Luna et al. 2013]. Consequently, the challenges become even greater when dealing with
these matters on a global software development and distributed environment, where cultural differences, awareness
and communication style, if not treated properly can lead to conflicts. Arguably, in Global Development
Environments governance issues are even more relevant and necessary, as well as its implementation even greater
challenging [Dubinsky et al. 2011].
“An informal term that includes all forms of value that determine the health and well-being of the firm in the long run.” [BD 2013]
“The power or ability to do something.” [OED 2013]
“An important topic or problem for debate or discussion.” [OED 2013]
“is the set of processes, policies, rules, laws and institutions that affecting the way as a corporation is directed, administered or
controlled” [Cadbury 1992]
Several authors [Luna et al. 2010; Qumer and Henderson-Sellers 2008; Roosmalen and Hoppenbrouwers 2008;
Sun et al. 2005] have pointed out the lack of methods, techniques and tools to help people and enterprises to
achieve the business goals, means by the governance issues, in an agile way independent from the business area.
At same time, many authors [Banihashemi and Liu 2012; Bartenschlager and Goeken 2010; Heston and Phifer
2011; Radnor and Johnston 2013] claim that the governance practices, models, guides and frameworks are most of
them bureaucratic, time consuming and having no guidance details of how to implement and deploy the necessary
management instruments and governance mechanism, such as ITIL [Mendel 2004], COBIT [Gerke and Ridley
2009], among others. These processes, models, guides and practices will be denominated “ conventional or
traditional governance”, by this study, according the shortcomings identified in their context.
Over the last few years, Agile methodologies [Dybå and Dingsøyr 2008] have been gaining traction in industry
and adding competitiveness and dynamism to the process of software development, through initiatives where the
principles of communication and collaboration are essential Dubinsky and Kruchten . Moreover, Dubinsky
and Kruchten  and Dubinsky et al.  highlight that Software Development Governance (SDG) has
emerged in the last few years to deal with establishing the structures, policies, controls, and measurements for
communication and for decision rights, to ensure the success of software development organizations.
Recently, agile governance has been proposed [Cheng et al. 2009; Luna et al. 2010; Qumer 2007], which
provides the wide application of principles and values of Agile Software Development [Beck et al. 2001] to the
conventional governance processes. Luna  has developed a framework for agile governance, in order to
implement and improve governance in organizations, called MAnGve. This framework is focused to the
deployment process, as a catalyzer to accelerate the deployment of governance. The MAnGve framework is
designed to alleviate the lack of practical focus found in conventional governance models [MAnGve 2009]. The
MAnGve is a framework based on an agile life cycle, seeking to translate the principles, values and practices from
Agile Software Development to IT governance paradigm. However, altogether the agile governance phenomena
still remain unexplored in depth, and are currently the focus of the first author's doctoral research.
The audience will have the opportunity to experience and discuss the following topics upon the context of
framework and its case study:
What is MAnGve framework and how it can be useful?
Where to begin the implementation of governance in the enterprise?
How to adapt/customize the existing bodies of knowledge to the reality of their business?
What should be prioritized to achieve results as quickly as possible?
How to implement effective and responsive governance in order to deliver value faster, better, and
cheaper to the business?
During the presentation we will address the following topics:
Agile Governance: this session will introduce the Agile Governance paradigm, its origins and meta-
MAnGve overview: at this topic we will present the framework overview, lifecycle, architecture,
components, practices and roles.
A practical case study: in this section we will characterize the target organization, discuss the
motivation to adopt the framework, present the results and discuss the benefits achieved.
Conclusion: finally, we will address the relevance of this initiative to the industry and government, and
discuss important aspects such as: effectiveness, facility for replication, strength of evidence, implications
for research and practices, limitations and future works.
This topic is essential to CEOs, CIOs, CFOs, executives, managers, government agents; team leaders, IT
professionals who wish to make their organizations more competitive and profitable, as well as scholars and
researchers who have special interest on related topics. They are busy, restless, and impatient, and usually read
books about business, governance and management, looking for tools to improve the results of their corporations.
No previous knowledge about technologies is required. However, knowledge about processes, services and
management may help the attendant to take better advantage of the content of the session.
3. Speaker’s Bio
Alexandre Luna is Ph.D. candidate of computer science at the Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), Center
of Informatics (CIn), Brazil; as well as a Visiting Scholar of Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
(ECE) at The University of British Columbia (UBC), in Vancouver, Canada. He holds a M.Sc. in computer
science, a MBA in IT management and a B.Eng. in Chemical Engineering. He holds certification in ITIL, COBIT,
CSM and he is PMI member. He is a Consultant Analyst of Governmental Agency of Information Technology of
the Pernambuco (ATI-PE). He is a researcher of the Project Management Research Group (GP2) from CIn-UFPE,
of the Software Engineering Architecture Laboratory (SEAL) Research Group from ECE-UBC, and of the
Research Group in Technology on Health (TIS) at the Clinics Hospital (HC-UFPE). His main research interests
include: Agile Governance, IT Governance, Information Systems, Agile Methodologies, Software Engineering,
Project Management, Telemedicine, e-Business, Service Management and MAnGve.
Banihashemi, S. and Liu, L. (2012). “LEAN GOVERNANCE”: A PARADIGM SHIFT IN INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS (IORS)
GOVERNANCE. In Proceedings for the 20th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction.
Bank for International Settlements (2010). Third Basel Accord.
Bartenschlager, J. and Goeken, M. (2010). (POP-013) [S62] IT strategy Implementation Framework-Bridging Enterprise Architecture and IT Governance. In
Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) 2010 PROCEEDINGS.
BD (2013). Business Dictionary - definitions and meanings. http://www.businessdictionary.com/, [accessed on May 6].
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A. Van, et al. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. http://agilemanifesto.org/, [accessed on May 1].
Bloom, A. (1991). The Republic of Plato. 2nd. ed. Harper Collins Publishers. p. 509
Brown, A. W., Ambler, S. and Royce, W. (may 2013). Agility at scale: economic governance, measured improvement, and disciplined delivery. In Software
Engineering (ICSE), 2013 35th International Conference on. . Ieee.
Cadbury, A. (1992). The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance.
Chen, R.-S., Sun, C.-M., Helms, M. M. and Jih, W.-J. (Kenny) (oct 2008). (SCD-0069) [S86] Aligning information technology and business strategy with a
dynamic capabilities perspective: A longitudinal study of a Taiwanese Semiconductor Company. International Journal of Information Management, v. 28,
n. 5, p. 366–378.
Cheng, T.-H., Jansen, S. and Remmers, M. (2009). (POP-015) [S63] Controlling and monitoring agile software development in three dutch product software
companies. In 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Development Governance. . Ieee.
Congress of the United States of America (2002). AT THE SECOND SESSION. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. . 2002, p. 66.
Dubinsky, Y. and Kruchten, P. (2009). (POP-038) 2nd workshop on software development governance (SDG). 2009 31st International Conference on
Software Engineering - Companion Volume, p. 455–456.
Dubinsky, Y., Kruchten, P., Finkelstein, A., et al. (2010). (POP-047) [S74] Software Development Governance (SDG) Workshop. In ICSE ’10 Proceedings
of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 2.
Dubinsky, Y., Ravid, S., Rafaeli, A. and Bar-Nahor, R. (aug 2011). Governance Mechanisms in Global Development Environments. 2011 IEEE Sixth
International Conference on Global Software Engineering, p. 6–14.
Dybå, T. and Dingsøyr, T. (aug 2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, v. 50, n.
9-10, p. 833–859.
Gallagher, K. P. and Worrell, J. L. (14 jul 2007). (SPL-0035) [S114] Organizing IT to promote agility. Information Technology and Management, v. 9, n. 1,
Gerke, L. and Ridley, G. (2009). Tailoring CobiT for Public Sector IT Audit: An Australian Case Study. In: Klinger, K.[Ed.]. Information technology
governance and service management: frameworks and adaptations . 1st. ed. Hershey: Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global). p. 101–
Heston, K. M. and Phifer, W. (2011). (SCO-001) [S90] The multiple quality models paradox: how much “best practice”is just enough? Journal of Software
Maintenance and Evolution, n. July 2009, p. 517–531.
IT Governance Institute (2001). Board briefing on IT governance. 2nd. ed. Rolling Meadows: IT Governance Institute. p. 66
Janssen, M. and Estevez, E. (jan 2013). Lean government and platform-based governance—Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, v. 30,
Kruchten, P. (2011). (SCO-006) [S92] Contextualizing agile software development. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, p. 11.
Li, J. (2010). (I3E-0147) [S47] A Study on the First Layer Assessment Variables of Logistics Quick Response Capability. In 2010 Second International
Conference on Multimedia and Information Technology. . Ieee.
Luftman, J., Lewis, P. and Oldach, S. (1993). Transforming the enterprise: The alignment of business and information technology strategies. IBM Systems
Journal, v. 32, n. 1, p. 24.
Luna, A. J. H. de O. (2009). MAnGve: A model for Agile Governance in ICT. Federal University of Pernambuco.
Luna, A. J. H. de O., Costa, C. P., De Moura, H. P. and Novaes, M. A. (2010). (POP-009) [S60] Agile Governance in Information and Communication
Technologies: Shifting Paradigms. JISTEM Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, v. 7, n. 2, p. 311–334.
Luna, A. J. H. de O., Kruchten, P. and De Moura, H. P. (aug 2013). GAME: Governance for Agile Management of Enterprises: A Management Model for
Agile Governance. In 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference on Global Software Engineering Workshops. . Ieee.
MAnGve (2009). MAnGve.org - Portal of the Movement for fostering Agile Governance. http://www.mangve.org/, [accessed on May 6].
Matt, D. T. (2007). (I3E-0125) [S43] Design of changeable assembly systems-a complexity theory based approach. In IEEE Industrial Engineering and
Mendel, T. (2004). ITIL’s Final Breakthrough: From “What” to “How.”CSO Online, p. 1–3.
OED (2013). Oxford English Dictionary. http://oxforddictionaries.com, [accessed on May 30].
Qumer, A. (2007). (POP-001) [S54] Defining an Integrated Agile Governance for Large Agile Software Development Environments: A Systematic Review
and Analysis. In XP’07 Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming .
Qumer, A. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2008). (POP-054) [S75] A framework to support the evaluation, adoption and improvement of agile methods in
practice. Journal of Systems and Software, v. 81, n. 11, p. 1899–1919.
Radnor, Z. and Johnston, R. (nov 2013). Lean in UK Government: internal efficiency or customer service? Production Planning & Control, v. 24, n. 10-11, p.
Ribeiro, L. and Barata, J. (2011). (ACM-0093) [S10] Re-thinking diagnosis for future automation systems: An analysis of current diagnostic practices and
their applicability in emerging IT based production paradigms. Computers in Industry, v. 62, n. 7, p. 639–659.
Roosmalen, M. W. (Matthijs) Van and Hoppenbrouwers, S. J. B. A. (Stijn) (2008). (POP-058) [S76] Supporting Corporate Governance with Enterprise
Architecture and Business Rule Management: A Synthesis of Stability and Agility. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Regulations Modelling
and Deployment (ReMoD’08) held in conjunction with the CAiSE'08 Conference.
Royce, W. and Cantor, M. (2013). Economic Governance of Software Delivery. IEEE Software, v. PP, n. 99, p. 1–1.
Sun, Y., Zhang, Z. and Valota, O. (2005). (I3E-0024) [S28] A Methodology to form agile strategies in manufacturing organisations. In Proceedings. 2005
IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, 2005. . Ieee.
Tallon, P. P. (2008). (SCO-090) [S106] Inside the adaptive enterprise: an information technology capabilities perspective on business process agility.
Information Technology and Management, v. 9, n. 123, p. 21–36.
Thomsett, R. (2013). The Five Keys to Organizational Agility: From Agile to Agility. In Executive Report, Cutter Consortium.
Weill, P. and Ross, J. W. (2004). IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results. Harvard Business School
Publishing India Pvt. Limited.