Discussion of
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 14

Kevin Kobelsky PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 49 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Discussion of “Towards a Deeper Understanding of IT Governance Effectiveness: A Capabilities Approach" by Prasad, Heales , Green. Kevin Kobelsky. Key Comments. Objective of Paper:

Download Presentation

Kevin Kobelsky

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Kevin kobelsky

Discussion of “Towards a Deeper Understanding of IT Governance Effectiveness: A Capabilities Approach"by Prasad, Heales, Green

Kevin Kobelsky


Key comments

Key Comments

Objective of Paper:

“Increase our knowledge of the effectiveness of IT governance by considering its relationship with IT-related capabilities (p.5)”

Work done

Impressive sample well analyzed.

Positioning/Contribution:

What’s new?

Methods

Some questions of clarification.


What s new

What’s New?

ITCapabilities

IT

Governance

Performance


What s old

What’s Old?

Internal Process vs Firm-Level Performance- Both are firm level- Hard to distinguish items- Cross loadings in Table 3very high (.55-.83)- Why distinguish?-What does Customer Service add?Simplifying….

Performance


What s new1

What’s New?

Top

Management

Commitment

)

*

2

*

*

R

=

0

.

154

0

3

.

2

8

3

2

7

(

.

2

6

.

(

6

6

2

7

9

*

3

*

)

.

0

Shared

Internal Process

0

.

1

7

1

IT Steering

0

.

230

Organisational

Performance

7

*

*

)

(

2

.

5

8

Committee

(

3

.

396

***)

Knowledge

2

R

=

0

.

323

2

R

=

0

.

105

)

0

*

.

*

4

5

6

5

8

9

.

2

(

8

(

.

6

2

5

7

2

1

.

0

*

*

*

)

Flexible IT

Infrastructure

2

R

=

0

.

211

IT

Governance

ITCapabilities

Performance


What s old1

IT Investment

IT Investment

What’s Old?

Top

Management

The Search for Moderatorsto help explain variations in performanceEstablished that all are important

Commitment

2

R

=

0

.

154

Shared

Internal Process

Organisational

Performance

Knowledge

2

R

=

0

.

323

2

R

=

0

.

105

s

n

Flexible IT

Infrastructure

Controls

2

R

=

0

.

211

Performance

ITCapabilities


What s new2

What’s New?

Top

Management

Commitment

)

*

2

*

*

R

=

0

.

154

3

8

2

.

6

(

2

9

3

.

0

Shared

Internal Process

IT Steering

0

.

230

Organisational

Performance

Committee

(

3

.

396

***)

Knowledge

2

R

=

0

.

323

2

R

=

0

.

0

.

4

5

9

(

8

.

2

7

1

*

*

*

)

Flexible IT

Infrastructure

2

R

=

0

.211

ITCapabilities

IT

Governance


What s new3

What’s New?

Focus on: IT Steering Committee

The ORIGINAL IT governance mechanism.

Used everywhere.

What is the tension concerning whether they will work?


What s new4

What’s New?

IT StrgComm → Mgmt IT Commitment

Aren’t ITSC’s composed of top mgrs? (Karimi et al, 2000)

If so, then hypothesis is that formal mechanism will enhance commitment…little tension there.

Further, ITSC #7 defines ITSC effectiveness in terms of “ability to create top mgmt commitment.” Even if conceptually separate, measure makes them overlap, could drive findings.

Helpful to develop further.


What s new5

What’s New?

IT StrgComm → IT-Business shared knowledge

Again, formal mechanism that requires input of business users will enhance knowledge of the other’s domain.

This notion is central to the IT Alignment literature and is well established. So, what is the tension re IT Steering Committee?


What s new6

What’s New?

IT StrgComm → Sharing-focused IT infrastructure

Formal process for IT is associated with more integrated data sharing, formal systems standards

How could the opposite be true (tension)?

Flexibility is not the same as scope of data-sharing. Legacy systems may share enormous amounts of data, but it is not a flexible infrastructure. User vs IT support focus.


What s new7

What’s New?

IT StrgComm → Performance?

Formal process for IT is associated with better business process/software fit? i.e. do ITSCs help pick portfolios of projects that better enhance firm level performance?

Not examined.


Methods

Methods

Use of PLS/factor analysis

  • Creates a model that best explains the last (right-most) variables.

    Based on above arguments, the left-most relations (IT governance to IT capabilities and performance) are those of greatest interest.

  • Performance variables should be formative, not reflective (e.g. selling cost per employee may decline independently of total labour costs). Factor analysis inappropriate. Helpful to clarify to reader how this was handled.


Methods1

Methods

Control for respondent type

Consider controlling for respondent type. All IT variables are positively correlated. Since single respondent for all constructs, could be that Director of MIS respondents have a more positive view of IT in all its aspects, and see their firms doing better than a CFO would.

Add dummy control variable for CFO vs non-CFO, then in separate analysis, dummy for MIS vs non-MIS.


  • Login