Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on IS ... alleen paper.pdf · Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on IS Management and Evaluation University of Ghent, Belgium 11-12

Proceedings of the8th European Conference on

IS Management and Evaluation

University of Ghent,Belgium

11-12 September 2014

Edited by

Jan Devos and Steven De Haes

A conference managed by ACPI, UK

Copyright The Authors, 2014. All Rights Reserved.

No reproduction, copy or transmission may be made without written permission from the individual authors.

Papers have been double‐blind peer reviewed before final submission to the conference. Initially, paper abstracts were read and selected by the conference panel for submission as possible papers for the conference.

Many thanks to the reviewers who helped ensure the quality of the full papers.

These Conference Proceedings have been submitted to Thomson ISI for indexing. Please note that the process of indexing can take up to a year to complete.

Further copies of this book and previous year’s proceedings can be purchased from http://academic‐bookshop.com

E‐Book ISBN: 978‐1‐910309‐43‐8 E‐Book ISSN: 2048‐8920 Book version ISBN: 978‐1‐910309‐41‐4 Book Version ISSN: 2048‐8912 CD Version ISBN: 978‐1‐910309‐42‐1 CD Version ISSN: 2048‐979X

Published by Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading UK 44‐118‐972‐4148 www.academic‐publishing.org

The Development of an IT Governance Maturity Model for Hard and Soft Governance

Daniël Smits and Jos van Hillegersberg School of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: To be able to advance in maturity, organizations should pay attention to both the hard and soft aspects of governance. Current literature on IT governance (ITG) is mostly directed at the hard part of governance, focusing on structures and processes. The soft part of governance is related to social aspects like human behavior and organizational culture. This part of governance receives much less attention in the literature. The goal of the study is to design a model which covers hard and soft governance and can be used as a basis for a maturity model (MM). We adopted a research method based on a combination of design science and a Delphi study using the Spilter Group Decision Support System. In this paper we build upon a systematic literature study we conducted. In this study we did not find a MM for ITG that covers the hard and soft part of governance. We thus designed a new maturity ITG (MIG) model using knowledge from literature and experts. As the first step we designed an initial model using literature. This initial model was discussed and improved with experts from practice during a Delphi study with four rounds. The result was a MM with four domains and a context of the organization. The four domains are ‘Collaboration’, ‘Structure’, ‘Process’ and ‘Behavior’. Within each domain focus areas were defined based on knowledge from literature and experts. The focus areas ‘Culture’ and ‘Internal organization’ from the initial model were moved to the context component because they could be seen as value free. They belong in the situational part of the MM and not in the maturity grid. The contributions of this paper are twofold: n1) a description of the focus areas of the MIG model, i.e. an ITG MM which covers both hard and soft governance: this is of value because such a model for ITG does not exist and is needed in practice; 2) a description of the design process of the MM: this is of value because the procedures and methods that led to current MMs have only been documented very sketchily or implicitly. Keywords: IT governance, maturity model, behavior, organizational culture, design science, Delphi study

1. Introduction IT governance (ITG) is an ongoing concern for organizations worldwide. A McKinsey global survey in 2014 showed that 30% of the interviewed executives mentioned “improving governance processes and oversight” as most important to improving IT performance (Khan & Sikes, 2014). The CEB Audit Leadership Council has included ITG in their top 10 ‘hot spots’ for 2014 (Kann et al, 2013). ITG is a relatively new topic. The first publications discussing ITG appeared in the late 1990s (Webb, Pollard & Ridley, 2006). Definitions of ITG in the literature vary greatly (Webb, Pollard & Ridley, 2006; Lee & Lee, 2009). An analysis of the ITG literature revealed that six streams of thought can be distinguished in ITG (Smits & van Hillegersberg, 2013). These streams see ITG as: decision‐making; as part of IT auditing; as part of corporate governance from a performance perspective; as part of corporate governance from a conformance perspective; and functioning either top‐down or bottom‐up. Recent studies showed that ITG maturity has a significant positive impact on IT performance and firm performance (Liang et al, 2011; Simonsson, Johnson & Ekstedt, 2010). Most maturity models (MMs) used for ITG are related to existing frameworks like COBIT, ITIL and CMMi, and are largely focused on processes and structures (Rogers, 2009). Still, people are an important asset in organizations. People don’t work or think in terms of process and structure only. Human behavior and organizational culture are equally important aspects of governance. A survey by the IT Governance Institute showed that the culture of an organization was seen by 50% of the participants as one of the factors that most influenced the implementation of ITG, surpassed only by “business objectives or strategy” which scored 57% (ITGI, 2011). Improvements are needed less in terms of structure and process and more in terms of the human or social aspects of governance (Davies, 2006). To be able to grow in maturity, organizations should thus pay attention to the hard and soft aspects of governance (ITGI, 2011). In a systematic literature study we conducted we could not find a MM for ITG that covers process, structure, human behavior and organizational culture (Smits & van Hillegersberg, 2013). We thus designed a MM

347

mailto:[email protected]

Daniël Smits and Jos van Hillegersberg

covering both soft and hard aspects using knowledge from literature and experts. The basic concept of a MM consists of a number of areas—henceforth called focus areas—which mature along a predefined path to achieve higher levels of maturity. A higher level of maturity is defined as a better means to fulfill its purpose; the predefined path is described by a set of capabilities. Capabilities are the ability to mobilize and deploy resources to achieve a goal (Bharadwaj, 2000). The goal of this study is to answer the following research question: Which focus areas should an ITG MM for soft and hard governance contain? This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the research methodology. Section 3 covers the design of the initial model. The results of the Delphi sessions and the introduction of the maturity ITG (MIG) model, are described in Section 4. Limitations, implications for future research and conclusions are described in Section 5.

2. Research methodology

We adopted a research method based on a combination of design science and a Delphi study using the Spilter Group Decision Support System (GDSS). There are many views on how to design a MM and no shared vision exists on which approach should be followed (Mettler & Rohner, 2009; Pöppelbuß & Röglinger, 2011). As a design process for the MM we combined the general process steps as described by Maier, Moultrie and Clarkson (2012) for the design of maturity grids with the more specific process steps for the design of focus area maturity frameworks adapted from van Steenbergen et al (2010). We started with a literature study on MM design to select the design methodology for the MM. Next, as a preparation for the first meeting with practitioners, an initial version of the MM was designed based on current literature. This model will be explained in the next section. The initial model was discussed in a Delphi study with four rounds. (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Research approach

A Delphi method may be characterized as a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem and obtain “the most reliable consensus of opinion of a group of experts” (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). The Delphi method is used to “generate propositions” on how focus areas grow in maturity and as a “construct validation” (Okoli & Pawlowski, 2004). The construct in this study is the MM. After each round the model was improved using the feedback from the meetings. The meetings were organized between October 2013 and February 2014. To invitees it was explained that it was important to attend the complete series of meetings. When experts invited to the meetings were not able to attend a meeting they were asked to give their feedback online at a later time. Careful selection of participants is important. The quality and responses of a Delphi panel are as good as the experts (Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Taylor‐Powell, 2002). For the series of meetings we invited participants with many years of experience in ITG. These were found among the members of the special interest group Governance of the Ngi (the Dutch association of IT professionals) and the NAF (Dutch Architecture Forum) workgroup on IT governance. In this way the research approach combined knowledge from literature and experts from practice to achieve both “problem relevance” and “research rigor” (Hevner et al, 2004). The resulting MIG model will be validated in organizations in different industry sectors as a next step.

2.1 Technical details of the Delphi study The efficiency of face‐to‐face meetings was increased by a supplemental group communication process (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). We used the GDSS to improve the effectiveness of the group meetings (Fjermestad

348


& Hiltz, 2000). For this purpose we selected the innovative tool Spilter by Canast which is a user‐friendly, web‐based GDSS (Spilter, n.d.). The participants had to respond to questions and statements using a laptop or tablet. There was no hierarchy or dominance; each opinion counted and could be recorded. Responses were anonymous to the rest of the group. For example, when asked to rate some changes to the model, we used the tool to show graphs of the responses and obtain consensus before going on to the next step (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Example screenshot from Spilter

When experts invited to the meetings were not able to attend they were asked to give their feedback online (into Spilter) at a later time. In Spilter, all feedback is traceable to the participant. It is thus possible to separate the responses from persons present during the meeting and those participating online.

3. The design of the initial model

The first step in the design of a focus area MM was the determination of the ITG domains. The second step was the selection of a set of focus areas for each domain. The ITG domains could be defined in different ways depending on the adopted definition for ITG. We use a broad scope based on six streams (Smits & van Hillegersberg, 2013) which we included in the model. The design of the soft side of the initial model required the most attention. The split of governance into hard and soft governance has been made before. Moos (2009), for example, differentiates between legislation and the more ‘soft’ forms of governance based on persuasion and advice or obligation, precision and delegation (Tucker, 2003). Related to participatory governance Cook (2010) writes about “rules and structures” as being “far less effective” than soft governance. Uehara (2010) and Tarmidi (2012) separate hard and soft ITG using the soft power theory. Joseph Nye is the founder of the soft power theory. Soft power is related to “intangible power resources such as culture, ideology, and institutions” (Nye, 1990). This is close to how we see soft governance. We define the hard side of ITG as the functional aspects of governance like structures and

349


processes. The soft side of ITG is defined as relating to social aspects like human behavior and organizational culture. To prepare for the first meeting, the usability of several ITG models from the literature and practice, such as COBIT, ISO/IEC 38500 (2008) and the ITG trichotomy, were discussed within a small group of specialists. As proposed by several scholars, ITG can be deployed using a trichotomy summarized as structures, processes and relational mechanisms. We decided to use this trichotomy as a starting point for the initial model. A more detailed analysis of the literature which describes this trichotomy showed the lack of a clear definition of the ITG domains and some differences in the precise formulation (see Table 1).

Table 1: Evolution of the trichotomy of ITG domains

Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Source Structural integration

mechanisms Functional integration

mechanisms Social integration mechanisms

(Peterson, O’Callaghan & Ribbers, 2000)

Structural coordination Functional coordination Social coordination (Peterson, 2001) Structure Process Mechanisms (Weill & Woodham, 2002) Structure Process Relational mechanism (van Grembergen, de Haes &

Guldentops, 2004)

The third column in the table shows the replacement of the word ‘social’ by the much more restricted phrase ‘relational’. Relational mechanisms or relations between people are relevant for soft governance. However aspects like culture, values or personal characteristics are also of interest. By incorporating ‘relational mechanisms' into our model we expected that the collaboration between people would be properly covered. To cover the rest of the social aspects we added a fourth domain for the behavioral or social aspects of governance. This domain was named ‘Behavior and culture’. The significance of behavior for ITG could be seen in its inclusion as one of the six principles of the ISO/IEC 38500 standard for ITG (2008). The same sources were used to split up the domains into focus areas. During the elaboration of the model we selected the focus areas from the sources listed in Table 2 which fall within the rather broad concept of human behavior. These subfields were needed for the design of the MM. The focus areas which could be categorized as a part of soft governance were moved to the fourth domain ‘Behavior and culture’. The result of this process was the initial model (Table 2).

Table 2: The initial model

Governance Domain Focus area Beliefs (values, norms) Informal organization Behavior and culture

Leadership Participation

Soft

Relational mechanism Understanding

IT decision‐making Process

Monitoring Functions and roles

Hard Structure

Formal networks

The initial model consists of four domains and nine focus areas. For each domain or focus area a definition was selected based on the sources in Table 1 or, when not available, drawing from alternative sources.

4. Results The number of participants at the first meeting was 19. Participation at the following meetings was only possible for this group of 19 (see Table 3).

Table 3: Number of participants for each meeting (WS: workshop number)

Participation WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 On location 18 11 10 7

Online (afterwards) 1 5 4 7

Total 19 16 14 14

350


A fourth meeting was added later in consultation with the participants. Some participants were not able to attend the complete series of meetings. The reasons stated were: too difficult (1x); it takes too much time (1x); time and private circumstances (2x); and job loss (1x). The average age of the participants was 51 years. The group consisted of three women and 16 men. Eleven had a Master's degree, six a Bachelor's degree and two followed a different type of education. A specific ITG training was attended by eleven participants. Eight participants were consultants and nine were managers or directors. All participants have specific interest in and experience with ITG. The average years of work experience was 25 years of which 13 years with ITG. The self‐reported expertise in/knowledge of ITG was high: six on a scale of one to seven. The changes, during the meetings of the Delphi study, to the initial model are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: The changes in the model (in chronological order)

No. Description of the change When

1. Domain ‘Relational mechanisms’ was changed to ‘Collaboration’ WS1

2. Focus area ‘Planning’ (incl. bottom‐up) was added to the model WS1

3. Focus area ‘Continuous improvement’ was added to the model WS1; WS2; WS3; WS4

4. Focus area ‘Understanding’ was changed to ‘Understanding and trust’ WS2

5. ‘Context’ was added to the model WS3

6. Focus area ‘Beliefs (culture)’ moved to ‘(Internal) context’ WS3

7. Focus area ‘Informal organization’ moved to ‘(Internal) context’ WS4

In the column ‘When’ the moment when the remarks or discussion with the participants occurred is stated. The third change was to a focus area which has been changed repeatedly. Only the final result is stated. Each change will be discussed in more detail later in this section. After each meeting, an interim research model was created based on the results. At the beginning of each meeting the participants were asked to state their opinion on the current model. The progress of the support for the interim and final models by the participants during the meetings is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Support for the interim models and the resulting model

Meeting Assessment of research model

Not improved

Improved Ready Different Total Consensus

WS2 Domains interim model 12% 31% 56% 0% 100% 87% WS2 Focus areas interim model 6% 56% 38% 0% 100% 94% WS3 Focus areas interim model 7% 36% 50% 7% 100% 86% WS4 Resulting model (the MIG

model) 14% n.a. 71% 14% 100% 71%

As a rule to decide to change we aimed at 80% or greater consensus level. In a group there is always some disagreement and participants who have particular preferences can't be allowed to hamper the results of the group. The options the participants could choose from were specific but could be summarized as: the model is ‘Not improved’, ‘Improved’, ‘Ready’, or ‘Different’ opinion. The sum of ‘Improved’ and ‘Ready’ is listed in the column ‘Consensus’. During WS4 the choice ‘Improved’ was not available. The first discussion concerned the domain ‘Relational mechanisms’. The name ‘Relational mechanisms’ was assessed by the participants as being unclear. During the meeting ‘Collaboration’ was mentioned as an alternative. The replacement of ‘Relational mechanisms’ with ‘Collaboration’ was rated as an improvement by 88% of the participants. The second change was the addition of the focus area ‘Planning’ to the model. It was added after a discussion on the need for business strategy in the model. When asked to rate the change during WS2, 94% of the participants stated that it was an improvement. One participant remarked that it is hardly possible to plan in our complex world and preferred to drop it.

351


The third change was the most discussed during the meetings. The name of this focus area was changed several times: from ‘Changeability’ to ‘Adaptability’ and finally to ‘Continuous improvement’. This focus area was always intended to be a characteristic for the organization. The last change was made with the notion that learning is required for change in the right direction. When asked if ‘Adaptability’ should be replaced by ‘Continuous learning’ 43% supported the change or didn’t have a preference (14%). However, 29% preferred ‘Adaptability’ and 14% had other concerns. The focus area ‘Understanding’ was changed to ‘Understanding and trust’. The reason for this change was a discussion during WS2 on the relevance of trust. This change is also in line with literature. Nelson and Cooprider (1996) showed that shared knowledge and trust leads to increased performance in an IT department. Through this shared knowledge base, barriers to understanding and acceptance between IT departments and other lines are removed (Churchman & Schainblatt, 1965; Krauss & Fussell, 1990) and both groups increase their ability to work toward a common goal. In WS3 86% of the participants rated this change as an improvement. The fifth change was the addition of a context to the model, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Change of the basic model

The resulting model adds a third pillar to the initial model: the context. Participants argued that some of the focus areas could be seen as value free. If a focus area is value free, it is not possible to improve or grow because the direction of the improvement can’t be determined. These focus areas should be added to the context component as the situational part of the MM, as proposed by Mettler and Rohner (2009). This was discussed with the participants in the third meeting; adding the model was proposed in the fourth meeting. In meeting four, the participants were asked to give their opinion on this change. The outcome was that 93% of the participants preferred the new model including a context. The sixth change was moving the focus area ‘Culture’ to the area of ‘(Internal) context’. In discussions during the third meeting, moving ‘Culture’ to the context component was proposed because culture could be seen as value free. During meeting four 86% showed their preference for ‘Culture’ to be part of the context component. One participant thought culture has maturity too because a culture could be desirable. A second participant thought culture has value and proposed looking at the work of Barrett (1998). The final change was moving the focus area ‘Informal organization’ to ‘(Internal) context’. It could be seen as value free, just like culture. When asked to rate this change in meeting four, 83% of the participants agreed to move ‘Informal Organization’ to the context component. In Table 5, the support for the MIG model was 71%. The remarks of the participants who chose ‘Different’ also agreed that the model was ‘Ready’. They, however, wanted to add remarks like “The basic structure is far enough for practice but not complete”, or “Every model is a limited reproduction of reality and searching for the right model is an eternal journey. I miss models from social psychology”. Adding them to the total score makes it 85% and as such we decided to stop the series after the fourth meeting. The resulting MIG model is summarized in Table 6.

352


Table 6: The MIG model

Governance Domain Focus area Continuous improvement

Behavior Leadership Participation

Soft Collaboration

Understanding and trust Functions and roles

Structure Formal networks IT decision‐making

Planning Hard

Process Monitoring Culture

Internal Informal organization Context

External Sector

The definition of the domains and focus areas were adopted from the literature. The source of each definition is listed in Tables 7. The definitions were discussed with the participants before they were asked their opinion regarding any changes or (interim) models. The domains and focus areas are defined in Table 7 and 8.

Table 7: Definition of the domains

Domain Definition Source

Collaboration Collaboration is defined as making a joint effort towards a

goal (de Vreede & Briggs, 2005)

Structure Structural (formal) devices and mechanisms for connecting and enabling horizontal contacts, or liaisons, between business and IT

management (decision‐making) functions

(Peterson, 2004; Peterson, O’Callaghan & Ribbers,

2000)

Process Formalization and institutionalization of strategic IT decision‐making

or IT monitoring procedures

(Peterson, 2004; Peterson, O’Callaghan & Ribbers,

2000)

Behavior Anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation; the response of an individual, group or species to its environment; the way in which something functions or operates

(Merriam‐Webster, n.d.)

Table 8: Definition of the focus areas

Focus Area Definition Source

Continuous improvement

A continual stream of innovation to enhance the value or quality of the products and processes of an organization

Focus area only (Bessant, Caffyn & Gallagher, 2001)

Leadership Behavior which results in supervision, organization and change of the life, perceptions, expectations and values of the members of an

organization (Burns, 1978)

Participation Having a part or share in the interaction between the stakeholders

in an organization

Focus area only (van Grembergen, De Haes &

Guldentops, 2004) Understanding

and trust Shared knowledge and confidence between the stakeholders in an

organization Focus area only (Peterson, 2001)

Functions and roles

The organizational hierarchal and non‐hierarchal positions as defined in the organization

Focus area only (van Grembergen, De Haes &

Guldentops, 2004)

Formal networks

The formal governing bodies which are part of the organization Focus area only: (van

Grembergen, De Haes & Guldentops, 2004)

IT decision‐making

The IT‐related decision‐making processes, decision rights and the accountability framework

Focus area only (Weill & Woodham, 2002)

Planning The establishment of goals, policies and procedures for a social or economic unit. In this model, seen as a top‐down and bottom‐up

process (Merriam‐Webster, n.d.)

Monitoring The monitoring of costs, values and risks of the continuation and

change of the IT services in an organization

Focus area only (van Grembergen, de Haes &

Guldentops, 2004)

353


Focus Area Definition Source

Culture The beliefs, values and norms of the members of the organization which define the way they interact. The whole organization, not just

IT (Trenholm & Jensen, 2000)

Informal organization

The emergent pattern of social interactions within the organization that emerge rather than are mandated. The whole organization, not

just IT

(Chan, 2002; Gulati & Puranam, 2009)

Sector A sociological, economic or political subdivision of society (Merriam‐Webster, n.d.)

The definitions of the focus areas are based on the literature listed. If a definition was available in these sources it was adopted. If not, we added a definition similar to the way the focus area was used in the source listed (preceded by “Focus area only” in the column ‘Source’).

5. Conclusions The domains of the resulting MIG model could be seen as an improvement of the contemporary ITG trichotomy. Several studies showed that soft governance needs more attention (e.g. Davies, 2006; Rogers, 2009; Mettler & Rohner, 2009; ITGI, 2011) and showed that ITG is situational (Sethibe, Campbell & McDonanle, 2007; Rogers, 2009; ITGI, 2011). The need to include both the social aspects of governance and the context as a situational element to a MM are thus supported by practice and literature. Which focus areas should an ITG MM for soft and hard governance contain? This question is answered by the description of the MIG model. The support following each interim version of the model increased and after four cycles the response of the group was that it was time to test the model in practice. Especially for the soft governance part, it was quite a quest to select the right areas and prevent them from having too much overlap. During the validation in practice more changes in this part of the model may be needed. The MIG model is the first version of an ITG MM for soft and hard governance designed using literature and improved in collaboration with experts from practice. While the model was created in close collaboration with customers, a limitation of the study is that the model has not yet been validated in practice. Another limitation is that the composition of the group of Dutch experts might have impacted the resulting MM. The model is not complete yet and will be further developed by adding maturity levels, capabilities, descriptions and assessment questions. As a next step, maturity levels and capabilities will be added to the model. During the meetings we already collected data for this step. As soon as this step is complete the model will be validated, tested and further improved in several organizations in different kind of industries.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants of the meetings for their contribution to the results and the reviewers for their review comments.

References

Barrett, R. (1998) Liberating the Corporate Soul: Building a Visionary Organization, Butterworth‐Heinemann, Cambridge. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R. and Pöppelbuß, J. (2009) “Developing Maturity Models for IT Management”, Business &

Information Systems Engineering, Vol 1, No. 3, pp 213–222. Bessant, J., Caffyn, S. and Gallagher, M. (2001) “An Evolutionary Model of Continuous Improvement

Behaviour”, Technovation, Vol 21, No. 2, pp 67–77. Bharadwaj, A.S. (2000) “A Resource‐Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An

Empirical Investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol 24, No. 1, pp 169–196. Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership, Harper & Row, New York. Chan, Y.E. (2002) “Why Haven't We Mastered Alignment? The Importance of the Informal Organization Structure”, MIS

Quarterly Executive, Vol 1, No. 2, pp 97–112. Churchman, C.W. and Schainblatt, A.H. (1965) “The Researcher and the Manager: A Dialectic of

Implementation”, Management Science, Vol 11, No. 4, B69–B87. Davies, A. (2006) Best Practice in Corporate Governance: Building Reputation and Sustainable Success, Gower Publishing,

Hampshire. de Vreede, G. and Briggs, R. (2005) “Collaboration Engineering: Designing Repeatable Processes for High‐Value

Collaborative Tasks”, Paper read at 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, January.

354


Fjermestad, J. and Hiltz, S.R. (2000) “Group Support Systems: A Descriptive Evaluation of Case and Field Studies”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17, pp 113–157.

Gulati, R. and Puranam, P. (2009) “Renewal through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies between Formal and Informal Organization”, Organization Science, Vol 20, No. 2, pp 422–440.

Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004) “Design Science in Information Systems Research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol 28, No. 1, pp 75–105.

ISO/IEC 38500 (2008) International Standard for Corporate Governance of IT. ITGI. (2011) Global Status Report on the Governance of Enterprise IT (GEIT), IT Governance Institute, Meadows. Kann, R., van der Oord, F., Ugbah, J., Arora, A. and Kumar, N. (2013) 2014 Audit Plan Hot Spots, CEB Audit Leadership

Council, Arlington. Khan, N. and Sikes, J. (2014) IT Under Pressure: McKinsey Global Survey Results, McKinsey, New York. Krauss, R.M. and Fussell, S.R. (1990) “Mutual Knowledge and Communicative Effectiveness”, in J.R. Galegher, R.E. Kraut

and C. Egido (eds) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work (pp 111–146), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New York.

Liang, T.P., Chiu, Y.C., Wu, S.P.J. and Straub, D. (2011) “The Impact of IT Governance on Organizational Performance”, Paper read at Americas Conference on Information Systems 2011, Detroit, USA, August.

Linstone, H.A. and Turoff, M. (1975) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Addison‐Wesley Publishing Company, Reading.

Maier, A.M., Moultrie, J. and Clarkson, P. (2012) “Assessing Organizational Capabilities: Reviewing and Guiding the Development of Maturity Grids. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol 59, No. 1, pp 138–159.

Merriam‐Webster (n.d.). “Merriam‐Webster”, [online], Merriam‐Webster, http://www.merriam‐webster.com/. Mettler, T and Rohner, P. (2009) “Situational Maturity Models as Instrumental Artifacts for Organizational Design”, Paper

read at 4th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, Philadelphia, USA, May.

Nelson, K.M. and Cooprider, J.G. (1996) “The Contribution of Shared Knowledge to IS Group Performance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol 20, No. 4, pp 409–432.

Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2004) “The Delphi Method as a Research Tool: An Example, Design Considerations and Applications”, Information & Management, Vol 42, No. 1, pp 15–29.

Peterson, R.R., O’Callaghan, R. and Ribbers, P.M.A. (2000) “Information Technology Governance by Design”, Paper read at International Conference on Information Systems 2000, Brisbane, Australia, December.

Peterson, R.R. (2001) “Configurations and Coordination for Global Information Technology Governance: Complex Designs in a Transnational European Context”, Paper read at 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, January.

Peterson, R.R. (2004) “Crafting Information Technology Governance”, The EDP Audit, Control, and Security Newsletter, Vol 32, No. 6, pp 1–24.

Pöppelbuß, J. and Röglinger, M. (2011) “What Makes a Useful Maturity Model? A Framework of General Design Principles for Maturity Models and its Demonstration in Business Process Management”, Paper read at European Conference on Information Systems 2011, Helsinki, Finland, June.

Rogers, G.P. (2009) “The Role of Maturity Models in IT Governance: A Comparison of the Major Models and Their Potential Benefits to the Enterprise”, in A. Carter‐Steel (ed) Information Technology Governance and Service Management: Frameworks and Adaptations (pp 254–265), IGI Global, Hershey.

Sethibe, T., Campbell, J. and McDonald, C. (2007) “IT Governance in Public and Private Sector Organizations: Examining the Differences and Defining Future Research Directions”, [online] AIS Electronic Library, http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2007/118.

Simonsson, M., Johnson P. and Ekstedt, M. (2010) “The Effect of IT Governance Maturity on IT Governance Performance”, Information Systems Management, Vol 27, No. 1, pp 10–24.

Smits, D. and van Hillegersberg, J. (2013) “The Continuing Mismatch between IT Governance Theory and Practice: Results from a Delphi Study with CIO’s”, Paper read at Americas Conference on Information Systems 2013, Chicago, USA, August.

Spilter (n.d.). “Spilter”, [online], Spilter, http://www.spilter.nl/. Taylor‐Powell, E. (2002) “Quick Tips Collecting Group Data: Delphi Technique”, [online], University of Wisconsin,

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/resources/pdf/Tipsheet4.pdf. Trenholm, S. and Jensen, A. (2000) Interpersonal Communication, Wadsworth, Belmont. van Grembergen, W., de Haes, S. and Guldentops, E. (2004), “Structures, Processes and Relational Mechanisms for IT

Governance”, Strategies for Information Technology Governance, Vol 2, No. 4, pp 1–36. van Steenbergen, M., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S., van de Weerd, I. and Bekkers, W. (2010) “The Design of Focus Area Maturity

Models”, in R. Winter, J.L. Zhao and S. Aier (eds) Global Perspectives on Design Science Research (pp 317–332), Springer, Berlin.

Weill, P. and Woodham R. (2002) Don't Just Lead, Govern: Implementing Effective IT Governance, Center for Information Systems Research, Cambridge.

Weill, P. and Ross, J.W. (2004) IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results, Harvard Business Press, Boston.

355

Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on IS ... alleen paper.pdf · Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on IS Management and Evaluation University of Ghent, Belgium 11-12

Documents