Approaches Adopted in the Implementation of Maturity Models Using

Agile Initiatives in Public Bodies: A Systematic Literature Review

Alfredo Gabriel de Sousa Oliveira

and Sandro Ronaldo Bezerra Oliveira

Graduate Program in Computing, Institute of Exact and Natural Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil

Keywords: Maturity Model, Public Body, Agile Methodology, Systematic Literature Review.

Abstract: The implementation of maturity models is essential to ensure the competitiveness and quality of services

provided by public bodies. By structuring their processes in a more flexible and adaptable way, organizations

can answer more effectively to the demands of society, which is increasingly dynamic and demanding. How-

ever, adopting agile methodologies requires planning and care. The wide variety of agile methodologies avail-

able, such as Scrum, SAFe, Kanban, and others, can generate some confusion and make it difficult to choose

the most appropriate approach for each context. A poorly planned implementation can result in process over-

load, team resistance, and, consequently, failure to achieve the expected results. To avoid these challenges, it

is crucial that public bodies invest in a gradual and personalized implementation process, as well as in re-

searching the models / processes adopted by other bodies. The choice of agile methodology must take into

account the size of the team, the complexity of the project, the organizational culture, and the strategic objec-

tives. In addition, it is essential to have the support of senior management and the engagement of all employees

involved in the process. By adopting a gradual and personalized approach, companies increase their chances

of success in implementing maturity models using agile methodologies. This paper presents a Systematic

Literature Review (SLR) to identify the most effective approaches for implementing maturity models in pub-

lic bodies. The SLR selected 13 primary studies that identified practices, recommendations, standards, imple-

mentation strategies, benefits, difficulties and points of attention found in the process of implementing such

models. Furthermore, it was found that there were shared characteristics, regarding the implementation pro-

cesses reported in the studies, among the bodies, which allows us to infer that other public bodies can use the

results as a basis for adopting similar methodologies. This paper contributes by presenting, in a consolidated

way, the recommendations that can facilitate the process of implementing maturity models. Ultimately, these

recommendations allow managers of bodies and / or stakeholders to outline a plan for implementing maturity

models in a clearer way, thus ensuring a more fluid process.

1 INTRODUCTION

Increasing technological complexity is one of the

“main drivers” of the maturity models evolution. The

rapid obsolescence of tools and the emergence of new

technologies require constant adaptations in

activities, methodologies, and processes, aiming to

guarantee the competitiveness and relevance of

organizations.

In this context, the adoption of maturity models in

the software development process in public bodies

aims to deliver solutions to the general population

more quickly and effectively. However, the

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0346-142X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8929-5145

implementation of these models involves complex

relationships, such as legal restrictions, slowness in

the activities developed, strong hierarchies in the

body, and others (Looks, 2022).

The evolution of software development

methodologies was driven by the search for

alternatives to traditional methods, often

characterized by excessive bureaucracy (Nuottila et

al., 2016). In this context, researchers in software

engineering began to explore ways to make processes

more flexible and dynamic, which led to the

investigation of more agile approaches (Vacari, 2015;

Almeida, 2017).

120

Oliveira, A. G. S. and Oliveira, S. R. B.

Approaches Adopted in the Implementation of Maturity Models Using Agile Initiatives in Public Bodies: A Systematic Literature Review.

DOI: 10.5220/0013556400003964

In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT 2025), pages 120-131

ISBN: 978-989-758-757-3; ISSN: 2184-2833

Taking this scenario into account, agile

methodologies stand out for their flexibility and

adaptability, overcoming the limitations of traditional

approaches and promoting collaboration, continuous

delivery and the ability to answer to changes

(Gonçalves and Paiva, 2014). The growing search for

greater efficiency and quality in processes has driven

the adoption of maturity models in several areas,

including software development (Gonçalves and

Paiva, 2014).

Based on the context presented, this paper

presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR),

carried out with the purpose of identifying the

methodologies adopted for the implementation of

maturity models using agile iniciatives in public

bodies. To this end, 13 studies were identified and

selected with the aim of presenting the maturity

models adopted by other bodies to IT (Information

Technology) managers in public bodies, as well as

presenting recommendations for activities to be

adopted in the context of implementing maturity

models by presenting the agile practices adopted,

their benefits and impacts on the organization, the

difficulties and points for improvement and attention

that may hinder the implementation of these models.

The results of the SLR present the scenario in

which other public bodies were implementing

maturity models and aim to facilitate and encourage

the adoption of maturity models by other bodies.

In addition to this introductory section, this work

is structured as follows: Section 2 presents some

concepts on the topic of this research, Section 3

details the study design, Section 4 presents the results,

Section 5 presents the discussions, Section 6

addresses some threats to the validity of this work,

Section 7 brings some related works and Section 8

closes this work by presenting the conclusions.

2 BACKGROUND

This section introduces concepts related to the topics

covered in this research.

2.1 Maturity Models

Maturity models are conceptual frameworks that aim

to measure the degree of evolution and capacity of an

organization in relation to a specific process. Such

models seek to evaluate the efficiency and

effectiveness of internal processes, providing a clear

view of how organizational practices are being

implemented, managed, and controlled (Carr et al.,

2023). The concept of process maturity is related to

the implementation of practices that result in better

control, greater predictability of goals, cost reduction,

and increased organizational performance (Lockamy

and McCormack, 2004).

The maturity of a process is typically defined by

incremental stages that require the implementation of

progressively more sophisticated organizational

practices (Škrinjar et al., 2008), ensuring a continuous

development of organizational efficiency. This

evolution by stages is crucial to achieving constant

improvement (Vlahovic et al., 2010). Measuring

process maturity is essential to understanding how

processes are being managed and whether they are

achieving the desired results. According to Gudelj et

al. (2021), by measuring maturity, it is possible to

identify gaps and opportunities for improvement,

enabling a detailed analysis of how business

processes are being implemented.

In addition to assessing maturity, it is equally

essential to analyze the effectiveness of processes

(Dumas et al., 2018). Process effectiveness can be

defined as the degree to which planned tasks are

performed according to established requirements,

within a given time frame, and the compliance level

with these requirements, according to previously

defined criteria (Seyyedamiri and Tajrobehkar,

2019).

In this context, it is important to highlight that

reference models, such as CMMI (Capability

Maturity Model Integration) and MPS.BR (Brazilian

Software Process Improvement), present well-

defined criteria for assessing a company's maturity.

This reinforces the idea that mature processes are

directly related to effectiveness. By adopting these

models, organizations can identify gaps in their

processes, gradually implement improvements, and,

consequently, increase their operational

effectiveness.

2.2 Agile Methodology

For a long time, software development was tied to

traditional methodologies that prioritize extensive

documentation, detailed planning, and final product

delivery. However, the growing demand for faster,

more flexible solutions aligned with customer needs

has driven the emergence of agile methodologies.

The Agile Manifesto, published in 2001,

represented a milestone in the transformation of

project management and software development,

establishing a set of values and principles that

opposed traditional approaches (Vacari, 2015). Agile

values prioritize: individuals and interactions over

processes and tools, working software over

Approaches Adopted in the Implementation of Maturity Models Using Agile Initiatives in Public Bodies: A Systematic Literature Review

121

comprehensive documentation, collaboration with

the customer over contract negotiation, and

answering to change over following a plan. These

values, although they emerged in the context of

software development, are applicable in several areas,

promoting greater flexibility, adaptability, and

customer focus.

Agile methodologies such as Scrum, Kanban, and

XP (Extreme Programming) are based on the

principles of the Agile Manifesto and offer specific

structures and practices for project management

(Oliveira et al., 2020). Scrum, for example, divides

the project into short cycles, called sprints, which

allow teams to deliver value to the customer in an

incremental and iterative manner. On the other hand,

Kanban emphasizes the continuous work flow and

process visualization, while XP promotes code

quality, constant communication, and customer

participation in development. The adoption of agile

methodologies has provided several benefits to

organizations, including greater customer

satisfaction, cost reduction, improved quality of

products and services, and increased team

productivity. By prioritizing collaboration, adaptation

to change, and continuous delivery of value, agile

methodologies allow organizations to be more

competitive in an increasingly dynamic and

demanding market.

3 STUDY DESIGN

This section details the research methodology,

including the objectives of the work and the research

questions.

3.1 Goal and Research Question

This study aims to identify strategies and approaches

applied in the implementation of agile maturity

models in public bodies and which are reported in

specialized literature. It is hypothesized that, in

projects to implement maturity models in public

bodies, there are practices, stages and attention points

with recurring characteristics in public bodies, which

should be taken into consideration during their

implementation.

The Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) approach,

developed by Basili (1992), was employed to

formalize the research objective of this study. Thus,

this study seeks to:

• Analyze: primary studies, by a Systematic

Literature Review (SLR),

• In order to: identify the methodologies and

strategies used in the process of implementing

maturity models that are reported in the

specialized literature,

• Regarding: the reduction of delivery time of

software products and the evolution of

processes related to software development

processes,

• From the point of view of: public service

collaborators and users,

• In context: of the public bodies.

Thus, we propose the following research

questions (RQ):

• RQ1: How to implement maturity models in

public bodies using agile methods?

• RQ2: What were the models and standards

used?

• RQ3: What were the agile methods and

practices adopted?

• RQ4: What were the benefits and impacts of

implementing the models and standards?

• RQ5: What were the difficulties found in

implementing these models?

• RQ6: What are the points for improvement /

attention in implementing the methodology?

3.2 Method

To achieve the objective of this work, an SLR was

conducted. SLR is a secondary study approach that

aims to systematically identify, analyze and interpret

relevant documents in primary studies, with the

purpose of providing evidence related to the

established research questions (Kitchenham and

Charters, 2007).

We performed the SLR from May 2024 to

October 2024. The study was organized in four steps,

adapted from (Kitchenham and Charters, 2007;

Petersen et al., 2015), as follows:

• Step 1 – Definition of research questions: in this

step, six research questions were defined based

on the objective of the study (Subsection 3.1),

• Step 2 – Search: in this step, based on the

research questions, a replicable process was

defined for carrying out the search for studies in

selected scientific bases (Subsection 3.3),

• Step 3 – Study selection: in this step a replicable

process was defined and applied to select only

the relevant studies according to the objective

of this work (Subsection 3.4),

• Step 4 – Study classification and data

extraction: in this step, based on the research

ICSOFT 2025 - 20th International Conference on Software Technologies

122

questions, a strategy was defined to: (i) map the

relevant data from the primary studies

(Subsection 3.5) and (ii) present the results of

the work (Section 4).

Two researchers participated in the planning and

execution of the work: a master’s studen in Computer

Science and a professor / researcher with a PhD in

Software Engineering.

3.3 Search Strategy

The search was carried out automatically using a

string composed by a set of keywords and their

respective synonyms. These keywords were defined

based on the research questions, using the PICOC

(Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes

and Context) structure suggested by Kitchenham and

Charters (2007).

However, this study only aims to identify

approaches related to the implementation of maturity

models in public bodies, as reported in the literature,

without intending to compare them. Therefore, the

"Comparison" criterion was discarded. Furthermore,

since the "Intervention" criterion addresses the

actions that will be carried out, the inclusion of

keywords for it proved unnecessary. Thus, the string

was formulated with terms related to (i) population,

(ii) outcome and (iii) context:

• Population: Public bodies,

• Outcome: Maturity model / practices applied by

agile methods

• Context: Software development.

So the search string used was: ("cmmi" OR "spi"

OR "iso" OR "model" or “standard” or “norm”)

AND "agile" AND ("method*" OR "practice" OR

“technique” OR “principle”) AND ("bod*" OR

"agency" OR "administration" OR “sector”) AND

("public" OR "government")

The search string was applied in the following

databases: IEEE Xplore Digital Library, ACM DL,

Scopus and Web of Science.

3.4 Study Selection

This phase of the research involved implementing

inclusion (IC) and exclusion (EC) criteria to identify

relevant works that specifically addressed our

research questions. The IC and EC are detailed below:

• IC: (IC1) Studies with public bodies, and that

can present a implementation case of the

proposed approach (use of maturity models and

agile methods) and that can present an

evaluation of the implementation,

• EC: (EC1) Studies before the agile manifesto

(2001s), (EC2) studies that are not written in

Portuguese and English, (EC3) duplicate

studies, (EC4) studies not available for

download openly or through the institutional IP

of the researchers, (EC5) studies that are not full

papers / articles.

We also included portuguese language because

we need to analyze studies published in Brazilian

conferences, which, even if written in portuguese, are

indexed in repositories such as ACM and IEEEE

(used to conduct the SLR), which are concerned with

reporting applications of maturity models in public

bodies.

Each of the studies underwent a four-step

selection process: (i) two researchers conducted a pre-

selection by reading the titles and abstracts of all

studies and applying the exclusion criteria, (ii) the

researchers discussed any discrepancies in the

application of the exclusion criteria to reach a

consensus, (iii) the researchers read the title and

abstract, and the full text if necessary, of the studies

selected in the first step to apply the inclusion criteria,

and (iv) the researchers discussed any discrepancies

in the application of the inclusion criteria to reach a

consensus. This process resulted in 13 primary

studies, which the list is available at https://

zenodo.org/records/14954696.

3.5 Study Classification and Data

Extraction

The Parsifal database management tool was used in

the review methodology to assist in the pre-selection

and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The selected data were then organized and tabulated

for quantitative analysis in Google Sheets. The results

were displayed using tables and charts, enabling a

quantitative analysis of the research data.

4 RESULTS

The results of the SLR are presented in this section.

An overview of the results is presented in Subsection

4.1. Subsections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 detail

the results for RQs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively.

Primary studies will be referenced and identified by

codes in these subsections; these codes and tables

(used to sumarize the data extracted) for this study are

available at the URL presented in Subsection 3.4.

Approaches Adopted in the Implementation of Maturity Models Using Agile Initiatives in Public Bodies: A Systematic Literature Review

123

4.1 Overview

The SLR search was for studies published between

2001 and 2024. In this study, we analyzed studies

based on different inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The results obtained provide insight into the

distribution and concentration of these components in

relation to each of the criteria.

The results indicated a high concentration of

studies excluded based on EC3, reaching 42 studies,

out of the 74 excluded in the post-selection. This

indicated a high rate of duplicate studies in the study

context. On the other hand, EC1 and EC5 did not

present any removal of the identified studies, EC2

removed only one study. EC4 had a modest count of

25 studies removed due to the impossibility of

analyzing these studies; and finally, after applying

IC1, only 13 studies remained. Thus, Table 1 presents

the condensed results of application the criteria in the

selection phase.

Table 1: Results of the Selection Phases.

Repositories Studies

Pre

Selection

Post

Selection

IEEE 7 2 0

Sco

us 110 22 5

Web of Science 83 12 6

ACM 515 52 2

Total 715 88 13

Figure 1 highlights the scarcity of studies on the

topic, due to its inherent complexity and the

regulations that govern these bodies, often laws. The

ingrained bureaucratic culture in these bodies also

hinders the implementation of agile methodologies.

However, in 2020 we saw an increase in publications,

possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which

caused significant changes in the functioning of

public bodies and the need for a new organizational

paradigm.

In 2021, there was a decrease in the production of

studies. However, it is important to highlight that the

topic remained the subject of research in the

following years, which highlights its continued

relevance for the academic and professional

community. This temporal analysis highlights the

growing need to understand the crucial role of

software engineering in public bodies, that is, to find

ways to improve the software development process

and, consequently, improve the delivery of solutions

for the benefit of the population.

Figure 1: Distribution of studies per year.

Figure 2 presents a data analysis by country. It can

be seen that, in Latin America, only Brazil

contributed to research in this area, publishing three

studies that represent 16.7% of the total scientific

production in the period analyzed. In the other

countries, academic production was mostly limited to

a single study, with the exception of Germany, Italy

and Spain, each with two studies published. This data

highlights the greater concern of public bodies,

especially Brazilians, with the issue in question.

Figure 2: Distribution of studies per country.

The analysis of Figure 3 reveals a predominance

of studies published in journals (69.2%) compared to

conferences (30.8%). However, it is important to

emphasize that the choice of publication vehicle does

not seem to be related to the geographic region, since

both formats are present in all continents. This

distribution suggests that the decision to publish in

journals and / or conferences may be more linked to

factors specific to each research, such as the target

audience and the stage of work development.

4.2 RQ1: How to Implement Maturity

Models in Public Bodies Using Agile

Methods?

The studies analyzed made it possible to identify how

maturity models are implemented in public bodies,

taking into account the many obstacles faced

ICSOFT 2025 - 20th International Conference on Software Technologies

124

throughout this process. In summary, only PS1, PS2,

PS3, PS5, PS7 and PS10 studies present a flow or

activities that must be followed to adopt these models.

Table 2 (as can be seen in the URL defined in

Subsection 3.4) presents the recommendations, the

studies they cite and the percentage of occurrence.

Figure 3: Distribution by publication vehicle.

It is important to highlight that the studies

cataloged show a greater concern with the

organizational structure present in public bodies

before the implementation of maturity models.

PS2, PS5 and PS10 studies highlight the

importance of two crucial aspects for the successful

implementation of maturity models in public bodies:

the clear definition of roles, responsibilities and

relationships between team members, and the

establishment of an efficient communication model.

When defining roles, it is essential to align the

existing organizational structure with agile principles.

This involves assigning specific responsibilities to

each member of the existing hierarchy in the

organization, considering the agile methodology

adopted. In addition, it is essential to establish clear

and collaborative working relationships between the

different bodies and teams. To this end, developing

an effective communication model is essential to

ensure the success of any project. It is necessary to

define the most appropriate communication channels

for each interaction, respecting the organizational

structure and the needs of each team. For each project,

it is crucial to establish a specific communication

channel with stakeholders and members of other

bodies, in order to ensure transparency and alignment

of expectations when disclosing results and goals.

The authors of studies PS2, PS7 and PS10

consider that defining an iterative implementation

plan is essential to ensure the success of the models

implementation. By allowing constant monitoring of

the process, it is possible to identify any deviations

early and take corrective measures. In addition, the

interactive nature of the plan facilitates the validation

of results, the adjustment of strategies and the

promotion of organizational changes necessary for

the effective integration of the models. This approach

ensures continuous improvement of the process,

adapting it to the needs and challenges of the

organization.

In summary, the authors of the collected studies,

in Table 2, demonstrate concern about the need to

reformulate the structures and work processes in

public bodies. The rigidity and complexity of these

current structures make it difficult to effectively

implement maturity models.

4.3 RQ2: What Were the Models and

Standards Used?

After analyzing the selected studies, it was found that,

of the 13 reviewed studies, only PS10 followed the

guidelines of the MPS.BR (Brazilian Software

Process Improvement model) standardizing body and

proposed a process to implement this model. To this

end, it integrated the development practices

encouraged by agile methods, which are also suitable

for the scenario of projects in micro and small

enterprises (MSEs). The proposal combines these

agile practices with the organized structure of process

standardization offered by the MR-MPS-SW

(MPS.BR Model for Software Development) model,

seeking alignment between flexibility and formality

in software development. This process was called

Support for the Implementation of MPS - IAMPS.

PS1 chose to apply the Lean Management

methodology. This methodology is an organizational

philosophy first presented by Toyota, which has 5

phases: identifying value (from the customer's

perspective), mapping the work flow for value

delivery, defining a fluid and uninterrupted flow,

developing a system that allows identifying whether

a given task is necessary for value delivery and,

finally, continuous process improvement.

In a similar way, PS2 proposed its own model

called Hybrid Agile Model. It derived from the agile

manifesto, this model aims to structure existing

organizational units according to the development of

human resources and the existing culture in the most

flexible way possible, presenting the roles and

responsibilities of each member, in order to complete

the activities in the most effective and reliable way

possible, being tolerant to organizational changes.

PS3 presented the ER²C SDMLC model, which is

compatible with the ISO 15288:2015 standard. This

life cycle model is based on the legal

recommendations made to a government body in

Approaches Adopted in the Implementation of Maturity Models Using Agile Initiatives in Public Bodies: A Systematic Literature Review

125

Australia. This model was developed to deal with

continuous development systems, focused on

managing risks present in product deliveries, in which

different levels of rigor are applied according to the

project stage.

PS5 presented a variation of the Scrum model

called Scrum@PA, in which it is more concerned

with the data destination. In this sense, new roles are

created to deal with this responsibility and existing

roles such as the Scrum Team assume the

responsibility of considering the population needs.

PS7 adopted Lean Enterprise Architecture

(LEAD), a mandatory standard organizational model

for local government, which was adapted due to its

complexity and associated costs. LEAD is flexible to

the size of the companies that adopt it and combines

an operational model based on the value chain with

agile Enterprise Architecture (EA) practices, focusing

on the strategic alignment between IT and business,

by linking EA directly to business demands and

adding value to the customer.

Finally, PS9 described the implementation of the

Structured Agile Framework (SAFe), a set of

organizational standards and work flows designed to

apply agile practices on a large scale in companies. It

offers a structured body of knowledge that provides

detailed guidance on roles and responsibilities, work

planning and management, and the values that must

be maintained throughout the process.

These different approaches highlight the

methodological diversity adopted by public bodies

and companies, which adjust their choices according

to the organizational context, applicable standards,

and available resources. This flexibility in selecting

and adapting models aims to overcome the specific

challenges of each organization, ensuring greater

efficiency and adherence to institutional needs.

4.4 RQ3: What Were the Agile Methods

and Practices Adopted?

Research question 3 aims to identify the agile

methods and practices adopted during the

implementation of a maturity model in public bodies.

Thus, Table 3 (as can be seen in the URL defined in

Subsection 3.4) presents the methods and practices

cited in the study, as well as the percentage of their

occurrence during the investigation.

Based on the analysis of the collected studies, in

Table 3, we identified a set of common practices in

agile projects and present in the aforementioned

studies. These practices include: (i) daily meetings for

team synchronization, where the team is presented

with what each member did the previous day, what

they plan to do, and possible impediments that may

occur during its execution, (ii) iterative planning, in

which the tasks that will be performed are planned

and taken from the backlog for the next sprint in order

to define the goals, (iii) retrospective, a meeting at the

end of each cycle in which what worked and the

improvement points are discussed so that there is

continuous learning, (iv) the use of a backlog, a

prioritized list of all tasks that need to be done in a

project, to manage the work, (v) collaborative

communication between team members, (vi)

incremental delivery of value to the customer,

allowing for better management of the product's

progress and customer expectations, (vii)

requirements engineering to ensure alignment with

user needs, (viii) risk analysis to mitigate

uncertainties, and (ix) collection of metrics to monitor

project performance.

When analyzing the methods and practices used,

there is a convergence around the principles of the

Agile Manifesto. However, it is important to

emphasize that each public body makes specific

adaptations to meet its particularities and the context

in which it operates.

4.5 RQ4: What Were the Benefits and

Impacts of Implementing the

Models and Standards?

Research question 4 aimed to identify the benefits and

impacts of implementing maturity models in the

context of public bodies. In this sense, Table 4 (as can

be seen in the URL defined in Subsection 3.4)

presents the benefits identified, the studies that cited

the benefit, as well as the percentage of occurrence of

the same.

According to the reports in PS2, PS3, PS5 and

PS10, the approach with stakeholders is a

fundamental element for the success of any initiative,

be it a project, a product or an organizational strategy.

By involving stakeholders from the beginning of the

process, organizations can reap several benefits such

as the active participation of stakeholders, the

dissemination of the work stages as well as their

expected objectives, which promotes a greater sense

of cohesion throughout the stages.

Strategic alignment as presented in PS2, PS3, PS5

and PS10 aims to present the business values and

objectives to be achieved more quickly and

effectively with the implementation of maturity

models. This practice ensures that agile projects are

aligned with the organization's long-term vision,

optimizing resources and maximizing the impact of

initiatives.

ICSOFT 2025 - 20th International Conference on Software Technologies

126

The definition of risk profiles (PS2, PS3, PS5 and

PS10) is essential to identify, classify and evaluate

potential deviations and their impacts on a company's

activities. By mapping these risks, it is possible to

establish an effective management plan, allowing

greater control over processes, optimization of

resources and more assertive decision-making. This

approach contributes to risk mitigation, crisis

prevention and continuous improvement of

organizational processes by allowing the application

of different rigor levels to the process (SP3) in line

with the levels of risks involved.

Increasing the capacity and maturity of a body is

an evolutionary and continuous process. As

evidenced in the PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS10 studies, the

implementation of maturity models provides a

structured framework to consolidate the experiences

and skills acquired over time. This systematic

approach allows for the identification of gaps (PS4

and PS5), optimization of processes (PS1 an PS10)

and promotion of sustainable growth of the

organization by reducing rework rates (PS10).

In summary, there are several benefits and

impacts that can occur during the implementation of

maturity models in public bodies. Such occurrences

are linked to the evolutionary process of the work

process that acts as catalysts in the transformation of

public bodies, which contributes to the modernization

of public management and the delivery of more

efficient and effective services to society.

4.6 RQ5: What Were the Difficulties

Found in Implementing These

Models?

Research question 5 sought to identify which

difficulties are most common in implementing

maturity models in public bodies. To better visualize

this information, Table 5 (as can be seen in the URL

defined in Subsection 3.4) shows that the main

problems are related to the bureaucracy that exists in

public bodies, whether at the communication level or

due to greater forces that are often external to the

bodies.

PS2 and PS7 studies show that the rigidity of the

organizational structure is one of the main challenges

for the successful implementation of maturity models

in public bodies. In order to overcome this barrier, it

is essential to promote a restructuring that allows for

greater flexibility and integration between the

different bodies, aligning them with a common

objective.

PS2 and PS13 studies highlight the difficulty of

interfunctional communication as a significant

obstacle to the implementation of maturity models.

The lack of integration between the different bodies

prevents effective collaboration and the exchange of

information, compromising the achievement of

organizational objectives.

PS7 and PS13 studies point out that legal

restrictions represent a significant challenge for the

implementation of maturity models in public bodies.

The requirement to adopt rigid and inefficient

processes, such as TOGAF and others, for example,

limits the flexibility and capacity for innovation of

organizations.

As highlighted in the PS2 study, the lack of

funding is a crucial challenge for public bodies. The

lack of financial resources for the execution of

projects compromises the capacity of these bodies to

meet the demands of society, limiting their social role

and making it difficult to achieve their objectives.

The PS13 study highlights the following problem:

the rigid hierarchical structure. This structure is an

obstacle to the participation of employees in decision-

making. This centralization of power hinders fluid

communication and the exchange of ideas, limiting

innovation and the organization's adaptation to

changes.

The difficulty in defining roles and

responsibilities, addressed in PS2 study, is

intrinsically linked to the organizational culture. The

resistance of employees to taking on new

responsibilities may be a reflection of a culture that

values the comfort zone and discourages proactivity.

The implementation of maturity models requires a

cultural change that encourages collaboration,

autonomy and a sense of responsibility.

Finally, the PS2 study also highlights the

difficulty that public bodies have in assessing the

progress and success of their projects. The lack of

clear metrics and indicators, as well as an effective

monitoring system, makes it difficult to measure

results and identify areas for improvement.

4.7 RQ6: What Are the Points for

Improvement/ Attention in

Implementing the Methodology?

During the implementation of maturity models,

identifying points that require improvement and

collecting data from previous experiences are crucial

to ensuring the success of the initiative. By analyzing

reports from other studies, it is possible to outline a

more effective action plan, overcoming common

challenges and optimizing results. Table 6 (as can be

seen in the URL defined in Subsection 3.4)

summarizes the main points for attention identified in

Approaches Adopted in the Implementation of Maturity Models Using Agile Initiatives in Public Bodies: A Systematic Literature Review

127

PS2, PS5 and PS9 studies, presenting the points for

improvement / attention, the studies that cite them, as

well as the percentage of occurrence in order to

provide support for other bodies seeking to

implement maturity models.

Continuous training of employees is a

fundamental pillar for the implementation of maturity

models in public bodies, being cited in 23% of the

studies identified (PS2, PS5 and PS9). By promoting

learning about the steps that concern a maturity

model, bodies ensure that changes are understood and

applied effectively, contributing to the integration of

these methodologies into the organizational culture.

In this way, maturity models are perceived as useful

tools for improving processes and not as obstacles

imposed by management.

The development of an effective Communication

Plan is a fundamental strategic tool for the successful

implementation of maturity models in public bodies

(PS2 and PS5). It ensures that all stages of the process

are communicated in a clear, objective and

transparent way to all those involved, from senior

management to base employees, so that everyone

involved understands the purpose of the practices and

tools adopted and that they aim to improve the body's

productivity.

The creation of multifunctional teams (PS5) is one

of the pillars for the successful implementation of

maturity models. By bringing together professionals

from different areas, these teams provide a holistic

view of the processes, stimulate innovation and

ensure the construction of more complete and

effective solutions. Additionally, the active

involvement of all stakeholders (PS9), from the

beginning of the process, is crucial to foster a sense

of belonging and commitment to change, contributing

to the sustainability of results.

5 DISCUSSION

The studies presented in Section 4 demonstrate the

clear concern regarding the implementation of

maturity models in public bodies at many stages. It is

observed that one of the main factors that impede

implementation is the bureaucracy that exists in the

organizational structure of these companies.

However, the cataloged studies present several

recommendations with the aim of minimizing and

overcoming these problems commonly found in

public bodies, such as: the definition of roles,

authorities, interrelationships, communication

models and others, valuing agile principles.

It is observed that the studies do not define in

detail, examples of documents or ceremonies, the way

to implement each of these recommendations, given

that each body has its own peculiarities. However,

there are reports of the context and objectives of each

recommendation in which these implementations

were made in order to serve as a guide for other

bodies. In addition, the fact that these

recommendations can be followed gradually and

iteratively allows for greater flexibility when

implementing these maturity models, since following

them creates a solid basis for the adoption of agile

methodologies in software engineering.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight that

several models and standards used during the

implementation of maturity models by the bodies

where the studies were conducted are presented. This

is due to the context in which these bodies are

inserted, as is the case of PS10 study, which presents

a process to support the implementation of the MR-

MPS-SW, a model supported by the Ministry of

Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) in

Brazil, at the Federal University of Mato Grosso do

Sul (UFMG), while PS7 study presents a case of

implementation of LEAD, a model derived from

Enterprise Architecture (EA) that is mandatory in

Finland. These examples highlight the diversity in the

adoption of maturity models, which reinforces the

idea that there are recommendations for activities,

rather than rigid obligations.

Regarding the recommended practices in the

process to be implemented, the presence of the

practices described in the agile manifestos is

common. Practices such as: daily, planning,

retrospective, maintenance of a backlog and iterative

delivery are present in at least half of the identified

studies, which indicates their relevance and the added

value in the agile processes adopted.

Regarding the benefits acquired by the

implementation of maturity models, some aspects are

important to highlight. The proximity with

stakeholders not only ensures a more fluid process,

but also avoids constant rework, since such proximity

allows for a better understanding of the customer /

population needs. Similarly, the strategic alignment

encouraged by the implementation of maturity

models contributes to greater delivery of value, which

enables greater use of the work products delivered by

the body.

Regarding the difficulties faced during the

implementation of maturity models, the greatest

incidence was observed in relation to the adjustment

of the organizational structure, legal restrictions and

communication between the different bodies of the

ICSOFT 2025 - 20th International Conference on Software Technologies

128

body. These issues are characteristic of public bodies,

due to the regime, culture and bureaucracy associated

with public service. Although they may or may not be

solved quickly, they require careful attention.

In this sense, in addition to the difficulties

mentioned above, it is essential to pay attention to the

continuity of the implementation of the agile maturity

model, which involves conducting training, creating

an effective communication plan and recognizing the

real importance of the process for the organization.

In short, agile maturity models present

recommendations and good practices that can be

followed by bodies that wish to adopt this model

regardless of legal restrictions, standards and other

problems that may arise as long as some effort is

made. This occurs due to the possibility of

customizing the process to be implemented in order

to adapt it to the reality of each organization.

As for the innovative aspect of this paper, we can

characterize it is presenting findings on the

implementation of Maturity Models and Agile

Methods used in Public Bodies, which is quite scarce

when researching on the subject.

6 THREATS TO VALIDITY

This section addresses potential threats to the validity

of this study and the steps taken to address validity

issues using the framework proposed by Wohlin et al.

(2000).

6.1 Construct Validity

To test the effectiveness of the search string and

ensure that SLR provided relevant studies, four

studies that met the search criteria were manually

selected. The search string was then run against the

databases, and the same four studies were returned,

confirming the effectiveness of the string.

6.2 Internal Validity

To ensure impartiality and accuracy, during the

extraction process, studies were assessed and ranked

through discussions and consensus in weekly

meetings. We recognize that the subjective judgment

inherent in some studies can introduce bias, and we

sought to mitigate this through this collaborative and

judicious approach to study selection.

6.3 External Validity

It is possible that SLR does not provide all relevant

studies on strategies and approaches applied in the

implementation of agile maturity models in public

bodies. To mitigate this risk, we identified and relied

on analogous studies, thus avoiding starting the

search from scratch.

6.4 Conclusion Validity

In order to ensure the conclusion validity, Section 4

presents tables that illustrate the results obtained

directly from the data. The observations, approaches,

and concerns that emerge from these results are

discussed to ensure a high degree of traceability

between data and conclusions. The corpus of the

study is available to other researchers, and the SLR

process was supervised by a professor with a PhD and

extensive experience in studies of this nature, with a

track record of several publications in software

engineering.

7 RELATED WORK

Okan and Akca (2024) conducted a Systematic

Literature Mapping (SLM) aiming to identify and

compare the maturity models proposed between 2010

and 2022. To this end, the authors selected and

evaluated 17 works. The main reports refer to the

evaluation of the maturity models implemented by

Public Bodies, which, according to the authors, are

more consolidated because they consider the context

of application.

From the related work, it is noted that there is

some distinction in relation to this work, as it focused

on identifying the approaches adopted in the

implementation of maturity models in public bodies.

8 CONCLUSION

This work presented the execution of a Systematic

Literature Review, carried out between May and

October 2024, aiming to identify the approaches

adopted for the implementation of agile maturity

models in Public Bodies. In this sense, 13 works were

selected from 715 found in the repositories: ACM,

IEEE, Scopus and Web of Science; which covered a

period of 23 years (2001 to 2024).

As a result of this investigation, several

recommendations were identified to be followed

Approaches Adopted in the Implementation of Maturity Models Using Agile Initiatives in Public Bodies: A Systematic Literature Review

129

during the implementation of agile methods, such as

the definition of roles, responsibilities,

interrelationships, communication models, among

others. These recommendations allow other

managers, implementers and/or stakeholders to

develop plans based on the experiences of other

bodies, setting clear goals and objectives.

The authors of this paper reiterate these last

statements because the findings obtained in the SLR,

and which were described in the paper, served as a

support instrument for the managers of 2 Public

Bodies located in Brazil for the implementation of

maturity models using agile methods during the

mapping of their software development processes. In

fact, these statements defined in the paper were

extracted from feedback provided by these managers

after applying the paper's findings.

Ultimately, this work can be used to highlight

some contributions to society and academia, such as:

• Dissemination of implementation cases on the

agile maturity models by other public bodies,

• Presentation of common practices and

recommendations,

• Presentation of the benefits and impacts of

implementing maturity models,

• Alerting to possible difficulties that may arise

during the process,

• Points of attention that should contribute to

effective implementation,

• Reduction in waste of resources;

Therefore, the results of this research offer an

overview that can guide bodies interested in adopting

agile methodologies in their work process, allowing

for greater delivery of value to the population that

depends on the services provided by them.

As for the limitations of the work, there is a low

number of implementation reports on agile maturity

models in the literature by public bodies. Another

important point to highlight is the existence of studies

that could not be included in the research due to the

unavailability of access to them.

With regard to future work, the results of this

review can be considered as a basis for further

investigation of the problems related to the

implementation of maturity models by public bodies.

In this way, it is expected to identify the factors that

lead to many attempts to adopt maturity models to

failure. Furthermore, investigating other bodies that

have adopted agile maturity models and analyzing

and adapting recommended practices, according to

the results of this SLR, can facilitate the adoption of

these models by Public Bodies.

REFERENCES

Almeida, F. (2017). Challenges in migration from waterfall

to agile environments. World Journal of Computer

Application and Technology (CEASE PUBLICATION),

v. 5, n. 3, p. 39-49.

Basili, V. R. (1992). Software Modelling and measurement:

the Goal/Question/Metric paradigm. Technical Report.

University of Maryland at College Park, United States.

Carr, C. N., Carr, R. F., do Nascimento, C. M., Mendes, G.

A., da Silva, I. H. M., Magalhães, A. F. B., Santos, A.

J. de S. (2023). Uma Análise Comparativa Entre Os

Modelos de Maturidade de Processos de Software

MPS.BR E CMMI: Descobrindo as Diferenças e

Semelhanças. Revista Contemporânea, [S. L.], V. 3, N.

6, P. 4959–4986.

Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A.

(2018). Fundamentals of Business Process Manage-

ment: Second Edition. Fundamentals of Business

Process Management: Second Edition, p. 1–527.

Gonçalves, M. B., Cagnin, M. I., Paiva, D. (2014). Iamps:

An process to support the MPS.BR implementation

together with agile methods. In: XL Latin American

Computing Conference (CLEI), Montevideo, Uruguay.

2014. p. 1-9.

Gudelj, M., Delic, M., Kuzmanovic, B., Tesic, Z., Tasica,

N. (2021). Business process management model as an

approach to process orientation. International Journal

of Simulation Modelling, v. 20, n. 2, p. 255–266.

Kitchenham, B., Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for

performing systematic literature reviews in software

engineering. EBSE Technical Report. Software

Engineering Group - School of Computer Science and

Mathematics. UK.

Lockamy, A., Mccormack, K. (2004). The development of

a supply chain management process maturity model

using the concepts of business process orientation.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,

v. 9, n. 4, p. 272–278.

Looks, H. (2022). A reference framework for agile

transformation in public administration. In: CAiSE

(Doctoral Consortium), p. 62-68. ISSN 1613-0073.

Nuottila, J., Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J. (2016). Challenges of

adopting agile methods in a public organization.

International Journal of Information Systems and

Project Management: Vol. 4: No. 3, Article 5.

Nuottila, J., Aaltonen, K., Kujala, J. (2022). Challenges of

adopting agile methods in a public organization.

International Journal of Information Systems and

Project Management, [S. l.], v. 4, n. 3, p. 65–85.

Okan, A. A. (2024). Exploring the landscape of e-

Government maturity models: insights from systematic

mapping study and comparative analysis. Digit. Gov.:

Res. Pract., v. 5, n. 2, Art. 12, p. 26.

Oliveira, R. A. de, Zych, D. R., Oliveira, J. de, Michaloski,

A. O. (2020). Desafios no uso de metodologias ágeis de

gestão de projetos em órgãos públicos: um estudo de

caso da Receita Estadual do Paraná. Revista de Gestão

e Projetos, [S. l.], v. 11, n. 2, p. 12–36.

ICSOFT 2025 - 20th International Conference on Software Technologies

130

Seyyedamiri, N., Tajrobehkar, L. (2021). Social content

marketing, social media and product development

process effectiveness in high-tech companies.

International Journal of Emerging Markets, v. 16, n. 1,

p. 75–91.

Škrinjar, R., Bosilj-Vukšić, V., Indihar-Štemberger, M.

(2008). The impact of business process orientation on

financial and non-financial performance. Business

Process Management Journal, v. 14, n. 5, p. 738–754.

Vacari, I. (2015). Um estudo empírico sobre a adoção de

métodos ágeis para desenvolvimento de software em

organizações públicas. 2015. Dissertação (Mestrado) –

Faculdade de Informática, Pontifícia Universidade

Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, PUCRS, Porto Alegre,

RS, Brasil.

Vlahovic, N., Milanovic, L., Skrinjar, R. (2010). Turning

Points in Business Process Orientation Maturity Model:

An East European Survey. WSEAS Transactions on

Business and Economics. v. 7, n. 1, p. 22–32.

Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C.,

Regnell, B., Wesslén, A. (2000). Experimentation in

Software Engineering. Springer US.

Yanow, S. K., Good, M. F. (2020). Nonessential Research

in the New Normal: The Impact of COVID-19. The

American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene,

102(6), 1164–1165.

Approaches Adopted in the Implementation of Maturity Models Using Agile Initiatives in Public Bodies: A Systematic Literature Review

131