مدل مفهومی حاکمیت شرکتی فناوری اطلاعات مبتنی بر فرایندنگاری (تحقیق کیفی برای توسعه تئوری پایه استاندارد CITG)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت و حسابداری، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

2 دانشکده برق و کامپیوتر، دانشگاه صنعتی مالک اشتر

چکیده

حاکمیت فناوری اطلاعات با تبیین ساختارها، فرایندها و ذینفعان، یک قابلیت سازمانی برای همراستایی راهبردی فناوری اطلاعات برای سازمان فراهم می‌کند. توسعه چارچوب حاکمیت فناوری اطلاعات مبتنی بر تئوری‌های حاکمیتی شرکتی متناسب با محیط سازمان، میزان موفقیت این چارچوب در تحقق رویکرد شراکت راهبردی فناوری اطلاعات با کسب و کار به میزان قابل توجهی افزایش می‌دهد.
در مقاله حاضر، با مرور ادبیات تئوری‌های پایه حاکمیت شرکتی، تئوری‌های غالب در حاکمیت فناوری اطلاعات تعیین شده و سپس با استفاده از روش کیفی ترکیب تئوری‌ها، مدل مفهومی فرایندی تئوری حاکمیتی پایه ترکیبی توسعه یافته برای حاکمیت شرکتی فناوری اطلاعات ارائه شده است.
نتیجه بدست آمده، یک مبنای علمی برای توسعه استاندارد حاکمیت شرکتی فناوری اطلاعات است که در قالب 10 فرایند، توسعه چارچوبی مبتنی بر مشارکت همه ذینفعان (تئوری ذینفعان)، تصمیم‌گیری بر مبنای رویکرد منفعت-مخاطره(تئوری هزینه تراکنش) و تامین پایدار منابع ایجادکننده مزیت رقابتی(تئوری مبتنی بر منبع) در سازمان را تضمین می‌نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

مراجع

  1. Ali, S., Green, P., & Robb, A. (2015). Information technology investment governance: What is it and does it matter? International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 18, 1-25.
  2. Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2016). Handbook on theories of governance: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  3. Aral, S., & Weill, P. (2007). IT assets, organizational capabilities, and firm performance: How resource allocations and organizational differences explain performance variation. Organization science, 18 (5), 763-780.
  4. Barney, J. B., Ketchen Jr, J., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory: revitalization or decline? Journal of management, 37 (5), 1299-1315.
  5. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17 (1), 99-120.
  6. Bin-Abbas, H., & Bakry, S. H. (2014). Assessment of IT governance in organizations: A simple integrated approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 261-267.
  7. De Haes, S., & Van Grembergen, W. (2009). An exploratory study into IT governance implementations and its impact on business/IT alignment. Information Systems Management, 26 (2), 123-137.
  8. Darmawan, D. Z. (2017). IT governance evaluation on educational institutions based on COBIT 5.0 framework. Paper presented at the New Media Studies (CONMEDIA), 2017 4th International Conference on.
  9. Furht, B., & Armando, E. (2010). Handbook of cloud computing. In: Springer.
  10. Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. (2004). Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business value. MIS quarterly, 28 (2), 283-322.
  11. Nevo, S., & Wade, M. R. (2010). The formation and value of IT-enabled resources: antecedents and consequences of synergistic relationships. MIS quarterly, 163-183.
  12. Posthumus, S., & von Solms, R. (2008). Agency Theory: Can it be Used to Strengthen IT Governance? Paper presented at the IFIP International Information Security Conference.
  13. RightScale, I. (2018). RightScale 2018 State of the Cloud Report; Data To Navigate Your Multi-Cloud Strategy.
  14. Rubino, M., & Vitolla, F. (2014). Corporate governance and the information system: how a framework for IT governance supports ERM. Corporate Governance, 14 (3), 320-338.
  15. Ştefănescu, M. V. (2015). The information technology role in the dynamics and evolution of SMEs in Timis County, Romania. Procedia Economics Finance 32,1113-1107
  16. Siregar, S., & Rustamaji, E. (2017). Determining evaluated domain process through problem identification using COBIT 5 framework. Paper presented at the Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM), 2017 5th International Conference on.
  17. Selig, G. J. (2018). It Governance—An Integrated Framework and Roadmap: How to Plan, Deploy and Sustain for Competitive Advantage. Paper presented at the 2018 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET).
  18. Tonelli, A. O., de Souza Bermejo, P. H., Dos Santos, P. A., Zuppo, L., & Zambalde, A. L. (2017). It governance in the public sector: a conceptual model. Information Systems Frontiers, 19 (3), 593-610.
  19. Yassine Bounagui, I., Hatim Hafiddi, I., & Abdellatif Mezrioui, I. (2016). COBIT Evaluation as a Framework for Cloud Computing Governance.
  20. Tarafdar, M., & Gordon, S. R. (2007). Understanding the influence of information systems competencies on process innovation: A resource-based view. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16 (4), 353-392.
  21. Furuncu, E., & Sogukpinar, I. (2015). Scalable risk assessment method for cloud computing using game theory (CCRAM). Computer Standards & Interfaces, 38, 44-50.
  22. Marnewick, C., & Labuschagne, L. (2011). An investigation into the governance of information technology projects in South Africa. International Journal of Project Management, 29 (6), 661-670.
  23. Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of management review, 26 (1), 41-56.
  24. Cao, L., Mohan, K., Ramesh, B., & Sarkar, S. (2013). Evolution of governance: achieving ambidexterity in IT outsourcing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30 (3),11.140-5.
  25. Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. (2015). Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 15-42.
  26. Cao, L., Mohan, K., Ramesh, B., & Sarkar, S. (2013). Evolution of governance: achieving ambidexterity in IT outsourcing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30 (3), 115-140.
  27. Cao, Z., & Lumineau, F. (2015). Revisiting the interplay between contractual and relational governance: A qualitative and meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 15-42.
  28. Chi, M., Zhao, J., George, J. F., Li, Y., & Zhai, S. (2017). The influence of inter-firm IT governance strategies on relational performance: The moderation effect of information technology ambidexterity. International Journal of Information Management, 37 (2), 43-53.
  29. Deng, C.-P., Mao, J.-Y., & Wang, G.-S. (2013). An empirical study on the source of vendors’ relational performance in offshore information systems outsourcing. International Journal of Information Management, 33 (1), 10-19.
  30. Debreceny, R. S., & Gray, G. L. (2013). IT governance and process maturity: A multinational field study. Journal of Information Systems, 27 (1), 157-188.
  31. Feeny, D. F., & Willcocks, L. P. (1998). Core IS capabilities for exploiting information technology. Sloan management review, 39 (3), 9-2
  32. Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.-C., & Groen, A. J. (2010). The resource-based view: a review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of management, 36 (1), 349-372.
  33. Prasad, A., Green, P., & Heales, J. (2014). On governance structures for the cloud computing services and assessing their effectiveness. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 15 (4), 335-356.
  34. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18 (7), 509-533.
  35. Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS quarterly.142-107(1)28.
  36. Wiengarten, F., Humphreys, P., Cao, G., & McHugh, M. (2013). Exploring the important role of organizational factors in IT business value: Taking a contingency perspective on the resource‐based view. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15 (1), 30-46.
  37. Wiengarten, F., Humphreys, P., Cao, G., & McHugh, M. (2013). Exploring the important role of organizational factors in IT business value: Taking a contingency perspective on the resource‐based view. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15 (1), 30-46.
  38. Patón-Romero, J. D., Baldassarre, M. T., Rodríguez, M., Runeson, P., Höst, M., & Piattini, M. (2020). Governance and Management of Green IT: A Multi-Case Study. Information and Software Technology, 106414.
  39. Institute, I. G. (2011). About IT Governance (Published electronically).
  40. Brown, W. C. (2006). IT governance, architectural competency, and the Vasa. Information management & computer security.
  41. Hardy, G. (2006). Using IT governance and COBIT to deliver value with IT and respond to legal, regulatory and compliance challenges. Information Security Technical Report, 11 (1), 55-61.
  42. Gwillim, D., Dovey, K., & Wieder, B. (2005). The politics of post‐implementation reviews. Information Systems Journal, 15 (4), 307-319.
  43. Symons, C. (2005). IT governance framework. FOrrester research.
  44. Simonsson, M., Johnson, P., & Ekstedt, M. (2010). The effect of IT governance maturity on IT governance performance. Information systems management, 27 (1), 10-24.
  45. Sirisomboonsuk, P., Gu, V. C., Cao, R. Q., & Burns, J. R. (2018). Relationships between project governance and information technology governance and their impact on project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 36 (2), 287-300.
  46. Wilkin, C. L., Couchman, P. K., Sohal, A., & Zutshi, A. (2016). Exploring differences between smaller and large organizations' corporate governance of information technology. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems,25-6,22.
  47. Biesenthal, C., & Wilden, R. (2014). Multi-level project governance: Trends and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 32 (8), 1291-1308.
  48. Dawson, G. S., Denford, J. S., Williams, C. K., Preston, D., & Desouza, K. C. (2016). An examination of effective IT governance in the public sector using the legal view of agency theory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33 (4), 1180-1208.
  49. Bouaynaya, W. (2019). Characterization of cloud computing reversibility as explored by the DELPHI method. Information Systems Frontiers, 1-14.
  50. Vyas, L. (2018). Gaps and Transparency Challenges in Contract Outsourcing. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance.
  51. Aubert, B. A., Rivard, S., & Patry, M. (2004). A transaction cost model of IT outsourcing. Information & management, 41 (7), 921-932.
  52. Schniederjans, D. G., & Hales, N. (2016). Cloud computing and its impact on economic and environmental performance: A transaction cost economics perspective. Decision Support Systems, 86, 73-82.
  53. Walterbusch, M., Martens, B., & Teuteberg, F. (2015). A decision model for the evaluation and selection of cloud computing services: a first step towards a more sustainable perspective. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 14 (02), 253-285.
  54. Duncan, B., Zhao, Y., & Whittington, M. (2017). Corporate Governance, Risk Appetite and Cloud Security Risk: A Little Known Paradox. How Do We Square the Circle? Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Cloud Computing, GRIDs, and Virtualization (CLOUD COMPUTING 2017).
  55. Viniegra, C. (2012). Keep It Simple! Framing Cloud Computing with Agency Theory. The Journal of Information Technology Management.
  56. Rajendran, S. (2013). Organizational challenges in cloud adoption and enablers of cloud transition program. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
  57. Yigitbasioglu, O. (2014). Modelling the intention to adopt cloud computing services: a transaction cost theory perspective. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18 (3), 193-210.
  58. Haselmann, T., & Lipsky, S. (2012). A Case for Cooperative Cloud Intermediaries for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Paper presented at the Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik.
  59. Pallas, F. (2014). An agency perspective to cloud computing. Paper presented at the International Conference on Grid Economics and Business Models.
  60. Gunupudi, L. (2013). Transaction Cost Economics Of Cloud Computing Adoption.
  61. Saidah, A. S., & Abdelbaki, N. (2014). A New Cloud Computing Governance Framework. Paper presented at the CLOSER.

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 23 مرداد 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 21 تیر 1400
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 24 تیر 1400

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار