\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}

Our results reveal a set of nine management practices successfully employed in
abovementioned case. We analyzed unsystematic decisions made during a 30-month
collaborative project and identified three macro-decisions that harmonized the
differences of the management processes of each organization. We evidenced from
data collection, and responses of the members of both sides to the
questionnaires and interviews, the benefits obtained through the adoption of
this empirical method. The Table \ref{practices-table} summarizes
macro-decisions, practices, and benefits.

\vspace*{-.5cm}

\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\def\arraystretch{1.5}
\setlength\tabcolsep{0.5cm}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{  m{4cm} m{9cm} m{9cm}  } 
\rowcolor[HTML]{b7d0b9} 
\textbf{Decision} & \textbf{Practice Explanation} & \textbf{Benefits} \\
\rowcolor[HTML]{fafafa} 
\begin{flushleft}
\textbf{Use of the system under development to develop the system itself}
\end{flushleft} &
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt} 
\item The features and tools of the platform under development supported the project management and communication activities.
\end{itemize}
\end{flushleft} &
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt} 
\item Communicating with transparency and efficiency.
\item Easy monitoring of activities.
\item More interactions between developers and public servants.
\item Confidence in the developed code.
\item Organic documentation.
\end{itemize}
\end{flushleft} \\ 
\rowcolor[HTML]{f2f2f2}
\begin{flushleft}
\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team}
\end{flushleft} &
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt} 
\item Government staff, academic coordinators, senior developers and team coaches biweekly meet at the university lab, academia headquarters, for sprint planning and review.
\item Conduct on the platform technical discussions between government staff and the development team.
\item Involve government board directors only in strategic planning of the project.
\item Build a continuous delivery pipeline with stages involving both sides.
\end{itemize} \end{flushleft} &
\begin{flushleft}
\begin{itemize} 
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt} 
\item Reducing communication misunderstanding.
\item Better meeting expectations of both sides.
\item Improvement of the decision-making process.
\item Overcoming the government bias regarding low productivity of collaborative projects with academia.
\item Synchronizing the execution pace of activities.
\item Sharing a common understanding of the process from one side to the other.
\end{itemize} \end{flushleft}  \\ 
\rowcolor[HTML]{fafafa}
\begin{flushleft} 
\textbf{Organize the development team into priority fronts, and for each one, hire at least one specialist from the IT market}
\end{flushleft} &
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt} 
\item The coordinators separated the development team into priority work areas considering the main demands of the project.
\item IT market professionals with recognized experience on each front were hired to work in person or remotely.
\item Define among the interns the leadership roles: a coach for each front, and a meta-coach of the entire development team.
\item Each team has certain self-organization, being guided by one intern-coach and at least one senior developer.
\end{itemize} & 
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{2pt} 
\item Conciliating the development processes of each institution, taking better technical decisions.
\item Improving the management and technical knowledge.
\item Self-organizing and gaining autonomy in the management of their tasks.
\end{itemize}\\
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption{Empirical SPB management decisions and its benefits.}
\label{practices-table}
\end{table}

\vspace*{-1cm}

The results of this current work corroborate the lessons learned in our
previous work on studying the SPB project case \cite{meirelles2017spb}.
Evidence from the data collected, responses to questionnaires, and interviews
reinforce what has been reported by the academic coordination of the project,
adding the point of views of government and other roles involved on the
academic side. In short, the government staff took time to understand how
collaboration works and to realize that the project was not a client-executor
relationship and both organizations were at the same hierarchical level in the
work plan. 

The decisions, practices, and benefits presented in the Table
\ref{practices-table} should be evaluated and used in contexts with more
substantial plurality and diversity of government stakeholders. This study has
a few obvious limitations. Firstly, we point out the lack of communication
records and low traceability of the management data referring to the first
phase of the project. Secondly, we consider a drawback the hiatus between the
completion of the project and the conduction of interviews and questionnaires,
since we rely on the memory of the interviewees to rescue the events. Lastly,
the current situation of the respondents, such as their current working midset,
may also alter their perception on the on the topics addressed in the
questionnaire and consequently their responses.
