AR26607 Governance TI

7/31/2019 AR26607 Governance TI

1/13

International Journal on IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 1(1), 1-13, January-March 2010 1

Copyright 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global

is prohibited.

Keywords: Business/IT Alignment, Enterprise Governance of IT, IT Governance, Value Creation

InTroduCTIon

When you are reading this article, you are

looking at the very first article of the inaugural

issue of the International Journal on IT/Busi-

ness Alignment and Governance (IJITBAG).

We are very pleased with your interest in this

journal and the topics that will be addressed in

this and all the forthcoming issues. With this

introductory article, we as editors-in-chief do

want to share with you our main insights in

this challenging research domain, based on our

collaborative research and practical experience

in the field the previous years.

This research and experience goes back

many years, and to strengthen our research

efforts, we have founded in 2003 the Informa-tion Technology Alignment and Governance

a resec Jey it

Eteise Gvece f

IT, Bsiess/IT aigmet

Ve CetiWim Van Grembergen, University of Antwerp Management School, University of Antwerp,

Belgium

Steven De Haes, University of Antwerp Management School, University of Antwerp, Belgium

aBSTraCT

Enterprise governance of IT is a relatively new concept in literature, and is gaining more interest in theacademic and practitioners world. Enterprise governance of IT addresses the denition and implementa -

tion of processes, structures and relational mechanism that enable both business and IT people to executetheir responsibilities in support of business/IT alignment and the creation of value from IT-enabled businessinvestments. This article introduces important theories and practices around Enterprise governance of ITbased on joint research and practical experience of the authors (and editors-in-chief of this journal) withinthe Information Technology Alignment and Governance (ITAG) Research Institute (University of AntwerpManagement School). The article is based on the authors 8-year journey into Enterprise Governance of ITand aims to outline the core themes of interest of this new International Journal on IT/Business Alignmentand Governance. In this way, this introductory article paves the way for many more research initiatives withinthis challenging research domain.

DOI: 10.4018/jitbag.2010120401

Grembergen, W. y De Haes, S. (enero,2010). A research journey into enterprise governance of IT,

business/IT alignment and value creation . International Journal on IT/Business Alignment and

Governance, 1 (1) pp. 1-13. (AR26607)


2/13

2 International Journal on IT/Business Alignment and Governance, 1(1), 1-13, January-March 2010


is prohibited.

Research Institute (ITAG) within the University

of Antwerp Management School (www.uams.

be/itag). The concept of IT governance was

emerging at that time in both academic and

practice-oriented literature and definitionsand models were developed and promoted. To

prevent the IT governance discussion to stay

within the IT area, our minds evolved over the

years towards the broaderbusiness oriented

concept of enterprise governance of IT. We

investigated how contemporary organizations

are implementing these concepts in practices,

analyzed the impact of these implementa-

tions on the complex construct of business/

IT alignment and explored the relationshipstowards achieving more business value out of

IT investments.

In this article, we introduce some of our

conclusions and insights resulting from these

main research streams. We welcome all feed-

back on [email protected] and wim.

[email protected] and do want to

invite you to submit your research articles for

consideration in the International Journal on

IT/Business Alignment and Governance in the

future (www.igi-global.com/ijitbag).

InTroduCInG ThE ConCEpToF GoVErnanCE oF IT

IT governance is one of these concepts that

suddenly emerged and became an important

issue in the information technology (IT) area. It

is not clear when exactly the concept originated

as we understand it now. Gartner introduced

the idea of Improving IT governance for the

first time in their Top-ten CIO Management

Priorities for 2003 (ranked third). In 1998, the

IT Governance Institute was founded to disperse

the IT governance concept. In academic and

professional literature, articles mentioning IT

governance in the title began to emerge late

1990s. In the context of the leading academic

conference Hawaii International Conference

on Systems Sciences (HICSS) IT governance

was defined as organizational capacity exer-cised by the board, executive management

and IT management to control the formulation

and implementation of IT strategy and in this

way ensure the fusion of business and IT (Van

Grembergen, 2002).

After the emergence of the IT governanceconcepts, the notion received a lot of attention.

However, due the focus on IT in the naming

of the concept, the IT governance discussion

mainly stayed a discussion within the IT area.

We have experienced this in our research many

times, where we tried to contact the CEO for

an interview on IT governance issues and im-

mediately got transferred to the CIO. In the

field, many IT governance implementations are

driven by IT, while one would expect that thebusiness would and should take a leading role

here as well. It is clear that business value from

IT investments can not be realized by IT, but

will always be created at the business side. For

example, there will be no business value created

when IT delivers a new CRM application on

time, on budget and within functionalities, and

when afterwards the business is not integrating

the new IT system into its business operations.

Business value will only be created when new

and adequate business processes are designed

and executed enabling the sales people of the

organization to increase turnover and profit.

(Van Grembergen & De Haes, 2009; Thorp,

2003).

This discussion raised the issue that the

involvement of business is crucial and initiated

a shift in the definition, focusing on the business

involvement, towards enterprise governance

of IT. As defined in our most recent textbook

(Van Grembergen & De Haes, 2009), enterprisegovernance of IT is an integral part of corporate

governance and addresses the definition and

implementation of processes, structures and

relational mechanisms in the organization that

enable both business and IT people to execute

their responsibilities in support of business/IT

alignment and the creation of business value

from IT enabled investments (see Figure 1).

Enterprise governance of IT clearly goes

beyond the IT related responsibilities and ex-

pands towards (IT related) business processes

needed for business value creation. Also the


3/13



is prohibited.

standardization organization ISO moved into

this direction, with the release in 2008 a new

worldwide standard defined as Corporate

Governance of IT (ISO/IEC 38500, 2008). In

this standard, ISO puts forward six principles

for governance of IT, addressing both business

and ITs roles and responsibilities, that express

preferred behavior to guide IT related decision

making. In the same line of thinking, the IT

Governance Institute (ITGI) complemented

its IT governance best practices framework

COBIT (ITGI, 2007), focusing on IT processes

and responsibilities, with the Val IT framework

(ITGI, 2008), addressing the business processes

and responsibilities in value creation. We have

been involved in the development of these

frameworks for many years and have experi-enced this broadening view towards enterprise

governance of IT as very enriching evolution

within the ITGI frameworks.

This change in naming and focus might

appear subtle and not groundbreaking, but it

implies a crucial shift in the minds of business

people. The leading role of IT people in IT gov-

ernance has always been a paradox. The same

thing happened in the era of business process

reengineering, where also in many cases IT took

a leading role reinventing business processes.

It is however clear that business processes and

business value creation can and should only be in

the ownership of business people. On the other

hand, we have to acknowledge that in practice,

this mind shift will not happen by itself or by

changing the name of the concepts. We belief

that IT management is in a unique position to

act as a change agent in the organization and to

realize the business buy-in over time.

Using similar argumentations as for en-terprise governance of IT, a rationale could be

built up to promote governance requirements for

other key assets in the organization. Typical ex-

amples could be human resources governance

and financial governance. In this context,

Weill and Ross (2004) identify six key assets

through which an organization can accomplish

its strategies and generate business value: hu-

man assets, financial assets, physical assets, IP

assets, information and IT assets, relationship

assets (see Figure 2). Using their words: Senior

executive teams create mechanisms to govern

the management and use of each of these assets

both independently and together. Governance

of the key assets occurs via a large number

of organizational mechanisms, for example

structures, processes, procedures and audits.

(Weill & Ross, 2004)Finally, it is important to note that there is

a clear distinction between IT governance or

enterprise governance of IT and IT management.

IT management is focused on the effective and

efficient internal supply of IT services and prod-

ucts and the management of present IT opera-

tions. IT governance/enterprise governance of

IT in turn is much broader, and concentrates on

performing and transforming IT to meet present

and future demands of the business (internal

focus) and business customers (external focus)

(Peterson, 2003). This higher-level focus of

IT governance/enterprise governance of IT is

confirmed in the IT governance definition of

ITGI (2003), which states that IT governance

is the responsibility of executives and the board

of directors. Pragmatically, one could say that

IT management is the prime responsibility of

the IT Director while the Chief Information

Officer (CIO) in co-operation with the busi-

ness is focused on IT governance/enterprisegovernance of IT.

Figure 1. Enterprise governance of IT, business/IT alignment and business value (Van Grem-

bergen & De Haes, 2009)


4/13



is prohibited.

EnTErprISE GoVErnanCEoF IT In praCTICE

Having developed a high-level model for en-

terprise governance of IT does not imply that

governance is actually working in the organiza-

tion. Conceiving the enterprise governance of

IT model is the first step, implementing it into

a sustainable solution is the next challenging

step. Our research (Van Grembergen & De Haes,

2008; De Haes & Van Grembergen, 2009a)

showed that organizations can and are deploying

enterprise governance of IT by using a holistic

mixture of various structures, processes and

relational mechanisms. Enterprise governance

of IT structures include organizational units

and roles responsible for making IT decisions

and for enabling contacts between business

and IT management decision-making functions

(e.g. IT steering committee). This can be seen

as a kind of blueprint of how the governanceframework will be structurally organized.

Enterprise governance of IT processes refers

to the formalization and institutionalization of

strategic IT decision making and IT monitor-

ing procedures, to ensure that daily behaviors

are consistent with policies and provide input

back to decisions (e.g. IT balanced scorecard).

The relational mechanisms finally are about

the active participation of, and collaborative

relationship among, corporate executives, IT

management, and business management and

include announcements, advocates, channels

and education efforts. Some examples of these

structures, processes and relational mechanisms

are provided in Figure 3.

In the many case organizations we visited

(Van Grembergen & De Haes, 2008; De Haes

& Van Grembergen, 2009a), we saw that most

organizations are indeed leveraging a mix

of structures, processes and mechanisms. Of

course, it should be noted that a silver bulletapproach does not exist in this matter. Each

organization has to select its own set of enter-

prise governance of IT practices, suitable for

their sector, size, culture etc. Our case research

clearly showed that organizations tend to find

it much easier to implement structures in their

organizations as opposed to processes (De Haes

& Van Grembergen, 2008; Van Grembergen &

De Haes, 2009). However, we have also seen

that much of these structures can not be effective

without supporting processes. For example, anIT steering committee can not make appropriate

investment decisions without an appropriate and

mature portfolio management process, includ-

ing the development of solid business cases. It

also appeared that relational mechanisms, such

as training, awareness building, etc., receive a

lot of attention in the beginning stages of an

enterprise governance of IT implementation

project and become less important when the

governance framework gets embedded intoday-to-day operations. This is not surprising as

Figure 2. Key asset governance (Adapted from: Weill & Ross, 2004)


5/13



is prohibited.

the introduction of an approach towards enter-prise governance of IT should be regarded in

the first place as a large change program within

the organizations. Another interesting finding

to pinpoint is that our enterprise governance of

IT definition implies a prime responsibility of

the board of directors (as part of their corpo-

rate governance responsibility), while specific

mechanisms to achieve this such as IT expertise

at level of board of directors are less existent

in organizations. This can possibly be explained

by the fact that making the board of directors

more IT literate is not easy to achieve, or that

the board is still not fully aware of the strategic

importance of IT. More recently, the idea of IT

leadership emerged in many discussion fora.

IT leadership can be defined as the ability of the

CIO or similar role to articulate a vision for ITs

role to the company and ensure that this vision

is clearly understood by managers throughout

the organization. If the CIO is not able to talk

in business oriented terms at executive level,his impact at that level will be small. This

mechanism is highly dependent on the indi-vidual competencies of the CIO and not many

methods are available to manage it. However,

we have seen that good leadership can be a very

powerful catalyst to bring enterprise governance

of IT in an organization to a next level. A good

balance between leadership and the appropriate

governance structures and processes needs to

be found (Van Grembergen & De Haes, 2009;

De Haes & Van Grembergen, 2009b).

To better understand how organizations

are implementing enterprise governance of IT,

we have supplemented our case research with

delphi research, leveraging an expert panel

of academics, business and IT managers and

consultants, to try to inventorize and evaluate

structures, processes and relational mechanisms

that contemporary organizations are using in

implementing enterprise governance of IT (De

Haes and Van Grembergen, 2008). This exercise

resulted in a list of 33 enterprise governance

of IT practices, and their respective evalua-tions in terms of perceived effectiveness and

Figure 3. Structures, processes and relational mechanisms for IT governance


6/13



is prohibited.

perceived ease-of-implementation. Based on

this, also a minimum baseline was constructed,

as a list of practices that organization at least

should have. After several review rounds, the

expert panel categorized these 10 practices askey instruments for enterprise governance of

IT (Figure 4).

This minimum baseline contains a mixture

of more strategic oriented (e.g. IT strategy

committee at level of board of directors) and

management oriented (e.g. IT project steering

committee) practices. It is also clear that prac-

tices such as IT steering committee, portfolio

management, project governance/management

constitute the core framework to describe howinvestments in organizations emerge, are pri-

oritized and realized. In that sense, most of the

practices above clearly contain both business

and IT oriented roles and responsibilities.

Eteise Gvece f IT Bsiess/IT aigmet

In our definition of enterprise governance of IT,

we state that it should be an enabler for busi-

ness/IT alignment. But what does alignmentbetween the business and IT exactly mean?

Henderson and Venkatraman were the first to

clearly describe the interrelationship between

business and IT in their well-known Strategic

Alignment Model or SAM model. According

to their model, Business/IT alignment is the

fit and integration among business strategy, IT

strategy, business structures and IT structures

(Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993). Business/

IT alignment clearly is a complex construct,

even more because there is not a universal way

to measure business/IT alignment in an organi-zation. Many measurement models have been

developed, each having their own assumptions

and approaches (Van Grembergen & De Haes,

2009; Chan & Reich, 2007).

A well known business/IT alignment ma-

turity model has been developed by Luftman,

which analyses business/IT alignment around

six attributes: communication, competency and

value measurement, governance, partnership,

scope and architecture and skills. (Luftman,2000) In parallel with other researchers, we

have been using this model within our ITAG

Research Institute, concluding for example

that the Belgian financial sector is positioned

at a maturity of 2.69 on a scale of 5, that many

other sectors worldwide are hovering between

average maturity levels of 2 and 3, and that

the financial services sector globally spoken is

only performing at an average level compared

to other sectors. (Van Grembergen & De Haes,

2009; Luftman & Kempaiah, 2007).

To provide practitioners with hands-on

guidance in the business/IT alignment domain, a

research project by the UAMS - ITAG Research

Institute and the IT Governance Institute worked

on developing pragmatic insights into how con-

crete business goals can drive IT goals and vice

versa, as visualized in Figure 5. If maintaining

Figure 4. Minimum baseline practices for enterprise governance of IT (De Haes & Van Grem-

bergen, 2008)


7/13



is prohibited.

the enterprise reputation and leadership is an

important business goal, a supporting IT goal

could be ensuring IT services can resist and

recover from attacks (Van Grembergen, De

Haes, & Van Brempt, 2008).

This delphi method based research was

executed across multiple industries and led

to the identification of a generic list of IT

related business goals and IT goals and how

they (could) relate (see Figure 6). In practice,every enterprise will have their own distinct

sets of business and IT goals. Priorities within

these sets will differ depending on a variety of

internal and external factors, such as company

size, industry, and geography.

The results of this research provide practi-

cal guidance for professionals in the attempt

to build up a cascade of business goals and

IT goals for their specific organization and

in this way obtain a better insight in the busi-ness/IT alignment issue. Enterprises can do

that efficiently by starting from these generic

business and IT goals, selecting what applies

to them and updating it for enterprise specific

situations. We have been using this approach in

our practice in a number of organizations and

experienced often that some of their business

goals were not supported by IT goals and that

some IT goals did not refer to business goals

indicating a low business/IT alignment. In

some cases, very operational (technical) were

defined, suggesting that they were still in an

IT factory mode.

Such practical business/IT alignment

analysis is a good starting point towards imple-

menting enterprise governance of IT, assuming

that enterprise governance of IT is an important

enabler for business/IT alignment. Our recent

research underpins this assumption, coming to

the conclusion that organizations with a mature

mix of enterprise governance of IT structures,processes and relational mechanisms very

likely achieve a higher degree of business/IT

alignment maturity compared to other similar

organizations (De Haes & Van Grembergen,

2009b). In this research, we measured busi-

ness/IT alignment in 10 Belgian financial sec-

tor organizations, using Luftmans alignment

maturity model (see above). In an extreme

case research approach, we extracted the two

best and two worst performers of this sampleand tried to explain the difference in alignment

maturity by looking at the maturity level of their

enterprise governance of IT practices (cf. list of

33 practices, see above). It was demonstrated

that all the organizations, both with high and

low business/alignment maturity, did have a lot

of practices in place, but the average maturity

of these practices was below maturity level 2

in the poorly aligned organizations and clearly

higher in the highly aligned organizations. In

their governance efforts, organizations shouldstrive for getting structures, processes and

Figure 5. Business goals driving IT goals (Van Grembergen Wim, De Haes Steven, & van Brempt,

2008)


8/13



is prohibited.

Figure 6. Linking IT goals to business goals (Van Grembergen Wim, De Haes Steven, & van

Brempt, 2008)


9/13



is prohibited.

relational mechanism at least at maturity level

2 which implies that these practices have de-

veloped to the stage where similar procedures

are followed by different people undertaking

the same task.

Eteise Gvece fIT Bsiess Ve

Our most recent research goes beyond business/

IT alignment and tries to explore the associa-

tion between enterprise governance of IT and

business value from IT-enabled investments.

After all, the end goals of investing in enterprise

governance of IT practice is achieving more

value out of IT enabled investments. Previous

research streams have worked on this issue

through the concept of business/IT alignment.

Studies by Chan et al. (2001) and Sabherwal

and Chan (1997), for example, confirm the

hypothesis that alignment between business and

IT strategies improves business performance.

Building on these research results, it can be

concluded that the whole cascade as presented in

Figure 1 is supported with empirical evidence,

demonstrating that enterprise governance of ITenables business/IT alignment (see previous

section of this article), which in turn enables

business performance.

A more specific approach was adopted

in our latest research, which focuses on the

relationships between the implementation of

enterprise governance of IT frameworks COBIT

4.1 and Val IT 2.0 and the achievement of IT and

business goals. COBIT 4.1 and Val IT 2.0 are

two best practice process models developed by

the IT Governance Institute (ITGI, 2007; ITGI,

2008), which are receiving more and more at-

tention in the field as frameworks to implement

enterprise governance of IT. COBIT defines 34

IT processes, categorized into four domains:

planning and organization (PO), acquisition and

implementation (AI), delivery and support (DS),

monitoring and evaluation (ME) (ITGI, 2007).

Val IT presented 22 IT related business pro-

cesses, which are categorized in three domains:

value governance (VG), portfolio management(PM) and investment management (IM) (ITGI,

2008). The assumption in this research is that

by applying Enterprise Governance of IT prac-

tices as presented in COBIT and VALIT, the

likelihood of achieving the IT goals increases.

Achieving IT goals in turns increases the likeli-hood of achieving business goals such as client

satisfaction and revenue growth; business goals

that can be used as a proxy for business value

(see Figure 7).

The research was based on an interna-

tional survey, gathering over 500 data entries

covering 91 variables. The Pearson correlation

technique was used to assess the different as-

sociations within this dataset. This analysis

clearly revealed positive relationships between(1) the implementation status of COBIT/Val IT

processes and the achievement of IT goals, and

(2) between the achievement of IT goals and

the achievement of business goals. This result

suggests that the implementation of COBIT/Val

IT practices ultimately results in the achieve-

ment of business goals, or in a better business

value if we can assume that the achievement of

business goals is a good proxy for organizational

performance.

Looking at the correlations into more detail,

it seemed that especially IT processes (COBIT)

dealing with strategy, direction, IT investment

and risk and with acquisition of applications

and infrastructure have the highest impact on a

specific set of IT goals (see Figure 8). Regard-

ing the business processes (Val IT), the high

impact processes are fully distributed over the

three domains of Val IT (value governance-

VG, portfolio management-PM, investment

management-IM). On the other hand, someprocesses were identified that did not reveal

strong correlations with any of the IT goals. For

example, it was found that the implementation

of the COBIT process Define the information

architecture seems to have no direct impact on

the achievement of any of the IT goals. One

can only assume that, although this process is

relevant, it is still less known or it plays a role

at an intermediate level.

A broad set of specific IT goals was found

attributing most to the achievement of some

general business goals, typically referring to


10/13



is prohibited.

improving business processes and cost opti-

mization (see Figure 9).We did not only measure the associations

between the achievement of IT goals and

business goals, but also compared these re-

sults against our previous research where we

reported on the most important IT goals and

(IT related) business goals for organizations

across different sectors (Van Grembergen, De

Haes, & Van Brempt, 2008). This comparison

revealed a knowing-doing gap for some im-

portant goals, implying that organizations areaware of the importance of these goals but do

not manage to realize them in a proper way.

A typical example is the IT goal Align the IT

strategy to the business strategy which was

ranked as the most important goal (rank 1) but

only ranked 7th regarding actual achievement

status. As an opposite example, the IT goal

provide IT compliance with laws and regula-

Figure 8. High impact IT processes and high impacted IT goals (IT goals numbers refer to number

in Figure 6) (Van Grembergen, De Haes, & Van Brempt, 2009)

Figure 7. Governance practices and business value (Van Grembergen Wim, De Haes Steven, &

van Brempt, 2009)


11/13



is prohibited.

tions was ranked on the 5th place in terms of

importance, but received the highest rank for

achievement status.

ConCluSIon

In this article the authors describe their eight

year research journey into IT governance. Over

the years, they came to the conclusion that, in

order to focus more on the business involvement,

a shift in name towards Enterprise Governance

of IT was needed. Enterprise Governance of IT

is defined as the definition and implementation

of processes, structures and relational mecha-

nisms that enable both business and IT people

to execute their responsibilities in support

of business/IT alignment and the creation ofvalue from IT-enabled business investments.

In the context of their Information Technology

Alignment and Governance (ITAG) Research

Institute, they conducted multiple research

projects trying to reveal which Enterprise

Governance of IT practices are implemented

in organizations and what their relationship is

with business/IT alignment and business value.

As reported in this article, their explorative

research led to the identification of 33 Enter-

prise Governance of IT practices and showed

associations between these practices, alignment

and business value.

The researched topics introduced in this

article will remain the central research themes

within the ITAG Research Institute. These

topics are also the central subjects of this new

International Journal on IT/Business Alignmentand Governance (IJITBAG). The mission of the

journal is to further advance theory building and

practice regarding management and governance

issues within the IT-related business domain.

The journal encourages practice-oriented re-

search articles from academics, case studies,

and reflective articles from practitioners. Both

quantitative and qualitative research articles are

welcome, and special attention is giving to ex-

plorative research reports that leverage innovate

research methodologies to explore new insights

in the practitioners field and theory.

rEFErEnCES

Chan, Y., Huff, S., Barclay, D. W., & Copeland, D.W. (1997). Business strategic orientation, informationsystems strategic orientation, and strategic align-ment.Information Systems Research, 8(2), 125150.doi:10.1287/isre.8.2.125

Figure 9. High impact IT goals and high impacted business goals(IT and business goals numbers

refer to number in Figure 6) (Van Grembergen, De Haes, & Van Brempt, 2009)


12/13



is prohibited.

Chan, Y., & Reich, B. (2007). IT Alignment: whathave we learned.Journal of Information Technology,22, 297315. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000109

De Haes, S., & Van Grembergen, W. (2008). An

exploratory study into the design of an IT gover-nance minimum baseline through Delphi research.Communications of the Association for InformationSystems, 22.

De Haes, S., & Van Grembergen, W. (2009a). Anexploratory study into IT governance implemen-tations and its impact on business/IT alignment.Information Systems Management, 26(2), 123137.doi:10.1080/10580530902794786

De Haes, S., & Van Grembergen, W. (2009b).Exploring the relationship between IT governance

practices and business/IT alignment through extremecase analysis in Belgian mid-to-large size financialenterprises. Journal of Enterprise InformationManagement, 22(5).

Henderson, J. C., Venkatraman, N., & Oldach, S.(1993). Continuous Strategic Alignment: ExploitingInformation Technology Capabilities for Competi-tive Success.European Management Journal,11(2),139149. doi:10.1016/0263-2373(93)90037-I

ISO/IEC 38500. (2008). Corporate governanceof information technology. Retrieved from http://

www.iso.org

ITGI. (2007). COBIT 4.1. Retrieved from http://www.itgi.org

ITGI. (2008).Enterprise Value: Governance of ITinvestments, The Val IT Framework. Retrieved fromhttp://www.itgi.org

Luftman, J. (2000). Assessing Business-IT alignmentMaturity. Communications of AIS, vol. 4, no. 14

Luftman, J., & Kempaiah, R. (2007). An update onbusiness/IT alignment: a line has been drawn.MISQ

Executive, 6(3).

Peterson, R. (2003). Information Strategies andTactics for Information Technology Governance. InW. Van Grembergen (Ed.), Strategies for InformationTechnology Governance. Hershey, PA: Idea GroupPublishing.

Sabherwal, R., & Chan, Y. (2001). Alignment betweenbusiness and IS strategies: a study of prospectors, ana-lyzers and defenders.Information Systems Research,12(1), 1133. doi:10.1287/isre.12.1.11.9714

Thorp, J. (2003). The Information Paradox. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Reyerson.

Van Grembergen, W. (2002). Introduction to theMinitrack: IT Governance and its Mechanisms. InProceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Con-ference on System Sciences (HICSS).

Van Grembergen, W., & De Haes, S. (2008).Implementing Information Technology Governance:Models, practices and cases. Hershey, PA: IGIPublishing.

Van Grembergen, W., & De Haes, S. (2009).Enter-prise Governance of IT: Achieving Strategic Align-ment and Value. New York: Springer.

Van Grembergen, W., De Haes, S., & van Brempt,W. (2008). Identifying and aligning business goalsand ITgoals: full research report. Rolling Meadows,IL: IT Governance Institute.

Van Grembergen, W., De Haes, S., & van Brempt,W. (2009).Building the business case for COBITand VAL IT: executive briefing. Rolling Meadows,IL: ISACA.

Weill, P., & Ross, J. (2004).IT Governance: How TopPerformers Manage IT Decision Rights for SuperiorResults. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Wim Van Grembergen, PhD, is professor at the Economics and Management Faculty of the

University of Antwerp (UA) and at the University of Antwerp Management School (UAMS).

He teaches information systems at bachelor, master and executive level, and researches in IT

governance, IT strategy, IT performance management and the IT balanced scorecard. Within his

IT Alignment and Governance (ITAG) Research Institute (www.uams.be/itag) he also conductsapplied research in these domains. Dr. Van Grembergen is a frequent speaker at academic and


13/13



is prohibited.

professional meetings and conferences and serves in a consulting capacity to a number of firms.

He has several publications in leading journals and published books on IT governance and the

IT balanced scorecard. His most recent book with Steven De Haes Enterprise Governance of IT:

Achieving Strategic Alignment and Value is published in 2009 (Springer).

Steven De Haes, PhD, is professor information systems management at the University of Antwerp

Management School (UAMS) and the Economics and Management Faculty of the University

of Antwerp (UA). He has teaching assignments in many executive and master programs in the

domain of IT governance, IT assurance, strategic alignment, value creation, IT performance

measurement, etc. He is actively engaged in applied research within the IT Alignment and

Governance (ITAG) Research Institute (www.uams.be/itag) and acts as an advisor to firms in

these domains. He has several publications in leading academic and professional journals and

has presented research results at many international conferences. In 2009, he co-authored with

Wim van Grembergen the bookEnterprise Governance of IT: Achieving Strategic Alignment

and Value (Springer).

AR26607 Governance TI

Documents

Transcript of AR26607 Governance TI