Back to all available

Agile governance: Examining the impact of DevOps on PMO: A systematic review

computer-education
data-mining-and-machine-learning
emerging-technologies
software-engineering

Abstract

The unprecedented velocity of digital transformation compels organizations worldwide to adopt DevOps practices, yet the corresponding adaptation of Agile Governance within the Project Management Office (PMO) remains dangerously underexplored. This disconnect poses a critical risk: governance models designed for traditional environments can become impediments to organizational agility and value delivery, directly compromising competitive advantage. Addressing this high-stakes problem, this study is essential reading for PMO leaders, enterprise architects, Agile coaches, and researchers in organizational management and software engineering. Addressing this high-stakes problem, the goal of this study is to conduct a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to synthesize current evidence and test a central theoretical proposition. We hypothesize that: The integration of DevOps practices fundamentally alters the PMO's agile governance model, compelling a definitive shift from rigid, control-centric mechanisms toward adaptive, value-stream-focused decision-making. Our meticulous analysis of 35 peer-reviewed studies validates this shift, revealing that integration fosters highly collaborative and automated approaches that inherently prioritize accelerated delivery and superior quality. This synthesis not only confirms the necessity of a governance-as-a-service model but also identifies pivotal avenues for future empirical inquiry focused on managing organizational change and structural adaptation.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].