Information Technology Governance for Higher Education Institutions: A Multi-Country Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. IT Governance
2.2. IT Governance Mechanisms
2.3. IT Governance in Universities
2.4. IT Governance Mechanisms in Universities
Implementation and Effectiveness
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Design and Development: Multiple Case Studies
3.2. Data Collection and Data Analysis
4. Design and Development: Proposal of a Baseline
4.1. Integration of ITG Practices
4.2. ITG Mechanisms Baseline for Universities
5. Evaluation
6. Discussion
6.1. Strucutures
6.2. Processes
6.3. Relational Mechanisms
7. Conclusions
7.1. Contributions
7.1.1. Theoretical Implications
7.1.2. Practical Implications
7.1.3. Limitations and Further Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
IT Governance Mechanisms Baseline for Universities | |||
---|---|---|---|
IT Governance Practice | Description | ||
IT Governance Structures | S1 | IT Organisation Structure | The adoption of an IT organisation structure for better decision-making in the institution. The adoption of a centralised structure if the university has one campus, and a federal structure with if the university has multiple campuses, where the infrastructure, strategy, roles and procedures are centralised to avoid wasting resources and the execution and operations are decentralised. To centralise all IT services and applications in a unique central data centre (e-mail server, domain, academic system, etc.) to avoid the redundancy of having the same service within faculties. For universities with more than one campus or faculty, to have IT representatives in the faculties supporting all IT activities as well as reporting to an IT member of staff, like a CIO or IT director. Moreover, an IT technician working in faculties to identify bottlenecks and opportunities for improvement, and reporting to the IT hub at the university. |
S2 | IT Strategy Committee | A committee at the institutional level with the mission of ensuring that IT is included on the agenda, to assist its alignment with institutional strategies. This committee should be composed of members of different backgrounds and expertise: administrative staff; academic professors, students, researchers, and IT employees. The aim is to understand the needs at different IT stakeholder levels. | |
S3 | IT Steering Committees/Councils | A responsible committee to determine the IT priorities at the institution and implement IT strategy. This committee can be divided into several subcommittees or functions, with the role of discussing activities in teaching, learning, IT security and risks, and projects. Each of these subcommittees/councils can be created when necessary, depending on the context of the university and its needs. | |
S4 | Roles and Responsibilities | A definition of roles and responsibilities with formal functions and clear definition. Documentation to provide all tasks and responsibilities with a formal division at the IT level of the institution. Examples of formal functions include IT support, system development, IT infrastructure, and E-learning. | |
S5 | Project Management Office | A project management office to manage all kinds of IT projects at the institution. To create a culture of managing projects, adopting methodologies such as PMBOK or PRINCE 2 to govern and manage projects. The adoption of a tool to control and monitor projects. | |
S6 | Process Management Office | A process management office composed of IT staff and academics to identify areas to be improved at universities. A function defined at the IT department level of the institution. | |
S7 | ITG Function/Officer | A formal function within the institution, responsible for promoting, driving and managing all ITG processes. | |
S8 | Security/Compliance/Risk Officer | Function responsible for security, compliance and/or risk which possibly impacts IT. | |
S9 | Business/IT Relationship Managers | Business/IT relationship managers working as intermediaries between IT and other areas of the institution, such as in teaching, learning, and administrative tasks. These managers work daily to understand the needs of faculties as well as departments. | |
S10 | CIO on Executive Committee | The CIO of an executive committee with the aim of representing IT, showing the benefits for and the impacts on the university and in all aspects of education. | |
IT Governance Processes | P1 | Strategy Information System Planning | A strategic plan aligned with the objectives and goals of the institution, defining all priorities and investments. The plan should be a simple document covering a length of two to four years. This plan should be discussed and approved by the IT strategy committee. The strategic plan aims to achieve the maximum benefit from information technology innovations, increasing research capability, enhancing teaching and learning, and delivering efficiencies in support of administrative functions. |
P2 | Frameworks and Standards ITG | The adoption of frameworks and standards to help IT governance at universities. | |
P3 | Test and Experiments of Solutions | An environment with the possibility of tests and experiments regarding solutions in information technology. In addition, an IT infrastructure to provide virtual machines with a range of software for all the academic community to test and use (i.e., administrative staff, professors, students). For instance, to provide more than one E-learning application for students and professors compared to the standard adopted by the university. If the university adopts Blackboard as a standard and only provides support for this, it is stimulating to offer others, such as Moodle. | |
P4 | Dashboard | Tools widely used by IT professionals which are easy to utilise by academic staff, to analyse data at the organisational level. | |
P5 | Methodology to Manage Disruptive Innovation | A methodology to manage disruptive innovation in universities. | |
P6 | International Standards/Common Solutions | The adoption of international standards. A common solution adopted by several universities in the same country (i.e., the same software as ITSM, Business Intelligence). It could be easier to share information, promote training, and reduce costs in the software development. | |
P7 | Portfolio Management | Prioritisation of processes for IT investments and projects in the institution. | |
P8 | IT Budget Control and Reporting | Process used to monitor and control the IT budget and investments in projects. Define an IT budget to ensure investments and priorities for IT projects. | |
P9 | IT Performance Measurement | The adoption of metrics and indicators in IT to assist managers in visualising and understanding the strategic objectives of the institution. To measure the organisation’s performance through the use of satisfaction surveys, as well as an analysis of service quality and all issues regarding operational excellence. | |
P10 | Benefits Management and Reporting | Processes used to monitor IT benefits for teaching and learning activities, during and after implementation. A way to show IT investments in projects and the real impact on the university. | |
IT Governance Relational Mechanisms | R1 | Knowledge Management (on IT) | Share knowledge on IT at the university, such as information about technology, frameworks, best practices, tasks, responsibilities, and publish the information in the intranet, blogs or a university portal. The purpose of this is to store and create an organisational memory of IT knowledge, which should be available whenever it is necessary to recover any information. |
R2 | Knowledge Sharing Among Universities | Share knowledge of IT among IT managers, IT directors, and the CIO in universities by e-mail, forum, and a discussion group. Exchange experiences and best practices for software, infrastructure and training, and issues related to IT problems and solutions. | |
R3 | IT Leadership | Have an IT leader to promote and lead IT projects. This leader should be the CIO or the IT representative, with higher IT decision-making responsibilities. The CIO is the IT leader responsible for creating the interface between IT and business, interacting with the board of the university. The CIO needs to have knowledge about all kinds of technology that could change education at the university, as well as processes which may impact teaching, learning and research activities. | |
R4 | Training and Education | A formalised program of training and education for business and IT professionals. A program to ensure the development of knowledge and promote a culture of learning for all staff. Training for different courses and skills—not just technical skills, but those regarding management, business processes, governance, tools for education, etc. To provide a portal with e-learning courses to extend the maximum number of attendees in IT and business. | |
R5 | University and Software Industry Partnership | Partnership among the university and software industry, aiming to acquire solutions for education. A good starting point is to establish a partnership with Google or Microsoft, where they provide a range of free and affordable tools for education. | |
R6 | Corporate Communication | Formal institution communication to address general IT issues. Use formal and best practices to communicate IT to all stakeholders. | |
R7 | Engagement Between IT and Academia | Engagement and relationship with academia (e.g., school of engineering, systems information, computer science) aiming to develop projects and solve real IT problems. The researchers and professors in the faculties work in partnership with the IT professionals. For instance, the IT department proposes the development of a mobile application in the computer science school by students, or other IT problems at the institution could be a topic for a dissertation or thesis. | |
R8 | Shared Understanding of Business/IT Objectives | To share the understanding of business/IT objectives among the main stakeholders in the institution. To clearly show the IT activities and the importance of each one. To have a commitment from IT and business personnel linked to IT for education, respecting its contribution and the challenges it faces. |
References
- De Haes, S.; Van Grembergen, W.; Debreceny, R.S. COBIT 5 and Enterprise Governance of Information Technology: Building Blocks and Research Opportunities. J. Inf. Syst. 2013, 27, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, C.K.; Karahanna, E. Causal Explanation in the Coordinating Process: A Critical Realist Case Study of Federated IT Governance Structures. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 933–964. Available online: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=89477780&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed on 17 March 2021). [CrossRef]
- Wu, S.P.-J.; Straub, D.W.; Liang, T.-P. How information technology governance mechanisms and strategic alignment influence organizational performance: Insights from a matched survey of business and IT managers. MIS Q. 2015, 39, 497–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Haes, S.; Van Grembergen, W. An Exploratory Study into the Design of an IT Governance Minimum Baseline through Delphi Research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2008, 22, 24. Available online: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34260467&site=ehost-live&scope=site (accessed on 17 March 2021). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pereira, R.; Da Silva, M.M.; Lapão, L.V. Business/IT Alignment through IT Governance Patterns in Portuguese Healthcare. Int. J. IT Bus. Alignment Gov. 2014, 5, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juiz, C.; Toomey, M. To govern IT, or not to govern IT? Commun. ACM 2015, 58, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levstek, A.; Hovelja, T.; Pucihar, A. IT Governance Mechanisms and Contingency Factors: Towards an Adaptive IT Governance Model. Organizacija 2018, 51, 286–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marrone, M.; Gacenga, F.; Cater-Steel, A.; Kolbe, L. IT service management: A cross-national study of ITIL adoption. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2014, 34, 865–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pereira, R.; Da Silva, M. IT Governance Implementation: The Determinant Factors. Commun. IBIMA 2012, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sambamurthy, V.; Zmud, R.W. Arrangements for Information Technology Governance: A Theory of Multiple Contingencies. MIS Q. 1999, 23, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bianchi, I.S.; Sousa, R.D.; Pereira, R.; De Haes, S. The Influence of Culture in IT Governance Implementation: A Higher Education Multi Case Study. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Inf. Technol. Prof. 2019, 10, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, K.; Otto, B.; Österle, H. One Size Does Not Fit All—A Contingency Approach to Data Governance. J. Data Inf. Qual. 2009, 1, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikalef, P.; Pateli, A.; Batenburg, R.; van de Wetering, R. Business alignment in the procurement domain: A study of antecedents and determinants of supply chain performance. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2014, 2, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilmore, A. IT strategy and decision-making: A comparison of four universities. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2014, 36, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spremić, M.; Bajgoric, N.; Turulja, L. Implementation of it Governance Standards and Business Continuity Management in Transition Economies: The Case of Banking Sector in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraž. 2013, 26, 183–202. Available online: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84879000324&partnerID=40&md5=308fdf71461bde8d4fddf79e234c94f5 (accessed on 17 March 2021). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bianchi, I.S.; Sousa, R.D. IT Governance Mechanisms in Higher Education. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 100, 941–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hicks, M.; Pervan, G.; Perrin, B. A study of the review and improvement of IT governance in Australian universities. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Resources Management (CONF-IRM), Vienna, Austria, 21–23 May 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Jairak, K.; Praneetpolgrang, P.; Subsermsri, P. Information technology governance practices based on sufficiency economy philosophy in the Thai university sector. Inf. Technol. People 2015, 28, 195–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, C.; Ferreira, C.; Amaral, L. An IT Value Management Capability Model for Portuguese Universities: A Delphi Study. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 138, 612–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yanosky, R.; Caruso, J.B. Process and Politics: IT Governance in Higher Education; EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research: Boulder, CO, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Weill, P.; Ross, J.W. IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Lunardi, G.L.; Becker, J.L.; Maçada, A.C.G.; Dolci, P.C. The impact of adopting IT governance on financial performance: An empirical analysis among Brazilian firms. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 2014, 15, 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, W.; Xin, Z.Y. An ITIL-based IT Service Management Model for Chinese Universities. In Proceedings of the 5th ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management & Applications (SERA 2007), Busan, Korea, 20–22 August 2007; pp. 493–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, D.; Fink, D. Information technology governance: An evaluation of the theory-practice gap. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2010, 10, 662–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, R.; Da Silva, M.M.; Lapão, L.V. IT Governance Maturity Patterns in Portuguese Healthcare. Adv. Bus. Inf. Syst. Anal. 2017, 5, 24–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tallon, P.P.; Ramirez, R.V.; Short, J.E. The Information Artifact in IT Governance: Toward a Theory of Information Governance. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2013, 30, 141–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregory, R.W.; Kaganer, E.; Henfridsson, O.; Ruch, T.J. It consumerization and the transformation of it governance. MIS Q. 2018, 42, 1225–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smits, D.; van Hillegersberg, J. Evaluation of the usability of a new ITG instrument to measure hard and soft governance maturity. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2019, 7, 37–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henriques, D.; Pereira, R.; Bianchi, I.S.; Almeida, R.; da Silva, M.M. How IT Governance can assist IoT project implementation. IT Gov. Assist IoT Proj. Implement. 2020, 8, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Haes, S.; Van Grembergen, W. An Exploratory Study into IT Governance Implementations and its Impact on Business/IT Alignment. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2009, 26, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nfuka, E.N.; Rusu, L. The effect of critical success factors on IT governance performance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2011, 111, 1418–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Qassimi, N.; Rusu, L. IT Governance in a Public Organization in a Developing Country: A Case Study of a Governmental Organization. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 64, 450–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aasi, P.; Rusu, L.; Han, S. The influence of culture on IT governance: A literature review. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 6–9 January 2014; pp. 4436–4445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, A.E.; Grant, G.G.; Sprott, E. Framing the Frameworks: A Review of IT Governance Research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 15, 696–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiedenhöft, G.C.; Luciano, E.M.; Pereira, G.V. Information Technology Governance Institutionalization and the Behavior of Individuals in the Context of Public Organizations. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 22, 1487–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Haes, S.; van Grembergen, W. IT governance and its mechanisms. Inf. Syst. Control J. 2004, 1, 27–33. [Google Scholar]
- Van Grembergen, W.; de Haes, S.; Guldentops, E. Structures, processes and relational mechanisms for IT governance. In Strategies for Information Technology Governance; Van Grembergen, W., Ed.; Idea Group: Hershey, PA, USA, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
- Mikalef, P.; Boura, M.; Lekakos, G.; Krogstie, J. The role of information governance in big data analytics driven innovation. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, R.; da Silva, M.M. Contingency factors in IT governance implementation. In Proceedings of the Innovation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage: From Regional Development to World Economies—Proceedings of the 18th International Business Information Management Association Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 9–10 May 2012; Volume 3. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84896064767&partnerID=40&md5=60175b278c6c793f471fefeb936e6725 (accessed on 17 March 2021).
- Peterson, R.; Parker, M.; Ribbers, P. Information Technology Governance Processes under environmental dynamism: Investigating competing theories of decision making and knowledge sharing. In ICIS 2002 Proceedings, Barcelona, Spain, 15–18 December 2002; Taylor & Francis Group: Milton Park, UK, 2002; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
- De Haes, S.; van Grembergen, W. Enterprise Governance of IT, Alignment and Value. In Enterprise Governance of Information Technology, 2nd ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Khouja, M.; Rodriguez, I.B.; Ben Halima, Y.; Moalla, S. IT Governance in Higher Education Institutions. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Inf. Technol. Prof. 2018, 9, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meçe, E.K.; Sheme, E.; Trandafili, E.; Juiz, C.; Gómez, B.; Colomo-Palacios, R. Governing IT in HEIs: Systematic Mapping Review. Bus. Syst. Res. J. 2020, 11, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, I.S.; Sousa, R.D.; Pereira, R.; de Souza, I.M. Effective IT governance mechanisms in higher education institutions: An empirical study. RISTI Rev. Iber. Sist. Tecnol. Inform. 2020, E25, 412–423. [Google Scholar]
- Bhattacharjya, J.; Chang, V. Evolving IT governance practices for aligning IT with business—A case study in an Australian institution of higher education. J. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2007, 4, 24–46. [Google Scholar]
- Saleh, J.M.; Almsafir, M.K. The Drivers of ITIL Adoption in UNITEN. In Proceedings of the Advanced Computer Science Applications and Technologies (ACSAT), 2013 International Conference, Kuching, Malaysia, 23–24 December 2013; pp. 479–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, S.H.; Chan, Y. Improving service management in campus IT operations. Campus Wide Inf. Syst. 2008, 25, 30–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, J.; Gomes, R. IT governance using COBIT implemented in a high public educational institution: A case study. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on European Computing Conference, Perth, Australia, 10–12 July 2009; World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS): Tbilisi, Georgia, 2009; pp. 41–52. [Google Scholar]
- Coen, M.; Kelly, U. Information management and governance in UK higher education institutions: Bringing IT in from the cold. Perspect. Policy Pr. High. Educ. 2007, 11, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fernández, A.; Lorens, F.L. An IT Governance Framework for Universities in Spain. 2009. Available online: https://az659834.vo.msecnd.net/eventsairwesteuprod/production-ntnu-public/a4228019e1964d829e8aa1efbd23900b (accessed on 26 June 2009).
- Almeida, R.; Pereira, R.; da Silva, M.M. IT Governance Mechanisms: A Literature Review. In Exploring Services Science, Porto, Portugal, 7–8 February 2013; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 186–199. [Google Scholar]
- Ajayi, B.; Hussin, H. IT governance from practitioners’perspective: Sharing the experience of a malaysian university. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2016, 88, 219–230. [Google Scholar]
- Ismail, N.A. Information technology governance, funding and structure: A case analysis of a public university in Malaysia. Campus Wide Inf. Syst. 2008, 3, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bichsel, J.; Feehan, P. Getting Your Ducks in a Row: IT Governance, Risk, and Compliance Programs in Higher Education. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED564476 (accessed on 1 June 2014).
- Zdravkovic, J.; Rychkova, I.; Speckert, T. IT Governance in Organizations Facing Decentralization-Case Study in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the CAiSE (Forum/Doctoral Consortium), Thessaloniki, Greece, 16–20 June 2014; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 129–136. [Google Scholar]
- Hsbollah, H.M.; Simon, A.; Letch, N. A network analysis of IT governance practices: A case study of an IT centralisation project. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Geelong, Australia, 3–5 December 2012; pp. 3–5. [Google Scholar]
- Fraser, W.L.; Tweedale, R. IT Governance at QUT. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/10872751.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2021).
- Albrecht, B.; Pirani, J.A. Using an IT Governance Structure to Achieve Alignment at the University of Cincinnati. Available online: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2004/5/using-an-it-governance-structure-to-achieve-alignment-at-the-university-of-cincinnati (accessed on 10 May 2004).
- Ucisa. UCISA ITIL Case Study; Ucisa: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bazeley, P.; Jackson, K. Qualitative Data Analysis with Nvivo, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Hevner, A.; March, S. IT systems perspectives—The information systems research cycle. Computer 2003, 36, 111–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuechler, B.; Vaishnavi, V. On theory development in design science research: Anatomy of a research project. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 489–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- March, S.T.; Storey, V.C. Design Science in the Information Systems Discipline: An Introduction to the Special Issue on Design Science Research. MIS Q. 2008, 32, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- March, S.T.; Smith, G.F. Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis. Support Syst. 1995, 15, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hevner, A.R.; March, S.T.; Park, J.; Ram, S. Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benbasat, I.; Goldstein, D.K.; Mead, M. The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Q. 1987, 11, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, R.; Almeida, R.; da Silva, M.M. How to Generalize an Information Technology Case Study. In Proceedings of the 8th Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), Helsinki, Finland, 11–12 June 2013; Volume 7939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Dubé, L.; Paré, G. Rigor in Information Systems Positivist Case Research: Current Practices, Trends, and Recommendations. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ITGI. Board Briefing on IT Governance, 2nd ed.; OECD: Paris, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Prat, N.; Comyn-Wattiau, I.; Akoka, J. A Taxonomy of Evaluation Methods for Information Systems Artifacts. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 229–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerber, A.; Kotze, P.; van der Merwe, A. Design Science Research as Research Approach in Doctoral Studies. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2015/DSR/GeneralPresentations/3/ (accessed on 26 June 2015).
- Peffers, K.; Tuunanen, T.; Rothenberger, M.A.; Chatterjee, S. A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 24, 45–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosemann, M.; Vessey, I. Toward Improving the Relevance of Information Systems Research to Practice: The Role of Applicability Checks. MIS Q. 2008, 32, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, M.D. Qualitative Research in Business and Management; SAGE: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Structures | Frequency of Implementation | Effectiveness | References | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | IT strategy committee | 14 | Effective | |
2 | IT audit committee | 1 | No evidence | - |
3 | CIO on executive committee | 7 | Effective | [52] |
4 | CIO reporting to CEO/COO | 5 | Effective | [24] |
5 | IT steering committee | 14 | Effective | [24,53] |
6 | IT governance function/officer | 5 | Effective | [14] |
7 | Security/compliance/risk officer | 3 | Effective | [54] |
8 | IT project steering committee | 2 | No evidence | - |
9 | IT security steering committee | 2 | No evidence | - |
10 | Architecture steering committee | 3 | No evidence | - |
11 | Integration of governance/alignment tasks in roles and responsibilities | 11 | Effective | [14,24,45,52,53] |
12 | IT councils | 3 | Effective | [45] |
13 | IT leadership councils | 1 | No evidence | - |
14 | Business/IT relationship managers | 2 | No evidence | - |
15 | IT investment committee | 4 | No evidence | - |
16 | IT expertise at board level | 3 | Effective | [14] |
17 | IT organisation structure | 18 | ||
Decentralised | Not Effective | [17,24,55] | ||
Centralised | Effective | [17,24,45,56] | ||
Processes | ||||
18 | Strategic information systems’ planning | 12 | Effective | [45,52,57,58] |
19 | IT performance measurement | 10 | Effective | [45,52,57] |
20 | Portfolio management | 7 | Effective | [14,57] |
21 | Charge back | 1 | No evidence | |
22 | Service level agreement | - | No significant results | [24] |
23 | ITG frameworks/standards | 24 | Effective | [24,45,52,57,59] |
24 | ITG assurance and self-assessment | 1 | No evidence | - |
25 | Project governance/management methodologies | 6 | Effective | [14,57] |
26 | IT budget control and reporting | 11 | Effective | [24,52,57,58] |
27 | Benefits management and reporting | 3 | Effective | [14,24,58] |
28 | Business/IT alignment model | 6 | No evidence | - |
29 | ITG Maturity Models CMM | 2 | Effective | [52] |
30 | Project tracking | 1 | Effective | [57] |
31 | Demand management | 1 | No evidence | - |
32 | Architectural exception process | - | No evidence | - |
Relational Mechanisms | ||||
33 | Job-rotation | 1 | No evidence | - |
34 | Co-location | 2 | Effective | [45] |
35 | Cross-training | 4 | Effective | [14,45,52] |
36 | Knowledge management (On ITG) | 6 | Effective | [14,24,45,52] |
37 | Business/IT account management | - | No evidence | - |
38 | Executive/senior management giving a good example | 6 | Effective | [14,52] |
39 | Informal meetings between business and the IT executive/senior management | - | Effective | [24,45] |
40 | IT leadership | 7 | Effective | [14,24] |
41 | Corporate internal communication addressing IT | 5 | Effective | [24,45] |
42 | ITG awareness campaigns | 4 | No evidence | - |
43 | Partnership rewards and incentives | - | No evidence | - |
44 | Shared understanding of business/IT objectives | 11 | Effective | [24,45] |
45 | Senior management announcements | - | No evidence | - |
46 | Office of CIO or ITG | 4 | Effective | [58] |
Country | IT Organisation Structure | Type of Control | Information about Universities | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Size | IT Employees | Focus | ||||
1 | Netherlands | Federal | Public | Extra Large | 100–300 | Teaching |
2 | Netherlands | Centralised | Public | Medium | 100–300 | Research |
3 | Brazil | Federal | Public | Extra Large | 50–99 | Research, Teaching, Community |
4 | Brazil | Federal | Public | Extra Large | 100–300 | Research, Teaching, Community |
5 | Israel | Federal | Public | Extra Large | 100–300 | Research, Teaching, Community |
6 | Portugal | Centralised | Public | Medium | 10–24 | Research, Teaching |
7 | Portugal | Centralised | Public | Medium | 10–24 | Research, Teaching |
8 | Spain | Centralised | Private | Medium | 10–24 | Teaching |
9 | Brazil | Centralised | Private | Large | 100–300 | Research, Teaching, Community |
10 | Brazil | Federal | Private | Large | 10–24 | Research, Teaching, Community |
Structures | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Frequency |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IT strategy committee | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | |
IT organisation structure | 3 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 6 | ||||
ITG function/officer | 2 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 4 | ||||||
Business/IT relationship managers | 10 | 10 | 9 | 4 | 4 | ||||||
IT steering committee | 10 | 4 | 4 | 3 | |||||||
Integration of governance tasks in roles and responsibilities | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||
Security/compliance/risk officer | 4 | 1 | |||||||||
Architecture steering committee | 3 | 1 | |||||||||
Processes | Sum | 30 | |||||||||
Strategic information systems planning | 4 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 9 | |
Frameworks ITG | 5 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 9 | |
Project governance/management methodologies | 8 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 5 | |||||
IT budget control and reporting | 10 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 5 | |||||
Demand management | 2 | 9 | 9 | 3 | |||||||
Portfolio management | 1 | 2 | 6 | 3 | |||||||
IT performance measurement (BSC) | 4 | 9 | 2 | ||||||||
ITG assurance and self-assessment | 6 | 9 | 2 | ||||||||
Project Tracking | 6 | 8 | 2 | ||||||||
Service level agreements | 3 | 1 | |||||||||
Benefits management and reporting | 3 | 1 | |||||||||
Test and Experiments Possibility | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
International Standards/common solutions | 4 | 1 | |||||||||
Relational Mechanisms | Sum | 44 | |||||||||
Knowledge management (on ITG) | 9 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 8 | 9 | |
Office of CIO or ITG | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |||||||
Informal meeting | 7 | 8 | 2 | ||||||||
Corporate internal communication | 6 | 9 | 6 | 3 | |||||||
Business/IT account management | 5 | 6 | 2 | ||||||||
Cross-training | 5 | 1 | |||||||||
IT governance awareness campaign | 7 | 1 | |||||||||
IT leadership | 7 | 1 | |||||||||
Co-location Business/IT collocation | 3 | 1 | |||||||||
Shared understanding of business/IT objectives | 7 | 1 | |||||||||
Knowledge sharing among universities | 5 | 1 | |||||||||
Partnership between university and software industry | 2 | 1 | |||||||||
Sum | 26 |
Criterion | Statement | |
---|---|---|
1 | Completeness | The Baseline contains all the necessary practices for effective ITG at universities. |
2 | Ease of use | The Baseline of practices is well-described and easy to use and implemented in the universities with little effort. |
3 | Fidelity with real world phenomena | The proposed baseline corresponds to a possible solution to the suitable choice of practice for ITG at universities. |
4 | Internal consistency | The Baseline uses an adequate terminology, is well written and justified by the theory. |
5 | Level of Detail | The Baseline contains a sufficient level of detail in each mechanism for ITG at universities. |
6 | Simplicity | The Baseline contains the minimum number of practices for ITG at universities and they are easy to implement. |
7 | Understandability | The baseline is easily understood as a model for ITG at universities and the meaning of each mechanism is easily understandable. |
8 | Importance | The Baseline is important for ITG at the universities. |
9 | Accessibility | The Baseline has an understandable terminology with a practice perspective, not only a theoretical one. |
10 | Suitability | The Baseline of practices is applicable in the practice to assist with ITG at universities. |
Country | Public University | Position | Education and Work Experience | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Portugal | Size: large Number of IT employees: 50–99 | IT Services Director | Master’s in Computer Science Over 20 years’ experience in IT. Over five years in the director position. |
2 | Germany | Size: extra large Number of IT employees: 100–300 | Chief Information Officer | PhD with over 30 years of experience in IT. Full professor and researcher at the university. |
3 | Portugal | Size: large Number of IT employees: 24–50 | IT Technical coordinator | Master’s in Computer Science. Over 13 years’ experience in IT. Strong experience with IT governance and research in the universities |
4 | Brazil | Size: extra large Number of IT employees: 100–300 | Chief Information Officer/Consultant | PhD in Information Technology and Business with over 40 years of experience in IT at universities. Over 20 years of experience in corporate and IT governance Consultant in several Brazilian universities |
5 | Spain | Size: extra large Number of IT employees: 100–300 | IT Director | Master’s Over 22 years of experience in IT Over two years in IT Director position |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Scalabrin Bianchi, I.; Dinis Sousa, R.; Pereira, R. Information Technology Governance for Higher Education Institutions: A Multi-Country Study. Informatics 2021, 8, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics8020026
Scalabrin Bianchi I, Dinis Sousa R, Pereira R. Information Technology Governance for Higher Education Institutions: A Multi-Country Study. Informatics. 2021; 8(2):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics8020026
Chicago/Turabian StyleScalabrin Bianchi, Isaías, Rui Dinis Sousa, and Ruben Pereira. 2021. "Information Technology Governance for Higher Education Institutions: A Multi-Country Study" Informatics 8, no. 2: 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics8020026
APA StyleScalabrin Bianchi, I., Dinis Sousa, R., & Pereira, R. (2021). Information Technology Governance for Higher Education Institutions: A Multi-Country Study. Informatics, 8(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics8020026