Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ

Year 2022, Issue: 49, 191 - 211, 02.03.2022
https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.873576

Abstract

Yönetişim, yönetimin kurumsal amaçlara ulaşmaya yönelik uygulamaya aldığı süreç ve yapıların bütünüdür ve kurumda üst yönetimin birincil ve öncelikli sorumludur. Bu çalışmada, yönetişim konusunda yapılmış çeşitli çalışmalardan istifade edilerek özellikle kamu kurumlarında yönetişim olgunluk seviyesini ölçebilecek bir ölçeğin Türk kültürüne ve Türkçeye uyarlanması hedeflenmektedir.Yönetişim kavramı, üzerinde araştırılmalar ve tartışmaların çokça yapıldığı bir konu olmakla birlikte, yönetişim olgunluk kavramı yazında daha az ilgi çekmiş bir konudur. Yönetişim konusunun son dönemlerde öneminin ve gördüğü değerin gittikçe artması onun örgüte katkısının daha fazla incelenmesine yol açmış; bu kapsamda yönetişim olgunluk seviyesinin tespit edilmesi üzerinde durulması gereken bir husus olmuştur. Bir örgüt, yönetişimin çeşitli olgunluk seviyelerinden hangisinde olduğunu anlayabilmesi için gerekli yapıları, sistemleri ve süreçleri ayrıntılandıran bir kriter olmaksızın kendi yönetişim olgunluk düzeyini nasıl belirleyebilir? Bunun için yayınlanmış olgunluk modelleri kullanılabilir, bununla birlikte, yapılan literatür araştırmasında, Türkçe literatürde kurumların süreç etkinliğini veya yönetişimin boyutlarını ayrı ayrı inceleyen muhtelif çalışmalar olsa da yönetişimin boyutlarına odaklanmış ve doğrudan kamu kurumlarında kullanılabilecek bütünsel bir çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Bu çalışmanın asıl amacı, kamu kurumlarında yönetişim olgunluğunu ölçmede kullanılabilecek bir model geliştirmektir: Makalede öncelikle kapsamlı bir literatür taraması yapılmış, ardından çeşitli olgunluk modelleri incelenerek örgütlerde yönetişim olgunluk düzeyini ölçmeye yönelik çeşitli modellerden derlenen ölçek Türk kültürüne uyarlanmıştır.

References

  • APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation), (2011), “Good Practice Guide on Public Sector Governance”, Singapore.
  • Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) Corporate Governance Council, (2010), Corporate governance principles and recommendations. Second edition.
  • Bahrman, D., (2011), Evaluating and improving organizational governance, Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, Altamonte Springs, Florida.
  • Birleşmiş Milletler (2000), United Nations Millennium Declaration General Assembly resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000.
  • Cadbury Report, A., (1992), Report of the committee on the financial aspects of corporate governance. The Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. Geeand Company Limited. London.
  • Chapman, R.,(2009), Maturity models as a vehicle for improving risk management practices, http://blogs.exaprotect.com/2007/09/maturity-models-as-a-vehicle-for-improving-risk (Erişim: 29 May 2019)
  • Coetzee, G.P., (2010), A risk-based audit model for internal audit engagements. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State.
  • Curtıs Paulk, Weber Chrıssıs, (1993), Capability Maturity Model, Version1.1. Software, 10 (4) : 18-27.
  • Çonkar M. K., C. Elitaş ve G. Atar G. (2011), “İMKB Kurumsal Yönetim Endeksi’ndeki Firmaların Finansal Performanslarının TOPSIS Yöntemi İle Ölçümü ve Kurumsal Yönetim Notu İle Analizi”, İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 61(1).
  • Deloitte, & Touche, (2010), King III Maturity Dashboard Supporting your drive for good corporate governance. Deloitte.
  • Dünya Bankası, (2000), Reforming Public Institutions And Strengthening Governance,A World Bank Strategy. Washington Dc: World Bank Publication.
  • Gramling, A.A. & Hermanson, D.R.,(2006), What role is your internal audit function playing in corporate governance. Internal Auditing, 21(6):37-39.
  • Hermanson, D.R. & Rittenberg, L.E. (2003), Research opportunities in internal auditing, http://www.theiia.org/research/research-reports/research-opportunities-in-internal-audit/ (İncelenme Tarihi: 8 Mayıs 2018).
  • Humphrey, W. (1989), Managingthe Software Process. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
  • Institute of Directors (IoD). (2009), Third King report on corporate governance for South Africa. South Africa: IoD.
  • Institute of Internal Auditors, (2006), The Role of Auditing in Public Sector Governance, Florida, USA.
  • Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Research Foundation, (2009), Internal audit capability model for the public sector, Altamonte Springs, Florida.
  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), (2009), Evaluating and improving governance in organisations, http://www.ifac.org/sites/default/files/publication/files (Erişim: 24 Eylül 2018).
  • ISO (2003), ISO/IEC 15504-2. Information Technology – Process Assessment – Part 2: Performing An Assessment, ISO, Suisse.
  • ISO, (2020) ISO 37000 Guidance for the Governance of Organizations, https://committee.iso.org/sites/tc309/home/projects/ongoing/ongoing-1.html Erişim Tarihi: 04 Ocak 2021
  • Karamustafa O., İ. Varıcı, B. Er. (2009), Kurumsal Yönetim ve Firma Performansı: İMKB Kurumsal Yönetim Endeksi Kapsamındaki Firmalar Ü zerinde Bir Uygulama, Kocaeli Ü niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(1 )
  • King-IV, (2016), King IV Report On Corporate Governance South Africa. The Istitute of Directors In Southern Africa.
  • Leslie W. Rue ve Lloyd L. Byars (1983), Management Theory and Application, Irwin, Inc., İllinois, p.9.
  • Liebowitz, M. (2007), Taking ERM to the next level. Risk Management, 54(3):44.
  • Lipman, F.D. &Lipman, L.K. (2006), Corporate governance best practices: strategies for public, private and notfor-profit organizations. Hoboken, New Jersey and Canada: John Wiley.
  • Luo, Y. (2005), Corporate Governance And Accountability In Multinational Enterprises: Concepts And Agenda, Journal of International Management,Vol:11: 2.
  • Markham, J.W. (2006), A financial history of modern US corporate scandals: from Enron to reform,New Yrk ME Sharp.
  • Marks, N. (2007), Internala udits of governance. The Internal Auditor, 649(6):31-32.
  • MoF. (2000), Government Governance Corporate governance in the public sector, why and how? The 9th Fee Public Sector Conference (2/3/4 November 2000). Amsterdam: Netherlands Ministry of Finance.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD), (2004). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf (Erişim: 4 Haziran 2018).
  • OECD (2015), G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264236882-en,(Erişim:18 Haziran 2019).
  • Paulk, C.,Curtis, B., Chrissis, MB., Weber, V. (1993), Capability Maturity Model, Version1.1. Software, 10 (4): 18-27.
  • Risk andInsurance Management Society (RIMS) Incorporated, (2006), RIMS risk maturity model for enterprise risk management, http://www.rims.org/rmm (Erişim: 4 Mart 2019).
  • Rose, R. (2003), JSE responsibility index to measure non-financial risk, Busines Day (South Africa) Limited, : 17
  • Sloan, R. G., (2001). Financial Accounting And Corporate Governance: A Discussion, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 32: 2.
  • Software Engineering Institute (SEI), (2010), Capability maturity model integration: overview.
  • Solomon, J. (2007), Corporate governance and accountability. 2nd ed. West Sussex, England: John Wiley.
  • Transparency International, (2019), Corruptıon Perceptions Index 2019, ISBN: 978-3-96076-134-1 Ülken, Yüksel (1999), Fiyat Teorisi, Filiz Kitabevi, İstanbul.
  • Walker, A., McBride, T., Basson, G. ve Oakley, R. (2012). ISO/IEC 15504 Measurement Applied to COBIT Process Maturity, Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 19 No. 2, 2012 ss. 159-176
  • Wilkinson, N. (2014), A Framework For Organisational Governance Maturity: An Internal Audit Perspective. University of Pretoria.
  • WGI (2019), Dünya Bankası Yönetişim Endeksi http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Documents Erişim Tarihi: 04 Ocak 2021.
  • Yenice S., T. Dölen T. (2013). İMKB’de İşlem Gören Firmaların Kurumsal Yönetim İlkelerine Uyumunun Firma Değeri Üzerindeki Etkisi, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 9 (19)

A MODEL PROPOSAL FOR MEASURING MATURITY LEVEL OF GOVERNANCE IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Year 2022, Issue: 49, 191 - 211, 02.03.2022
https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.873576

Abstract

This study was designed to develop a model about measuring the maturity of governance which is the senior management in the organization itself is primarily responsible and processes and structures that it has taken to achieve institutional objectives.The concept of governance maturity is a subject of lesser interest in the article, as well as being a subject of much discussion and debate on the concept of governance. The increasing importance of governance and the value it has seen in recenttimes has led to a further study of its contribution to organizations; In this context, the determination of the level of governance maturity has to be emphasized. How can an organization determine its own level of governance maturity without a criterion that explain the structures, systems and processes necessary to understand the various maturity levels about governance is? For this, publishedmaturitymodels can be used, however there are not any comprehensive and holistic studies to measure governance, especially in the domestic literature. The lack of such a study in Turkish literature has created an opportunity for the development of the governance maturity model.The main objective of this study is to develop a model that can be used to measure governance in the organization. First of all, a comprehensive literature search has been made and then a model has been developed to measure the maturity level of governance in the organization by examining various maturity and governance maturity models.

References

  • APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation), (2011), “Good Practice Guide on Public Sector Governance”, Singapore.
  • Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) Corporate Governance Council, (2010), Corporate governance principles and recommendations. Second edition.
  • Bahrman, D., (2011), Evaluating and improving organizational governance, Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation, Altamonte Springs, Florida.
  • Birleşmiş Milletler (2000), United Nations Millennium Declaration General Assembly resolution 55/2 of 8 September 2000.
  • Cadbury Report, A., (1992), Report of the committee on the financial aspects of corporate governance. The Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. Geeand Company Limited. London.
  • Chapman, R.,(2009), Maturity models as a vehicle for improving risk management practices, http://blogs.exaprotect.com/2007/09/maturity-models-as-a-vehicle-for-improving-risk (Erişim: 29 May 2019)
  • Coetzee, G.P., (2010), A risk-based audit model for internal audit engagements. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State.
  • Curtıs Paulk, Weber Chrıssıs, (1993), Capability Maturity Model, Version1.1. Software, 10 (4) : 18-27.
  • Çonkar M. K., C. Elitaş ve G. Atar G. (2011), “İMKB Kurumsal Yönetim Endeksi’ndeki Firmaların Finansal Performanslarının TOPSIS Yöntemi İle Ölçümü ve Kurumsal Yönetim Notu İle Analizi”, İktisat Fakültesi Mecmuası, 61(1).
  • Deloitte, & Touche, (2010), King III Maturity Dashboard Supporting your drive for good corporate governance. Deloitte.
  • Dünya Bankası, (2000), Reforming Public Institutions And Strengthening Governance,A World Bank Strategy. Washington Dc: World Bank Publication.
  • Gramling, A.A. & Hermanson, D.R.,(2006), What role is your internal audit function playing in corporate governance. Internal Auditing, 21(6):37-39.
  • Hermanson, D.R. & Rittenberg, L.E. (2003), Research opportunities in internal auditing, http://www.theiia.org/research/research-reports/research-opportunities-in-internal-audit/ (İncelenme Tarihi: 8 Mayıs 2018).
  • Humphrey, W. (1989), Managingthe Software Process. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
  • Institute of Directors (IoD). (2009), Third King report on corporate governance for South Africa. South Africa: IoD.
  • Institute of Internal Auditors, (2006), The Role of Auditing in Public Sector Governance, Florida, USA.
  • Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Research Foundation, (2009), Internal audit capability model for the public sector, Altamonte Springs, Florida.
  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), (2009), Evaluating and improving governance in organisations, http://www.ifac.org/sites/default/files/publication/files (Erişim: 24 Eylül 2018).
  • ISO (2003), ISO/IEC 15504-2. Information Technology – Process Assessment – Part 2: Performing An Assessment, ISO, Suisse.
  • ISO, (2020) ISO 37000 Guidance for the Governance of Organizations, https://committee.iso.org/sites/tc309/home/projects/ongoing/ongoing-1.html Erişim Tarihi: 04 Ocak 2021
  • Karamustafa O., İ. Varıcı, B. Er. (2009), Kurumsal Yönetim ve Firma Performansı: İMKB Kurumsal Yönetim Endeksi Kapsamındaki Firmalar Ü zerinde Bir Uygulama, Kocaeli Ü niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(1 )
  • King-IV, (2016), King IV Report On Corporate Governance South Africa. The Istitute of Directors In Southern Africa.
  • Leslie W. Rue ve Lloyd L. Byars (1983), Management Theory and Application, Irwin, Inc., İllinois, p.9.
  • Liebowitz, M. (2007), Taking ERM to the next level. Risk Management, 54(3):44.
  • Lipman, F.D. &Lipman, L.K. (2006), Corporate governance best practices: strategies for public, private and notfor-profit organizations. Hoboken, New Jersey and Canada: John Wiley.
  • Luo, Y. (2005), Corporate Governance And Accountability In Multinational Enterprises: Concepts And Agenda, Journal of International Management,Vol:11: 2.
  • Markham, J.W. (2006), A financial history of modern US corporate scandals: from Enron to reform,New Yrk ME Sharp.
  • Marks, N. (2007), Internala udits of governance. The Internal Auditor, 649(6):31-32.
  • MoF. (2000), Government Governance Corporate governance in the public sector, why and how? The 9th Fee Public Sector Conference (2/3/4 November 2000). Amsterdam: Netherlands Ministry of Finance.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD), (2004). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf (Erişim: 4 Haziran 2018).
  • OECD (2015), G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264236882-en,(Erişim:18 Haziran 2019).
  • Paulk, C.,Curtis, B., Chrissis, MB., Weber, V. (1993), Capability Maturity Model, Version1.1. Software, 10 (4): 18-27.
  • Risk andInsurance Management Society (RIMS) Incorporated, (2006), RIMS risk maturity model for enterprise risk management, http://www.rims.org/rmm (Erişim: 4 Mart 2019).
  • Rose, R. (2003), JSE responsibility index to measure non-financial risk, Busines Day (South Africa) Limited, : 17
  • Sloan, R. G., (2001). Financial Accounting And Corporate Governance: A Discussion, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 32: 2.
  • Software Engineering Institute (SEI), (2010), Capability maturity model integration: overview.
  • Solomon, J. (2007), Corporate governance and accountability. 2nd ed. West Sussex, England: John Wiley.
  • Transparency International, (2019), Corruptıon Perceptions Index 2019, ISBN: 978-3-96076-134-1 Ülken, Yüksel (1999), Fiyat Teorisi, Filiz Kitabevi, İstanbul.
  • Walker, A., McBride, T., Basson, G. ve Oakley, R. (2012). ISO/IEC 15504 Measurement Applied to COBIT Process Maturity, Benchmarking: An International Journal Vol. 19 No. 2, 2012 ss. 159-176
  • Wilkinson, N. (2014), A Framework For Organisational Governance Maturity: An Internal Audit Perspective. University of Pretoria.
  • WGI (2019), Dünya Bankası Yönetişim Endeksi http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Documents Erişim Tarihi: 04 Ocak 2021.
  • Yenice S., T. Dölen T. (2013). İMKB’de İşlem Gören Firmaların Kurumsal Yönetim İlkelerine Uyumunun Firma Değeri Üzerindeki Etkisi, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 9 (19)
There are 42 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Finance
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Goksel Korkmaz 0000-0002-2789-2657

Murat Görmen 0000-0002-8120-1562

Early Pub Date March 15, 2022
Publication Date March 2, 2022
Acceptance Date September 30, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2022 Issue: 49

Cite

APA Korkmaz, G., & Görmen, M. (2022). KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi(49), 191-211. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.873576
AMA Korkmaz G, Görmen M. KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ. PAUSBED. March 2022;(49):191-211. doi:10.30794/pausbed.873576
Chicago Korkmaz, Goksel, and Murat Görmen. “KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, no. 49 (March 2022): 191-211. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.873576.
EndNote Korkmaz G, Görmen M (March 1, 2022) KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 49 191–211.
IEEE G. Korkmaz and M. Görmen, “KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ”, PAUSBED, no. 49, pp. 191–211, March 2022, doi: 10.30794/pausbed.873576.
ISNAD Korkmaz, Goksel - Görmen, Murat. “KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 49 (March 2022), 191-211. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.873576.
JAMA Korkmaz G, Görmen M. KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ. PAUSBED. 2022;:191–211.
MLA Korkmaz, Goksel and Murat Görmen. “KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, no. 49, 2022, pp. 191-1, doi:10.30794/pausbed.873576.
Vancouver Korkmaz G, Görmen M. KAMUDA YÖNETİŞİM OLGUNLUK SEVİYESİNİN ÖLÇÜLMESİNE YÖNELİK BİR MODEL ÖNERİSİ. PAUSBED. 2022(49):191-21.