icegov2012 proceedings

Interviewees
Useful?
Table 3. Interview Results
Guidelines ITG/M Areas
General?
Complete?
Remove step?
Complete?
Remove?
Missing?
1 Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes G G
2 Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes G G
3 Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No G G G G
4 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No G G
5 No Yes Yes No Yes No No G G G
6 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No G G
7 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No G G G
8 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No G G G
9 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No G
Strategy
Investment
highlight the positive and negative responses.
The third interviewee was the only one to disagree with the
proposed guidelines. He argued that guidelines 4, 6, and 8 are not
needed and a new one about investment decision making between
guideline 2 and 3 was missing. However, since we have strong
literature support and only one interviewee mentioned this
argument, we decided to keep the guidelines without changes. The
fifth interviewee stated that such guidelines were not useful since
COBIT already has guidelines with such abstraction. However
COBIT has it for each COBIT process and not for general ITG
implementation. Fifth, sixth and seventh interviewees affirmed
that some factors were missing. Fifth, sixth and seventh
interviewees stated that some factors were missing.
Several conclusions could be withdrawn from the interviews:
most of the interviews see the guidelines as useful, compete and
general; Strategy Management and Investment Management are
almost consensual between interviewees as the main ITG areas;
all the areas without any appointment will be assumed as
management areas
This research provided us some important learning in ITG field.
Based on both scientific and practitioner viewpoint with achieved
the formalization of the contingency factors, ITG general
guidelines and ITG/M main areas. Besides the consensual
identification of the Strategy and Investment Management as ITG
areas by practitioners, few other areas still dubiety in
practitioner’s viewpoint.
5. CONCLUSION
Our research provides interesting contributions in a moment
where BIT alignment becomes a crucial issue. The approach
allows for a better understanding of the implementation of ITG in
a corporate environment.
Our artefacts are based on literature review giving them
theoretical foundation. Yet, in order to keep providing practitioner
viewpoint we also performed interviews with ITG experts. Then
we argue that our artefacts were build under both scientific and
practitioner viewpoint.
Since current IT frameworks are complex and lack the correct
initial roadmap with the identification of the general guidelines
that organizations must follow in order to know what must be
implemented or addressed first given the context of each
organization, we argue that our general guidelines add valuable
knowledge to ITG field and community. Moreover, current
frameworks also overlap each other, then the formalization of the
Compliance
Risk
Resource
Architecture
Innovation
322
main ITG/M areas also validated in both scientific and
practitioner viewpoint is added value. Including BIT concerns in
our artefacts we argue that we are proposing important artefacts in
order to increase the e-Governance initiatives success in
organizations.
Future work must pass by the integration of the presented artefacts
in an IT governance framework as well as a research in-deep of
each identified area taking into consideration the most known
frameworks applied in the area. Furthermore, real-world case
studies should be performed.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Adams, C.R., Larson, E.C. and Xia, W. IS/IT Governance
Structure and Alignment: An Apparent Paradox. MISRC,
(2008).
[2] Agarwal, R. and Sambamurthy, V. Principles and Models for
Organizing the IT Function. MISQ 1(1), (2002).
[3] Bartolini, C., Stefanelli, C. and Tortonesi, M. Analysis and
performance improvement of the IT incident management
process. In: TNSM, (2010), 132–144.
[4] Bohl, O., Frankfurth, A., Schelhase, J. and Winand, U.
Guidelines – A Critical Success Factor in the Development
of Web-based Trainings. In: ICCE, (2002), 545–546.
[5] Broussard, F.W. and Tero, V. Configuration and Change
Management for IT Compliance and Risk Management: The
Tripwire Approach. White Paper. IDC, 2007.
[6] Brown, A.E. and Grant, G.G. Framing the Frameworks: A
Review of IT Governance Research. CAIS 15, (2005),696-
712.
[7] Corea, S. and Levy, M. Quality of IT support for corporate
environmental management: A paradigmatic framework. In:
2nd ICDIM, (2007), 424–429.
[8] Dahlberg, T. and Lahdelma, P. IT Governance Maturity and
IT Outsourcing Degree: An Exploratory Study. In: HICSS,
(2007), 236a.
[9] De Haes, S. and Grembergen, W. Analysing the Relationship
between IT Governance and Business/IT Alignment
Maturity. In: 41st HICSS, (2008),428.
[10] Diao, Y., Jamjoom, H. and Loewenstern, D. Rule-Based
Problem Classification in IT Service Management. In:
CLOUD, (2009), 221-228.
[11] Fasanghari, M., NasserEslami, F. and Naghavi, M. IT
Governance Standard Selection Based on Two Phase
Clustering Method. In: 4 th NCM, (2008), 513-518.
[12] Fink, K. and Ploder, K. Decision Support Framework for the
Implementation of IT-Governance. In: HICSS, (2008), 432.
[13] Gallagher, K.P. and Worrel, J.L. Organizing IT to Promote
Agility. Inf. Tech. Manag. 9, 1 (2008),71-88.
[14] Gao, S., Chen, J. and Fang, D. The Influence of IT Capability
on Dimensions of Organization Structure.In: 2 nd FITME,
(2009), 269-273.
[15] Gerrard, M. Defining IT Governance: The Gartner IT
Governance Demand/Supply Model. Gartner ID:G00140091,
2010.
[16] Gerrard, M. IT Governance, a Flawed Concept: It’s Time for
Business Change Governance. GartnerID:G00171658 (2009)