Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Agile governance theory: operationalization

  • S.I. : CICBA 2018
  • Published:
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agile governance has emerged as a relatively new, wide, and multidisciplinary area focused on organizational performance and competitiveness, which until recently had lacked in-depth exploration. Aiming to reduce this gap, we recently proposed the Agile Governance Theory to analyze and describe its phenomena, and provide a better understanding of how agility in business can establish effective and responsive governance. This paper describes the process of transposing the theory from a conceptual framework to the real world and developing the necessary measurement elements to test it. We operationalize the emerging theory according to the four remaining steps of part two of Dubin’s method: identifying its propositions, deriving empirical indicators from its constructs, and establishing testable hypotheses. We operationalized the emerging theory by: (1) depicting eight theoretical scenarios that help characterize and describe organizational contexts in the real world, (2) recognizing 11 propositions that allow us to predict the behavior of its elements, (3) identifying 24 empirical indicators to measure its constructs, and (4) developing 16 hypotheses to test the theory as a further study. We operationalize the theory to allow real-world empirical testing based on this work, as further study is necessary to assess the theory’s plausibility. We also make improvements and additions to the methodological approach for theory-building research (including Dubin’s Method), extending it to a multimethod approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: [21]. Inspired by [93,94,95,96,97]

Fig. 2

Source: Adapted from [6]

Fig. 3

Source: [6]

Fig. 4

Source: Adapted from [6]

Fig. 5

Source: Adapted from [6]

Fig. 6

Source: Adapted from [21]

Fig. 7

Source: Adapted from [21]

Fig. 8

Source: Adapted from [21]

Fig. 9

Source: Adapted from [21]

Fig. 10

Source: Adapted from [21]

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Lean is a mindset that involves never-ending efforts to eliminate or reduce “muda” (the Japanese word for waste) and deliver value. “Lean thinking” could be synthesized as an attitude of “doing more with less.”

  2. The term “capability” refers to a feature, faculty, or process that can be developed or improved [83].

  3. Chaordic philosophy was proposed by Dee Hock, founder and CEO emeritus of the VISA credit card association, as “a system of organization that blends characteristics of chaos and order” [92].

  4. A construct refers to a component of the phenomena of interest [79].

  5. A mediator is a variable that intervenes between two other variables, usually between a predictor variable and a dependent one [42].

  6. A moderator is a variable that tends to inhibit or restrain organizational performance, retarding its advance [21].

  7. A disturbing factor is a variable that can generate disorder, confusion, or commotion (chaos) in the organizational context, influencing its operational performance at some level [21].

  8. According to Thomsett (2013), business agility is “the ability of an organization to respond quickly and effectively to unanticipated events in its environment”.

  9. For instance, some concepts were used in a different sense, a fact evidenced by the group of shortcomings called “concept misinterpretation” in the review done by Luna et al. [7].

  10. Inspired by [94,95,96,97,98].

  11. Glaser [56] suggests credibility of a Grounded Theory can be evaluated through four criteria: fit, work, relevance, and modifiability.

  12. A substantive approach to validation indicates researchers need to document the chain of interpretations so others can judge the trustworthiness of the meaning arrived at in the end [57].

  13. However, preliminary findings from this research lead us to believe that the emerging theory can be applied in broader contexts.

  14. The notation describes the fact that each factor from the external environment receives an index “i”, which varies from 1 to “n,” where “n” is the total number of “environmental factor effects” [E] that operate in a particular instance of the theory.

  15. The notation describes the fact that each outcome from the organizational context has its “value delivery” [R] component, and receives an index “j,” which varies from 1 to “m,” where “m” is the total number of outcomes from the organizational context in a particular instance of the theory.

  16. This refers to any event unknown at the time this theory is being built whose explanation or prediction is outside the scope of this theory.

  17. Strategic propositions are distinguished from trivial propositions by their significance. Strategic propositions are those that, once tested, will corroborate or identify the need to modify a theory [80].

  18. A timebox is a finite time period related to an iteration of theory application.

  19. Citations highlighted as [NG*] are data collected in our observation of professional groups based on social networks during stage 2 of the research framework depicted in Fig. 1. Sampling characterization is available in “Appendix 2”.

  20. Operationism seeks to demonstrate that the empirical indicator of a unit is an operation performed by an observer with some kind of observing instrument (Dubin [32], p. 184).

  21. Reliability aims to verify that an empirical indicator produces reliable values, either through observer reliability or by instrument reliability (Dubin [32], p. 185).

  22. The intensive strategy entails focusing attention on one or more, but not all, of the theory’s strategic propositions. The intensive strategy may be appropriate if the researcher has a particular interest in a limited number of strategic propositions or if the resources available for research are limited.

  23. Homology indicates agreement between hypotheses and their corresponding propositions.

  24. Validity is the need to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions of each unit of the theory, obtained from its definitions, and its component parts.

  25. Citations highlighted as [IT*] are data collected in our semi-structured interviews during Stage 2 of the research framework depicted in Fig. 1. Sampling characterization is available in “Appendix 3.”

  26. We chose to use the verb “produce” in the sense of “to give rise to.”

  27. We use the verb “cause” in the sense of “to generate as a result.” Although “produce” and “cause” are considered synonyms, we use different verbs to describe different effects in each step of the figure’s reading.

  28. The term “competency” refers to a combination of skills, attributes, and behaviors that are directly related to successful performance on the job [98].

  29. We are addressing the value chain concept proposed by Porter [25], which looks at every step a business goes through, from raw materials to the eventual end-user. The goal is to deliver maximum value for the lowest possible total cost.

  30. According to Dybå and Dingsøyr [39], consistency refers to the similarity of estimates of effect across studies.

  31. According to Dybå and Dingsøyr [39], directness concerns the extent to which the people, interventions, and outcome measures are similar to those of interest.

  32. We have intensely studied this area for at least twelve years, and we have not found any.

  33. FREVO—Fostering Research on managEment and InnoVatiOn is a concrete example of a self-organized multidisciplinary research team, and I am very proud and pleased to be part of this brotherhood. See more at: http://www.frevo.org.

References

  1. Gartner Group (2016) Gartner says global IT spending to reach $3.5 trillion in 2017, Gartner Newsroom Press Release. (Online). http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3482917. Accessed 25 Jun 2017

  2. Janssen M, Shu WS (2008) [S102] Transformational government: basics and key issues. In: ICEGOV’08 2nd international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, p 6

  3. Gerke L, 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 edn. Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global), Hershey, pp 101–125

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kruchten P (2013) Contextualizing agile software development. J Softw Evol Process 25(4):351–361

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wang LX, Conboy K, Cawley O (2012) ‘Leagile’ software development: an experience report analysis of the application of lean approaches in agile software development. J Syst Softw 85(6):1287–1299

    Google Scholar 

  6. Luna AJHO, Kruchten P, de Moura HP (2015) Agile governance theory: conceptual development. In: 12th International conference on management technology and information system, p. 23

  7. Luna AJHO et al (2014) State of the art of agile governance: a systematic review. Int J Comput Sci Inf Technol 6(5):121–141

    Google Scholar 

  8. Luna AJHO, Kruchten P, Riccio EL, de Moura HP (2016) Foundations for an agile governance manifesto: a bridge for business agility. In: 13th international conference on management of technology and information systems

  9. Jones C, Medlen N, Merlo C, Robertson M, Shepherdson J (1999) The lean enterprise. BT Technol J 17(4):15–22

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wang LX, Lane M, Conboy K (2011) From agile to lean: the perspectives of the two agile online communities of interest. In: European conference on information systems (ECIS) 2011 Proceedings. Paper 209, p 7

  11. Bank for International Settlements (2010) Third basel accord, Basel committee on banking supervison—press release. (Online). http://www.bis.org/press/p100912.pdf. Accessed 22 Jul 2014

  12. US Congress (2002) Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002—one hundred seventh congress of the United States of America. Congress of the United States of America, Washington, DC, p 66

  13. Nagel RN (1991) 21st century manufacturing enterprise strategy report. Arlington. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a257032.pdf

  14. Beck K, et al. (2001) Manifesto for agile software development. (Online). http://agilemanifesto.org/. Accessed 01 May 2013

  15. Sharifi H, Barclay I, Gough P (1997) Moving towards agility: a way for UK manufacturing to go. In: 5th international conference on FACTORY 2000, 2-4 April 1997, conference publication no. 435 0 IEE 1997, vol 435, pp 2–4

  16. Sun Y, Zhang Z, Valota O (2005) A methodology to form agile strategies in manufacturing organisations. In: Proceedings. 2005 IEEE international engineering management conference, 2005, vol 1, pp 410–414

  17. Cheng T-H, Jansen S, Remmers M (2009) Controlling and monitoring agile software development in three dutch product software companies. In: 2009 ICSE workshop on software development governance, pp 29–35

  18. Dubinsky Y, Chulani S, Kruchten P (2008) Workshop on software development governance (SDG 2008). In: 30th international conference on software engineering, 2008, no. Sdg, pp 13–15

  19. Qumer A (2007) 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, pp 157–160

    Google Scholar 

  20. Luna AJHO, Costa CP, de Moura HP, Novaes MA, do Nascimento CADC, de Moura HP (2010) Agile governance in information and communication technologies: shifting paradigms. JISTEM J Inf Syst Technol Manag 7(2):311–334

    Google Scholar 

  21. Luna AJHO (2015) Agile governance theory, Ph.D. thesis, Computer Centre (CIn), Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife

  22. Luna AJHO, Kruchten P, de Moura HP (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, pp 88–90

  23. Poligadu A, Moloo RK (2014) An innovative measurement programme for agile governance. Int J Agil Syst Manag 7(1):26–60

    Google Scholar 

  24. van Roosmalen MW, Hoppenbrouwers SJBA (2008) 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, p 12

  25. Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moran A (2015) Managing agile: strategy, implementation, organisation and people. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gregory P, Barroca L, Sharp H, Deshpande A, Taylor K (2016) The challenges that challenge: engaging with agile practitioners’ concerns. Inf Softw Technol 77:92–104

    Google Scholar 

  28. Van Wyk L, Marnewick C (2016) Applying governance principles to improve agile project success. In: Proceedings of international association for management of technology conference, pp 359–376

  29. Lima T, Barbosa CE, De Souza JM (2017) Analysing agile governance processes in the Brazilian Government scenario. Int J Manag Decis Mak 16(2):131

    Google Scholar 

  30. Creswell JW (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Second. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  31. Myers MD, Avison D (eds) (2002) Qualitative research in information systems: a reader. SAGE

  32. Dubin R (1978) Theory building: a practical guide to the construction and testing of theoretical models. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Corbin JM, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13(1):3–21

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sjøberg DIK, Dybå T, Anda B, Hannay J (2008) Building theories in software engineering. In: Shull F (ed) Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 312–336

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lynham SA (2002) The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Adv Dev Hum Resour 4(3):221–241

    Google Scholar 

  36. Torraco RJ (2002) Research methods for theory building in applied disciplines: a comparative analysis. Adv Dev Hum Resour 4(3):355–376

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lynham SA (2002) Quantitative research and theory building: Dubin’s method. Adv Dev Hum Resour 4(3):242–276

    Google Scholar 

  38. Weick KE (1989) Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):516–531

    Google Scholar 

  39. Dybå T, Dingsøyr T (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf Softw Technol 50(9–10):833–859

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kitchenham BA et al (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. University of Durham, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  41. Noblit GW, Hare RDR (1988) Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies, vol 11. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  42. Marôco J (2014) Análise de equações estruturais: fundamentos teóricos, software & aplicações, 2a edn. ReportNumber Lda, Pêro Pinheiro

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M (2008) Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit, vol 6, no 1, pp 53–60

  44. Weston R (2006) A brief guide to structural equation modeling. Couns Psychol 34:719–751

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pandit NR (1995) The creation of theory: a recent application of the grounded theory method. Qual Rep 2(4):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  46. Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532

    Google Scholar 

  47. Murthy D (2008) Digital ethnography: an examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology 42:837–855

    Google Scholar 

  48. Marcus GE (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annu Rev Anthropol 24:95–117

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hove SE, Anda B (2005) Experiences from conducting semi-structured interviews in empirical software engineering research. In: Proceedings—international software metrics symposium, vol 2005, pp 203–212

  50. Turney L (2009) Semi-structured interview. Qual Res 23:1–2

    Google Scholar 

  51. Friese S (2014) Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS,ti. SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  52. ATLAS.it (2015) ATLASti 7: user guide and reference. Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  53. Groves R, Fowler F Jr, Couper M (2013) Survey methodology. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Schuetzenmeister F (2010) University research management: an exploratory literature review. European Union Center of Excellence, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  55. Glaser BG, Holton J (2007) Remodeling grounded theory, Hist Soc Res, no 19, pp 47–68

  56. Glaser BG (1992) Basics of grounded theory analysis: emergence vs. forcing. Sociology Press, Mill Valley

    Google Scholar 

  57. Angen MJ (2000) Evaluating interpretive inquiry: reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qual Health Res 10(3):378–395

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sutton RI, Staw BM (1995) What theory is not. Adm Sci Q 40(3):371–384

    Google Scholar 

  59. Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  60. Birks M, Mills J (2010) Essentials of grounded theory. Grounded theory: a practical guide. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  61. Cronbach L, Meehl P (1955) Construct validity in psyciological tests. Psychol Bull 59(4):257–272

    Google Scholar 

  62. Brahma SS (2009) Assessment of construct validity in management research. J Manag Res 9:59–71

    Google Scholar 

  63. Schwab DP (1980) Construct validity in organizational behavior. Res Organ Behav 2:3–43

    Google Scholar 

  64. Preston DS, Karahanna E (2009) Antecedents of IS strategic alignment: a nomological network. Inf Syst Res 20:159–179

    Google Scholar 

  65. Xu J, Zhu J, Liao SSY (2011) Organizational context in information systems research: perspectives and components. In: 2011 International conference on management and service science (MASS), pp 1–4

  66. Pojasek RB (2013) Organizations and their contexts: where risk management meets sustainability performance. Environ Qual Manag 22(3):81–93

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lynham SA, Chermack TJ (2006) Responsible leadership for performance: a theoretical model and hypotheses. J Leadersh Organ Stud 12(4):73–88

    Google Scholar 

  68. S. Rivard, “The Ions of Theory Construction [Editor’s Comments],” MIS Q., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. iii–xiii, 2014

  69. Humphrey A (2005) SWOT analysis for management consulting. SRI alumni Newslett 1:7–8

    Google Scholar 

  70. Panagiotou G (2003) Bringing SWOT into Focus. Bus Strat Rev 14:8–10

    Google Scholar 

  71. Barton H (2013) ‘Lean’ policing? New approaches to business process improvement across the UK police service. Public Money Manag 33(3):221–224

    Google Scholar 

  72. OGC (2007) ITIL v3: service strategy, vol 34. UK Office of Government Commerce. The Stationary Office, London

  73. ISACA (2012) COBIT 5: a business framework for the governance and management of enterprise IT, 1st edn. ISACA, Rolling Meadows

    Google Scholar 

  74. Talby D, Dubinsky Y (2009) Governance of an agile software project. In: ICSE workshop on software development governance, 2009. SDG’09, pp 40–45

  75. Dubinsky Y, Hazzan O (2012) Software governance using retrospectives: a case study. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on software science, technology and engineering, pp 40–45

  76. Zheng H, Chanaron J-J, You J-X, Chen X (2009) Designing a key performance indicator system for technological innovation audit at firm’s level: a framework and an empirical study. In: IEEE international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, 2009. IEEM 2009, pp 1–5

  77. Taylor MZ (2004) Empirical evidence against varieties of capitalism’s theory of technological innovation. Int Organ 58(03):601–631

    Google Scholar 

  78. Tuttle MM (2003) Toward a theory of continuous socialization for organizational renewal, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin

  79. Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q Manag Inf Syst 30(3):611–642

    Google Scholar 

  80. Dubin R (1976) Theory building in applied areas. In: Dunnette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Rand McNally College Pub. Co., Chicago, pp 17–39

    Google Scholar 

  81. Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strat Manag J 21:1105–1121

    Google Scholar 

  82. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A, Wiley J (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strat Manag J 18(7):509–533

    Google Scholar 

  83. Vincent L (2008) Differentiating competence, capability and capacity. Innov Perspect 16(3):2

    Google Scholar 

  84. Parcell J, Holden S (2013) Agile policy development for digital government: an exploratory case study. In: Proceedings of the 14th annual international conference on digital government research, pp 11–17

  85. Gong Y, Janssen M (2010) Measuring process flexibility and agility. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance—ICEGOV’10, p 173

  86. GRADE Working Group (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ: Br Med J 328(7454):1490

    Google Scholar 

  87. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (2009) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Publishers, Piscataway

    Google Scholar 

  88. Leffingwell D (2016) SAFe®4.0 Reference Guide: Scaled Agile Framework®for Lean Software and Systems Engineering. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  89. Burke B (2014) Gamify: how gamification motivates people to do extraordinary things. Bibliomotion, Inc., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  90. Tscharntke T, Hochberg ME, Rand TA, Resh VH, Krauss J (2007) Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biol 5(1):e18

    Google Scholar 

  91. Hock D (1999) Birth of the chaordic age. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  92. Thomsett R (2013) The five keys to organizational agility: from agile to agility. In: Executive report, cutter consortium, vol 14, no 3, p 22

  93. Lynham SA (2000) The development of ‘a theory of responsible leadership for performance’. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  94. Monasor MJ (2014) A framework for interaction training in Global Software Development, Ph.D. thesis, University of Castilla-La Mancha A

  95. Dorairaj S (2013) The theory of one team: agile software development with distributed teams, Ph.D. thesis, Victoria University of Wellington

  96. Aramayo J (2013) Modelagem do desempenho ambiental dos projetos de exploração e produção aplicando equações estruturais, Ph.D. thesis, Unversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte

  97. Adolph S (2013) Reconciling perspectives: a substantive theory of how people manage the process of software development, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Britsh Columbia

  98. Landström B, Mattsson B, Rudebeck C (2009) Attributes of competence—on GPs’ work performance in daily practice. Scand J 37:598–603

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We applied the SDC approach to the sequence of authors [90, 91]. We are very grateful to Prof. Philippe Kruchten for his inestimable contributions and support throughout this research. The authors acknowledge to CAPES, Brazil’s Science without Borders Program, CNPq, and ATI-PE by the research support. Special thanks to Luciano José de Farias Silva, and FREVOFootnote 33 team for their valuable contributions. We are very thankful to all the authors, scholars and practitioners who we have contact and who participated in the several stages of this research, in which the worthwhile contributions were instrumental in the outcome of this work. Also, we would like to thank PGE-PE, Telehealth Nucleus (NUTES-UFPE), Department of Management Sciences (DCA-UFPE), Nucleus of Studies and Research in Information Systems (NEPSI), and Clinics Hospital at UFPE (HCUFPE), where the unfolding of this work is already going on.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Sciences (DCA), Center for Applied Social Sciences (CCSA), Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

    Alexandre J. H. de O. Luna

  2. Centro de Informática (CIn), Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

    Alexandre J. H. de O. Luna & Hermano P. de Moura

  3. Department of Computer Science (DC), Federal Rural University of Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

    Marcelo L. M. Marinho

Authors
  1. Alexandre J. H. de O. Luna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo L. M. Marinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hermano P. de Moura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre J. H. de O. Luna.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Theory-building method comparison. Based on: [32,33,34, 36, 37].

See Table 5 and Fig. 11.

Table 5 Methods comparison: strengths, limitations, and completeness
Full size table
Fig. 11
figure 11

Methods comparison: trying to correlate the stages of theory-building research

Full size image

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 Data sampling: professional groups based on social networks we have observed and interacted
Full size table

Appendix 3

See Table 7.

Table 7 Data sampling: interview’s subject profile
Full size table

Appendix 4

See Fig. 12.

Fig. 12
figure 12

Source: Example extracted from research repository (ATLAS.ti). Source: Adapted from [21]

Illustration representing the coding process.

Full size image

Appendix 5

See Fig. 13.

Fig. 13
figure 13

Source: Adapted from [21]

Big picture: theoretical scenarios (φ1 … φn).

Full size image

Appendix 6

See Table 8.

Table 8 Theory’s propositions: summary of classification
Full size table

Appendix 7

See Table 9.

Table 9 Theory’s hypotheses: summary of classification
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luna, A.J.H.d., Marinho, M.L.M. & de Moura, H.P. Agile governance theory: operationalization. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 16, 3–44 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-019-00345-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-019-00345-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation