Information Technology Governance Practices, Challenges and Effects on Enterprise Performance

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 65 - 78, 29.06.2021

Murat Paşa Uysal Evrim Çetinkaya

Öz

Information Technology Governance (ITG) is important for enterprises in many respects. Acquiring better outputs from Information Technologies (IT) investments and meeting various expectations in business can be shown as primary examples. Another issue in this context is how an enterprise can manage its own IT resources according to its business strategy and functions. IT Governance Practices (ITGP), which is also described as best practices, are one of the main approaches that can be used to handle these issues. On the business side, Critical Success Factors (CSF) and Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are amongst the other tools used by enterprises for performance management. However, it is seen that there are not enough research studies exploring ITGP implementation challenges, their effects on CSF, KPI, and their relationships. In this paper, we present the findings of a qualitative research conducted according to the guidelines of Systematic Literature Review and Systematic Mapping Methods. The research outputs are promising though there are limitations that should be considered as well. Our study can be viewed as an initial attempt to the enhancement of ITGP and enterprise performance knowledge domains.

Anahtar Kelimeler

IT Governance Practice, Enterprise Performance, Critical Success Factors, Key Performance Indicators

Bilgi Teknolojileri Yönetişim Uygulamaları, Güçlükler ve Kurumsal Performansa Etkileri

Öz

Bilgi Teknolojileri Yönetimi (BTY) birçok açıdan organizasyonlar için önemlidir. Bilişim Teknolojileri (BT) yatırımlarından daha iyi sonuç alınması ve işletmelerdeki çeşitli beklentilerin BT tarafından karşılaşması bunlara örnek gösterilebilir. Bu kapsamdaki bir diğer konu ise işletmelerin BT uygulamalarına göre kendi bilişim teknolojilerini nasıl yönetebildikleridir. En iyi uygulamalar (best practices) olarak nitelendirilen Bilgi Teknolojileri Yönetim Uygulamaları (BTYU), bu konulara çözüm getirmek üzere kullanılan yaklaşımların başında gelmektedir. Öte yandan, Kritik Başarı Faktörleri (KBF) ve Anahtar Performans Göstergeleri (APG) ise işletmeler tarafından kurumsal performans yönetiminde kullanılan araçlar arasındadır. Ancak, alan yazın taraması sonucunda BTYU’nın uygulama güçlüklerini, KBF ve APG’ne olan etkilerini ve bunlar arasındaki ilişkileri inceleyen yeterli sayıda çalışmaların bulunmadığı gözlenmiştir. Söz konusu araştırma problemine yönelik olarak bu çalışmada Sistematik Haritalama ile Sistematik Literatür Taraması yöntemlerinin bütünleştirilmesiyle gerçekleştirilen araştırmaya ait bulgular sunulmuş, sonuçlar BTYU ve kuramsal temeller çerçevesinde tartışılmıştır. Araştırmamız BTYU’nın iyileştirilmesine yönelik bir girişim olarak nitelendirilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilgi Teknolojileri Yönetimi, Kurumsal Performans, Kritik Başarı Faktörleri, Anahtar Performans Göstergeleri

Kaynakça

• AIS, (2020, November 1). The Association for Information Systems. Retrieved from https://aisnet.org
• Al-Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y, Mohammed, Y.F. (2007) Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22-42.
• Arnold Christian, Voigt Kai-Ingo (2017). Ecosystem effects of the industrial internet of things on manufacturing companies. Acta Infologica, 1(2), 99-108.
• Ash, C.G. & Burn, J.M (2003). Assessing the benefits from e-business transformation through effective enterprise management. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(4), 297-308.
• Barafort, B., Mesquida, A.-L. & Mas, A. (2017). Integrating risk management in IT settings from ISO standards and management systems perspectives. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 54(1), 176-185.
• Blokdyk G. (2020). Enterprise performance management a complete guide - 2020 edition. 5STARCooks, USA.
• Chen, Y.-C & Wu, J.-H (2011). IT management capability and its impact on the performance of a CIO. Information and Management, 48(5), 145-156.
• Çetinkaya, E. (2017). The effects of IT governance practices on key performance indicators in organizations. Unpublished MS Thesis, Ufuk University, Turkey.
• CMMI (2021, February 6). Capability Maturity Model Integration. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, USA. Retrieved from https://www.sei.cmu.edu/
• de Haes, S., van Grembergen (2009). An exploratory study into IT governance implementations and its impact on business /IT alignment. Information Systems Management, 26(2), 123-137.
• De Sousa, J. M. E. (2004). Definition and analysis of critical success factors for ERP implementation projects. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
• Dede B. (2016). Building risk matrix by COSO and COBIT models in banking sector: An application for consumer loan process. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Marmara University, Turkey.
• Dimon R. (2013). Enterprise performance management done right: an operating system for your organization. Wiley, USA.
• Franceschini F., Galetto M. & Maisano, D. (2007). Management by measurement: Designing key indicators and performance measurement systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, USA.
• ISACA (2021). Information Systems Audit and Control Association; COBIT 5: Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology Framework, ISACA, USA.
• ITGI (2020). IT Governance Institute, IL, USA.
• ITIL (2021, February 6). Information Technology Infrastructure Library. Retrieved from https://www.axelos.com/best-practice-solutions/itil/what-is-itil.
• Khudyakova, T., Zhuravlyov, V., Varkova, N., Aliukov, S., Shmidt, S. & Zhuravlyov, N. (2020). Improving approaches to strategic enterprise management in the context of sustainable development. Sustainability, 12(20), 1-20.
• Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Technical Report, Keele University.
• Koyuncu A. E (2016). The roles of the COBIT processes over the reliability of financial reporting and a research in banking sector. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Dumlupınar University, Turkey.
• NCC Report, (2005). IT Governance: Developing a successful governance strategy. The National Computing Centre.
• Okul Ş., Muratoğlu O., Aydın M.A & Bilge H.Ş. (2019). A review on cyber risk management. Acta Infologica, 3(1), 34-45.
• Parmenter D. (2015). Key performance indicators developing, implementing, and using winning KPI. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.
• Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S. & Mattsso M. (2008). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 68-77.
• Rehm, S.-V. & Goel, L. J. (2015). Role of information systems in empowering innovation networks. MIS Quarterly, 14(3), 87-103.
• Samsonowa T. (2012). Industrial research performance management key performance indicators in the ICT industry. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, UK.
• Trkman, P. (2010). The critical success factors of business process management. International Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 125-134.
• Uysal, M.P. (2012). An e-learning design model integrated with information technology governance processes. E-Journal of New World Sciences, Academy-Education Sciences, 7(1), 251-268.
• Vincent, N.E., Higgs, J.L., Pinsker, R.E. (2017). IT governance and the maturity of IT risk management practices. Journal of Information Systems, 31(1), 59-77.