\section{Introduction}

E-government projects differ from others due to their complexity and
extension \cite{anthopoulos2016egovernment}. They are complex because they
combine construction, innovation, information \& communications technologies,
politics and social impact. Their extension, on the other hand, is related to
their scope, target audience, organizational size, time and the corresponding
resistance to change. Government-academia researches can be considered a way to
create novelty for e-government projects and to meet the needs of society.
However, this collaborative work also has challenges, such as to organize the
project, to align goals, to synchronize the pace of both government-academia
sides \cite{sandberg2017iacollaboration}, and to overcome the failure trend of
e-government projects \cite{goldfinch2007pessimism}.

Poor project management is one of the main reasons why e-government projects
fail \cite{anthopoulos2016egovernment}. In Brazil, while academia increases its
researches regarding open source and agile approaches benefits to project
management, government organizations remain using traditional methods to
discipline its software development. When government and academia decide to
join forces to develop an e-government solution, these differences in project
management become an issue. Changing the software development process in a
large-size institution represents a complex organizational disturbance that has
impacts on structure, culture, and management practices
\cite{nerur2015challenges}, which will limit its feasibility in projects with
tight deadlines and short budgets.

This paper presents practices based on open source ecosystems and agile
methodologies, and adopted to harmonize differences between government and academia project management. We map
the management practices of the referred project by examining a 30-month government-academia collaboration case. Then we show benefits of this empirical model, using collected data from repository management tools and from project participants surveyed: analysts from the Brazilian Ministry of Planning (MPOG) and developers from the University of Brasília and the University of São Paulo.

