\section{Research Design} \label{sec:researchdesign} % TODO (by Siqueira): Tenho a impressão de que esse parágrafo cairia bem no último parágrafo % da introdução. Pelo menos a ideia dele uma vez que resume bem o trabalho In this paper, we studied practical alternatives to harmonize different software development processes. We are interested in the relationship between government and academia from the project management perspective, without the enforcement of changing their internal processes. We present two research questions that guided our work: \textbf{RQ1. }\textit{How to introduce open source and agile best practices into government-academia collaboration projects?} \textbf{RQ2. }\textit{What practices would favor effective team management in government-academia collaborative projects?} To answer these questions, we use the case study as research method. We selected as a case the evolution of the Brazilian Public Software portal (SPB) \cite{meirelles2017spb}, a government-academia collaborative project based on FLOSS systems. To validate our answers, we picked three different points of view: developers, government agent, and data collected from the project repository. \subsection{The case study} The project to evolve the SPB portal was a partnership between government and academia held between 2014 and 2016 \cite{meirelles2017spb}. The old version of SPB suffered from maintenance problems and design-reality gaps. In this sense, The Ministry of Planning (MPOG) decided to join the University of Brasília (UnB) and the University of São Paulo (USP) to develop a new platform. This platform had as its primary requirement to be based on existing FLOSS projects and integrate multiple systems into one, providing the end user with a unified experience. In short, the SPB portal evolved into a Collaborative Development Environment (CDE) \cite{booch2003}. It was a novelty in the context of the Brazilian government, due to the technologies employed and its diverse features. The portal includes social networking, mailing lists, version control system, and source code quality monitoring. All of this software is integrated using a system-of-systems framework \cite{meirelles2017spb}. The platform development activities happened in the Advanced Laboratory of Production, Research, and Innovation in Software Engineering (LAPPIS) at UnB. The laboratory born from a professor that is part of Brazillian FLOSS community and another one that spreads out agile values. Thus, naturally, LAPPIS embrace the best practices of both ecosystems. For this project, the laboratory had a total of 42 undergraduate interns, and two professors engaged in the development team. Finally, the project hired six senior developers with significant experience with FLOSS communities, and two designers specialized in User Experience (UX). The government team was composed of one director, one coordinator, and two IT analysts from MPOG. They were responsible for contracts and collaboration management, which means they do not produce software. The MPOG analysts had their background in traditional management approaches, such as RUP, CMMI, and PMBOK. The leaders of LAPPIS and MPOG periodically met in person to manage the project progress, discussing strategic issues and technical goals. Initially, these meetings took place at the Ministry's headquarters and, usually, only directors and professors participated. On the academic side, the management of the development teams often spent two weeks per sprint and released a new version every 4 months. During the project progress, this workflow proved to be inefficient. Conflicts between the internal management processes and differences in pace and goals of each institution were compromising the platform development. Professors, with the senior developers' collaboration, incrementally employed a set of best practices based on FLOSS and agile values for improving the project management process and reducing the conflict between government and academia. Throughout the project, the LAPPIS team built an experimental management model to harmonize the different cultures. The development leaders made decisions in a non-systematic way to promote the usage of these best practices. In this paper, we analyze and codify these decisions and its benefits. \subsection{Survey, Interview and Data Collection} We divided the development team into two groups of participants according to their roles during the project: UnB undergraduate interns and IT professionals. For each set of members, we designed an online questionnaire with topics related to (1) project organization, (2) development process, (3) communication and relationship with members, (4) acquired knowledge and (5) experience with FLOSS projects. We also interviewed two MPOG analysts who directly interacted with the development team and project development process. The interview questions had four parts: (1) Professional profile;(2) Organization, communication and development methodologies (3) Satisfaction with the developed platform; (4) Lessons learned. We sent the online questionnaire to 42 interns and 8 IT professionals. All interns worked as a developer and received a scholarship. We got a total of 37 interns responses, and all professionals joined on it. On average, interns had 22 years and professionals had 30 years, wherein 8\% and 13\% respectively were women. About 43\% of the interns had the SPB project as their first contact with FLOSS. On average, the IT professionals had 11 years of experience, worked in at least 5 different companies, participated in 4 to 80 distinct projects, and 86\% of them had some background with FLOSS before the SPB project. We also interviewed two MPOG analysts separately. Each interview took an average of 2 hours with 28 open questions. They are over 30 years old, and they have more than 7 years working in the government. The analysts said that SPB project represented their first experience of government-academia collaboration. Finally, we analyzed the data from the principal project repository considering all the issues and commits. From April 2015 to June 2016, 59 distinct authors opened 879 issues, 64 different users made the total of 4,658 comments. The development team made 3,256 commits in the central project repository.