Case.Study:.Sidmar.–.Arcelor

Figure 78. IT governance maturity model (IT Governance Institute): Level
two
2. Repeatable but Intuitive
There is awareness of IT governance objectives, and practices are developed
and applied by individual managers. IT.governance.activities are becoming
established within the organisation’s change management process, with active.
senior.management.involvement and oversight. Selected IT.processes have
been identified for improvement that would impact key business processes.
IT management is beginning to define standards.for.processes.and.technical.
architectures. Management has identified basic.IT.governance.measurements,
assessment.methods.and.techniques, but the process has not been adopted
across the organisation. There is no.formal.training.and.communication on
governance standards and responsibilities are left to the individual.
An IT.steering.committee has begun to formalise and establish its roles and
responsibilities. There is a draft governance charter (e.g., participants, roles, responsibilities,
delegated powers, retained powers, shared resources, and policy).
Small and pilot governance projects are initiated to see what works and what
does not. General guidelines are emerging for standards and architecture that
make sense for the enterprise and a dialogue has started to sell the reasons for
their need in the enterprise.
surable.” Both the controller and the IT director agreed that the ultimate goal
is the achievement of maturity level four, “Managed and Measurable.” The
main motivation for this, says the IT director, “is that level four guarantees
that IT governance is measurable and tangible.” Although the basics are
in place, the IT governance charter and policy is not formally documented,
which finally results in maturity level 2.
Summary.of.IT.Governance.Structures,.Processes.and.
Relational.Mechanisms
Figure 79 summarises the IT governance structures, processes and relational
mechanisms that are in place within Sidmar.