See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/347747846

Proposal for a Software Development Project Management Model for Public

Institutions in Ecuador: A Case Study

Chapter · January 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-63665-4_23

CITATIONS READS

2 944

5 authors, including:

Antonio Quiña-Mera Ana Gabriela Jácome Orozco

Universidad Técnica del Norte 1 PUBLICATION   2 CITATIONS   
18 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Pablo Landeta-López Cathy Pamela Guevara Vega

Universidad Técnica del Norte Universidad Técnica del Norte
11 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Edition, Publication and Visualization of Geoservices Using Open-Source Tools View project

Consumo de Datos publicos por DraphQL View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonio Quiña-Mera on 28 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proposal for a software development project
management model for public institutions in Ecuador: A
case study

José Antonio Quiña-Mera1,2 [0000-0003-2516-9016], Luis Germán Correa Real1, Ana Ga-
briela Jácome Orozco1, Pablo Andrés Landeta-López1[0000-0002-2914-8696], Cathy Pamela
Guevara-Vega 1,2 [0000-0002-2470-8287]
1
Universidad Técnica del Norte, Facultad de Ingeniería en Ciencias Aplicadas, Ecuador
2 Network Science Research Group e-CIER, Ecuador

aquina@utn.du.ec, lgcorrea@utn.edu.ec, agjacomeo@gmail.com,

palandeta@utn.edu.ec, cguevara@utn.edu.ec

Abstract. Many software projects worldwide fail due to the lack of two aspects
of quality in the development process or the resulting software product. The sci-
entific community and the industry have developed and made available methods
and best practices to control these two aspects to face this problem. However,
several countries' regulations must also be considered, which must modify or
complement these methods. This research seeks to define a software development
project management model based on the Government by Results (GBR) frame-
work complemented by methodologies and best practices to guarantee its quality
and provide a comprehensive development service. And software maintenance
for internal and external clients of public institutions in Ecuador. A type of action
research was applied to carry out the study, structured as follows: 1. Research
design, 2. Theoretical foundation, 3. Development of the management model, 4
Evaluation of the management model (case study carried out in the Public Insti-
tution Yachay EP), 5. Results. As a result, an artifact framework for the manage-
ment of software development projects was obtained. The case study (software
project) shows that for every dollar invested in the project, $1.64 is recovered
during one year after its execution. Besides, the management model evaluated
the project with an average level of satisfaction since it optimizes the develop-
ment area's critical resources. It also found that the perception of the service
should be improved.

Keywords: Management model, PMI, GBR, ITIL, COBIT, AGILE, Software

engineering, software quality

1 Introduction

The current market is very competitive; it is not enough to produce and distribute
products and/or services; it is necessary to do it with quality to achieve customer ac-
ceptance. According to Moreno, quality does not have a concept; it is only recognized
[1]. However, quality in software is a complex concept that is not directly comparable
2

to a product [2]. For this reason, finding quality in software has become one of the main
strategic objectives for organizations, since their most important processes and often
their survival depends on the flawless operation of the software [3]. In the software
development process, it is essential to establish and implement a reference framework
or methodologies that allow quality to be measured throughout the software product
[4]. Currently, most software projects are governed by one or more methods. The use
of these will depend on the context in which the project is developed. The existing
methodologies in the market are of various types: traditional, agile, real-time, among
others, but always governed by processes and aimed at the control and assurance of the
quality of the software product [5]. In Ecuador, in addition to using the methodologies
above, state regulation applies to software projects carried out in state institutions that
must be framed in the Government by results (GBR) regulations [6].
This research aims to define a software development project management model that
ensures product quality and complies with the GBP regulations in public institutions in
Ecuador. The management model's design will be carried out by combining various
methodologies and acceptable development practices complemented by GBP regula-
tions. This model will be carried out in the context of a case study of the Public Insti-
tution (Yachay E.P.).
This work is structured as follows: Section I. Introduction, where the problem, jus-
tification, and objective of the investigation are defined. Section II. Materials and meth-
ods describe the research design and methodology, conceptual basis, and development
of the management model (research proposal). Section III. Case study: Implementation
of the developed management model. Section IV Results shows the results obtained
from the case study. Section IV. Discussion, with similar works. And finally, Section
V. Conclusions and recommendations.

2 Materials and methods

This section defines the research methodology phases, the participants, and the specific
objectives of the project (see Table 1).

Table 1. Research methodology phases

First phase: Research design
Second phase: Theoretical
foundation
Third Phase: Management
Model Design
(i) Define the research type, (ii) Define the re-
search method, (iii) Population and sample.
(i) Management models, project management,
frameworks, IT governance, (ii) Government by
Results (GBR), (iii) COBIT 5 – IT, (iv) Project
Management Institute (PMI), (v) Information
Technology Infrastructure (ITIL), (vi) Agile
Philosophy.
(i) Study and analysis of needs, (ii) Theoretical
foundation structure, (iii) Relationship of
frameworks, (iv) Establishing the Management
Model architecture, (v) Management model
 3

framework: (Policies, Norms, Processes, Proce-

Fourth Phase: Management
Model Evaluation (case
study)
Fifth Phase: Results
dures, Indicators).
(i) Case study context, (ii) Summary develop-
ment of the software project.
(i) Management model result, (ii) Case study
Results, (iii) Satisfaction survey.

2.1 Research design

Investigation type. In this work, action research in the field was chosen to research an
active actor within the context of public institutions in Ecuador to find solutions to
software development problems. The study was carried out in the software development
area of the Yachay E.P. Ecuador.
Research method. The chosen method to evaluate the research and the proposed man-
agement model was the case study. As a case study, this method was implemented in a
software development project to automate the document storage and archiving process
of Yachay E.P.
Population and sample. The study population comprises a work team made up of
seven developers, two coordinators, and a director of the software development area.
Due to the investigated population does not exceed 100 elements, we used the entire
universe without drawing a representative sample.

2.2 Theoretical foundation

This section conceptualizes the topics, standards, methodologies, and best practices
used in developing the software development management model for public institutions
in Ecuador.
Management model. It takes a set of administrative activities such as planning, coor-
dination, measurement, monitoring, control, and reporting that ensures systemic, quan-
tifiable, and disciplined project management [7]. Management models are work
schemes for entities administration concerning strategy, processes, people, and results
to achieve excellence. Organizations allow them to govern, order, direct, organize and
arrange a set of developed actions to administer or manage a project [8]. The manage-
ment model pillars must be aligned with the mission, vision, and values of the organi-
zation. The three pillars are: processes, technology, and people, which will achieve the
proposed objectives and ensure optimal results; these pillars can be reviewed at the
following weblink1 [9].
Software development project management. It determines the previous prediction of
the cost, time, money, resources, tasks, and quality of a software development project.
These activities distributed throughout the project, correcting changes over time as pre-
venting risks [10]. Furthermore, it aims to improve the project so that it is successful
[11].

1 Figure of pillar of the management model aligned to institution: https://bit.ly/2yoA5NA

4

Framework. A framework is a set of tools, procedures, techniques, and documentaries

support that allows structure, plan, and control of information systems' development
process [12]. The role of frameworks is to improve software processes, determine the
potentiality, the performance of their processes, and the organization [13]. They are
defined as quality standards that are developed through a maturing time of the pro-
cesses.
IT governance. Governments depend on information technologies (IT) for their proper
functioning and development [14]. Investments carry out in technology to make insti-
tutions more efficient, safer, and mainly to comply with their strategic planning [15].
Government by Results (GBR). "Results-based governance is associated with the
scorecard or command board, which is a management system that links the achievement
of long-term strategic goals with the daily operations of an organization, clarifying the
vision and strategy to translate it in action, through the redesign of internal business
processes as well as external results to improve strategic performance and results" [16]
continuously. The balanced scorecard suggests that organizations be evaluated and
managed from four perspectives; these can be reviewed at the following weblink2 [16].
COBIT. Its mission is to develop, research, make public, and promote an updated and
accepted IT governance control framework for the reception and daily use in companies
by IT professionals, assurance, and business managers [15]. The four management do-
mains are aligned with the Planning, Build, Operate, and Monitor (PBRM) areas of
responsibility. The COBIT 5 process reference model can be reviewed at the following
weblink3 [17].
Project Management Institute (PMI) and PMBOK®. The PMI is a non-profit insti-
tution for social purposes, founded in the United States in 1969. Its main objective is
professionalization in project management [18]. The fifth version of PMBOK® defines
project management as the use of skills, techniques, tools, knowledge, and execution
of project activities to satisfy project requirements [18]; Project management is ob-
tained through the application and integration of processes: initiation, planning, execu-
tion, monitoring and control, and closure. The PMPBOK process group can be re-
viewed at the following weblink4 [18].
Information Technology Infrastructure Library - ITIL. They are joint documents
detailing processes that efficiently and effectively manage IT services: standards and
best practices for efficient management and design within the organization [19]. ITIL's
main objective is to minimize costs in supporting IT services, increasing reliability,
consistency, and quality in the information requirements [20]. Considering the areas of
influence of ITIL in public institutions' management and operation, the distribution of
services can be reviewed at the following weblink5 [21].
Agile philosophy. Agile philosophy emphasizes value delivery. The important thing is
to deliver a first functional version so that the end-user can work with it and provide
feedback to the work team and the needs of the business can be better established.

2 Figure of the balanced scorecard perspectives: https://bit.ly/2SKh6nZ

3 Figure of COBIT® 5 process reference model: https://bit.ly/2YqVi4c
4 Figure of PMPBOK process group: https://bit.ly/3bTzz8W
5 Figure of ITIL in public institutions: https://bit.ly/2KTSBAe
 5

Cockburn, his work "The Heart of Agility," encourages agility and emphasizes four
essential aspects: collaboration, delivery, reflection, and improvement [22].

2.3 Management Model Development

Analysis. The management model responds to the study of the prioritization of in-
ternal and external needs in the context of public institutions, the regulations to be fol-
lowed by the control entities, and the guidelines and best practices of referential frame-
works. For the development of the management model, the GRP balanced scorecard,
PMI's best practices were considered. However, to complement the model, it is neces-
sary to use the IT Government COBIT 5 reference framework that allows establishing
the levels of governance and administration of the operation in software development
areas and maintenance of public institutions. Considering that software development is
a computer service, it was necessary to include ITIL best practices and agile philosophy
to design processes oriented to service and internal customer satisfaction. Finally, to
give transparency and follow-up to the procedures carried out in the model, it was com-
plemented with metrics based on the Balanced Scorecard. The design of the model was
carried out by the technology manager, the director, an architect, and three software
analysts from the Yachay E.P. The structure of the theoretical foundation for the devel-
opment of the management model was carried out as follows (see Fig. 1).

Policies
COBIT GBP PMI

Standards, processes
and procedures COBIT PMI ITIL AGILE

Balanced
Scorecard GBP Balanced Scorecard

Fig. 1. Theoretical foundation structure.

Relationship between frameworks: To create the IT Government and develop the

policies, rules, processes, and procedures that will govern the model, the relationships
outlined in the COBIT 5 framework were used as a basis, which will allow governance
within the development area. After studying and analyzing the reference frameworks:
GBP, COBIT, PMI, COBIT, ITIL, and agile philosophy, the relationships between
them were established and shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2. Policy-driven relationships.

IT Government "COBIT" GBP PMI
Evaluate, Direct and Monitor
Ensures it fits within the IT man- Strategic management, PMI Process
agement framework Growth
Ensures value delivery Client, Processes, Financial Tracing
Ensures risk optimization Process Control
6

Ensures resources optimization Process, Human talent, Finan- Planification

cial
Ensures stakeholders transparency Client, Process Planification

Table 3. Relationships are directed to standards and balanced scorecard.

COBIT (IT Govern- Agile philoso-
PMI ITIL GBP
ance) phy
Align, Plan, Organize Planification Spring
Build, Acquire, Im-
Execution User stories
plement
Deliver, Serve, Give
ITIL
support
Monitor, Evaluate, Monitoring and Balanced
Monitoring
Value control Scorecard

After the analysis, theoretical structure, and relationship of referential frameworks,

the architecture of the management model is established, which results in an Artifacts
Framework consisting of policies, standards, processes, and procedures for the devel-
opment and maintenance of software in public institutions in Ecuador, (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Management Model Proposal for software development.

Management Model Framework. The Framework has one policy guide, one policy
guide, one process, and three procedures. Besides, the documentation has 20 artifacts
needed to carry out the following phases of software development and maintenance:
start, planning, execution, monitoring, and closing of software projects. The templates
 7

of the components of the management model Framework are available at the following
weblink6.
To establish the Balanced Scorecard, the model will measure and evaluate the
productivity and performance of software development processes to control, manage
and continuously improve the methods to achieve the strategic indicator and the mis-
sion of the area of institution development. For this, Balanced Scorecard - KMI of
Kaplan and Norton [23] was used, which will evaluate the management of the devel-
opment area with four perspectives: financial, the satisfaction of delivery, internal pro-
cesses, development, and learning of team members. The indicators used are as follows,
see Table 4.

Table 4. Balanced scorecard indicators recovered from (Kaplan & Norton, 1992).
Indicators
Financial indicators 1. Return of investment - ROI
Delivery satisfaction indicators
2. Delivery satisfaction
Internal process indicators 3. Number of incidents found in the testing
and certification stage
4. Number of incidents found in production
5. Hours earned per project
6. Productivity per member of the project
team
Indicators of development and 7. Project research percentage
learning 8. Project innovation percentage

Each indicator has a technical and methodological sheet that shows how it is calcu-
lated. The technical and methodological guides can be downloaded at the following
weblink7.

2.4 Management Model Evaluation - Case Study

The evaluation of the management model was carried out with a case study about im-
plementing a software development project for the public institution Yachay E.P., con-
sidering the functional requirements [24]. The context of the case study is described
below. See Table 5.

Table 5. Case study

Software development project:
Applicant:
Functional requirements:
Application date:
Document management automation of the
public institution Yachay E.P.
Documentary Management
13 user stories
10/10/2017

6 Components templates of the management model Framework: https://bit.ly/2yV0QcF

7 Technical and methodological guide: https://bit.ly/2VQsv7F
8

Start date: 16/10/2017

Execution date: 11/05/2018
Deadline: 12/06/2018
Training date: 15/06/2018
Work team: One manager, one development director, one
project leader, two developers
Sprint number: 11
Number of hours per Sprint 40 hours
Smoke tests 50
Application tests 20
Load and stress test 9
Number of incidents after delivery 4

We developed the project with the artifacts described in the Management Model
Framework (Table 3) and used several model frameworks tools. The activities carried
out, the tools used, and the documents generated throughout the project development
phases. The complete Software Development Project (case study) can be downloaded
at the following weblink8.

3 Results

The result of the management model for software projects proposes a Framework (see
Table 3) that is made up of one policy guide, one norm guide, one process, three pro-
cedures, and 20 artifacts for documentation in the phases: start, planning, execution,
monitoring and closing of software projects. The artifacts to use will depend on the
technology and type of project (software implementation or maintenance).
The case study result shows in the integral scorecard of the project, see Table 6.

Table 6. Result of the balanced scorecard

Indicator Calculation factors Result
Return of Invest- Benefits estimation $7,670.40
$1.64
ment -ROI Project cost $4,684.23
Customer satisfac- Satisfaction survey's Weighted
4.30 4.30
tion average
Number of inci- Incident test stage 48.00 48.00
dents found Incidents: certification stage 16.00 16.00
Hours gained from Incidents: production stage
the project 4.00 4.00
Team productivity
Project investiga- Estimated hours 470.00
tion Effective hours 500.00 -1.50
Total requirements 20.00

8 Software development project related to the case study: https://bit.ly/2KJKKFj

 9

Number of inci-
dents found
Hours gained from Effective productivity 0.94
the project Estimated productivity 0.94
1
Team productivity
Project investiga- Research hours 80
16.00%
tion Total project hours 500
Number of inci- Hours of innovation 120 24.00%
dents found Total project hours 500

The Balanced Scorecard results show that the financial perspective was beneficial
for the institution because the project's cost was higher than the estimated benefits and
allowed to invest that difference in tasks of operational value. The cost of the project
will be recovered in less than the first year of using the system. The model implemented
the previous Quality Assurance (QA) review in each phase, which allowed to reduce
incidents, reprocessing, and maximizing team members' knowledge. The number of
incidents in the production stage strengthened the customer's perception of who re-
ceived a stable system (retrieved from the Satisfaction survey). The project had a 6%
deviation in planning, which means that each requirement was underestimated in 1.5
hours, causing a non-significant late delivery of the software product; this was quickly
alerted in project implementation stages as part of risk management and timely com-
munication with the requesting area.
For the evaluation of team productivity, the average of the team members' produc-
tivity was considered, which showed a slight gap in their learning curve because of the
change in project management and operation. The first assessment of the adoption of
the method is the initial state of the equipment; following evaluations for the project
manager should consider the actions necessary to potentiate each member's skills and
reduce the learning gap. In the context of the project's implementation, it invested 16%
of the team's effort to conduct research and 24% in tasks that generated operational
innovation and knowledge management for the institution.
The satisfaction survey was carried out on nine requesting users of the project to
assess customer satisfaction, and 15 days was given to fill it out after submitting the
project. The survey generates quality metrics: 75,56% usability, 81,11% performance,
74,81% efficiency, and 77,78% effectiveness. The results are shown as a percentage
reached concerning the expected value. The average satisfaction of the software project
is 77.31%, equivalent to 3.51 on the Likert scale. This result, validated in the balanced
scorecard's technical and methodological guide, classifies the project with a medium
level of satisfaction. The result suggests the opportunity for improvement in the four-
quality metrics, depending on the needs of the project stakeholders.

4 Discussion

To organize business processes, several authors generate proposals that combine frame-
works and methodologies to optimize their current approaches to provide a better
10

service. Alfaraj and Qin [25] report a proposal to implement an integrated model be-
tween CoBIT and CMMI using plugins of the ITIL, CoBIT, and ISO / IEC 22007
frameworks generated a template for integrating frameworks of job. The authors clarify
that the model will provide benefits to the organizations that implement it; They can
reduce the complexity of the decision-making process, determination, identification,
validation, and description of the area where they use it. We agree with Hussain's model
in combining several frameworks in our case, CoBIT, ITIL, PMI, Agile Philosophy,
and GBP, to improve a public institution's software development process and meet the
government requirements of results requested by external government entities. This
proposal was complemented by evaluating the model by executing a case study. In the
execution and development of the case study, it was observed that the institution's im-
provement began since a process was formally established with the necessary instru-
ments for its operation and monitoring. Furthermore, we were complimented by the
measurement through an integrated scorecard of indicators that measure the financial
perspectives, the satisfaction of delivery, processes, and learning of a project's work
team.
When executing the case study, it was observed that the model promotes the estab-
lishment of more realistic objectives in the projects, reduced incidences of errors,
thereby optimizing resources and reducing software costs, and also increases the con-
fidence of the management of the software development area. On many occasions, the
projects that require changes are not always well-received by all users; this directly
influences the software product's quality. It was evident that developing and imple-
menting management models (proposal) showed a deficit of trained personnel, which
requires a training plan for several team members. It was also evident that senior man-
agement's support and commitment is an essential point to implement projects of this
type because it requires effort in terms of training, organization, and change in business
culture.

5 Conclusions

In this research, we were able to study and integrate several methodologies and frame-
works to propose a software development project management model that ensures the
quality of the software product and complies with the GBR (Government by results)
regulations that apply to public institutions in Ecuador.
The proposed model integrated governance and IT administration processes recom-
mended by COBIT 5; the IT balanced scorecard was aligned with the Government for
Results (RBM). The project management structure was established with PMBOK®
(PMI) practices to manage internal and external applicants' software development
needs. The agile philosophy applied in the model helped to organize the effort and re-
lationships of the work team. It was based on ITIL to establish management processes
for software maintenance. Finally, the documentation proposed by the model met the
parameters of internal and external audits of the public institution without falling into
excessive and unnecessary documentation; on the contrary, the submitted
 11

documentation was a source of knowledge and experience that will serve for subsequent
software projects.
We evaluated the model through a case study applied in a public institution in Ecua-
dor. We found that the application of the model improved the management, monitoring,
and quality control of the software development process and the software product and
improved the direction of the institution's software maintenance.

The results of applying the model in the case study were shown through the compre-
hensive scorecard in four perspectives: financial, satisfaction in delivery, internal pro-
cesses, development, and learning of team members. The improvements obtained are
1) Traceability of the software development area's work, where there was a favorable
change in the process and product quality. 2) Organization and clarity of the project
team's functions allowed to establish a stable communication flow to achieve the pro-
ject's objective. 3) Diagnosis of the productivity of the development area members in-
dividually and as a team, which allowed the establishment of professional development
plans for each of them. 4) Develop software features focused on customer needs, which
were refined at each stage of development, which reduced the repetition of tasks and
issued early warnings of change to the original scope. 5) Timely identification of risks
and problems to take measures to minimize and mitigate the impact on the project. 6)
Accessible and public documentation of the project's execution that will serve as a ref-
erence for future projects, which can take advantage of the knowledge of the institu-
tion's software development area. Finally, it was possible to have a tool for project
evaluation and prioritization based on estimated financial indicators.
Despite the positive results of the model's application, it must be taken into account
that such models are subject to the variation of government regulations and regulations.

References

[1] J. Moreno, Programación Orientada a Objetos. Ra-Ma, 2015.

[2] Harter, D. E., M. S. Krishnan, and S. A. Slaughter, "Effects of process maturity on
quality, cycle time, and effort in software product development," Manage. Sci., vol. 46,
no. 4, pp. 451–467, 2000.
[3] F. J. Pino, F. García, and M. Piattini, "Software process improvement in small and
medium software enterprises: A systematic review," Softw. Qual. J., vol. 16, no. 2, pp.
237–261, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s11219-007-9038-z.
[4] L. Fernández, M. Piattini, J. Calvomanzano, and J. Cervera, Análisis y Diseño Detallado
de Aplicaciones Informáticas de Gestión. Ra-Ma, 2007.
[5] D. Gutierrez, “Métodos de Desarrollo de Software,” 2011.
[6] SENPLADES, Sistema Nacional de Información. . SENPLADES. Retrieved from
SENPLADES: http://goo.gl/DqH4SV. 2017.
[7] Y. T. Salamanca, A. Del Río Cortina, and D. G. Ríos, “Modelo de gestión
organizacional basado en el logro de objetivos,” Suma Negocios, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 70–
77, 2014, doi: 10.1016/s2215-910x(14)70021-7.
[8] L. Goodstein, T. Nolan, and W. Pfeiffer, Planeación Estratégica Aplicada. Santa Fé,
 12

Bogotá: Mc Graw Hill Interamericana, 1998.

[9] C. López Valerio, “Modelo de 8 pilares para las Pymes de TIC´s, una mirada en
retrospectiva.,” III Congr. Int. Cienc. y Tecnol. para el Desarro. Sostenible, Chiriquí,
Panamá, p. 11, 2018.
[10] R. Thayer, Software Engineering Project Management. New York: Wiley-IEEE
Computer Society Press, 1997.
[11] K. MacGregor, "Software Development Project Management: A Literature Review," in
26th ASEM National Conference Proceedings, October 2005, 2005.
[12] A. Mon, M. Estayno, and P. Scalzone, “Definición de un marco de trabajo para la
implementación inicial de un Modelo de Proceso Software. Aplicación de un caso de
estudio,” in XII Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación, 2006.
[13] D. Reifer, Soft.Management. NewYork: Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press, 2002.
[14] I. Hamzane and A. Belangour, "A Multi-criteria Analysis and Advanced Comparative
Study Between IT Governance References," Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput., vol. 1105, pp.
39–52, 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36674-2_5.
[15] IT Governance Institute, "Cobit 4.1," 2007.
[16] R. Kaplan and D. Norton, "The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,"
Harvard Bu., 1996.
[17] ISACA®, COBIT® 5. A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of
Enterprise IT. 2012.
[18] Project Management Institute Inc., “Project Management Institute (PMI),” 2013.
[Online]. Available: https://www.pmi.org. [Accessed: 01-Apr-2020].
[19] P. Weill and J. Ross, IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights
for Superior Results. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004.
[20] J. Amón-Salinas and M. Zhindón-Mora, “Modelo De Gobierno Y Gestión De TI,
Basado En COBIT 2019 E ITIL 4, Para La Universidad Católica De Cuenca,” Rev.
Científica FIPCAEC (Fomento La Investig. Y publicación En Ciencias Adm.
Económicas Y Contab., vol. 5, no. 16, pp. 218–239, 2020, doi:
10.23857/fipcaec.v5i14.168.
[21] J. Bon et al., Foundations of IT Service Management based on ITIL. Van Haren
Publishing. Pp. 36. 2005.
[22] A. Cockburn, "Heart of agile," 2016.
[23] R. Kaplan and D. Norton, "The Balanced Scorecard - Measures That Drive
Performance," Harvard Bu., 1992.
[24] C. P. Guevara-Vega, E. D. Guzmán-Chamorro, V. A. Guevara-Vega, A. V. B. Andrade,
and J. A. Quiña-Mera, “Functional Requirement Management Automation and the
Impact on Software Projects: Case Study in Ecuador,” Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput., vol.
918, pp. 317–324, 2019, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-11890-7_31.
[25] H. Alfaraj and S. Qin, "Operationalising CMMI: Integrating CMMI and CoBIT
perspective," J. Eng. Des. Technol., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 323–335, 2011, DOI:
10.1108/17260531111179933.

View publication stats