INNOVATION IN THE GOVERNANCE PARADIGM FROM IT-GOVERNANCE TO GOOD ENOUGH GOVERNANCE

Abstract

Business and IT need to be better integrated as they are becoming interdependent to the extent that the development of innovative paradigms. The governance, e-government, e-governance, e-participation, e-citizenship and e-democracy paradigms become more intertwined from micro to macro levels of policies and implementations. Poor integration of different IT systems incongruence with business needs is accepted as one of the major explanations for inertia and traditional approaches reflected in the mindset of management and governance that cause failures of accomplishment of the business and IT goals and objectives of institutions. Therefore, this paper tries to analyze the need and effects of change at IT governance infrastructures of Turkey on the example of Development Agencies (DA).  With the assumption of unsustainability of development without sustainable and innovative structures, it is asserted that governance approach of COBIT-5 has put forward an innovation that requires change of management mindset. This paper also introduces needs for innovation in management and governance mindset of Das. It compares the holistic and integrated application of COBIT-5 framework to improve and promote the level of better management and good governance from both a theoretical and practical point of view using “APO04 Manage Innovation” which is a management process of COBIT-5 as an example for modelling.

Keywords

• IT-governance,COBIT-5,Innovation,Paradigm shift

References

1. Aksoy, T. (2010). The Role Of Modern Internal Auditing And Corporate Governance In Turkey. MODAV, 15-46.
2. Bharadwaj, S. S., Chauhan, S., & Raman, A. (2015). Impact of KnowledgeManagement Capabilities on Knowledge Management Effectiveness in Indian Organizations. The Journal for Decision Makers , 421–434 .
3. Chang, H.-J. (2002). Breaking the mould: an institutionalist political economy alternative to the neo-liberal theory of the market and the state. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 539–559.
4. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 128–152.
5. Dawson, J. (1998). Institutions, investment, and growth: New cross-country and panel data evidence. Economic Inquiry Vol. XXXVI, October , 603-619.
6. Douglas, N. (1991). Institutions,. the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 1, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0895-3309%28199124%295%3A1%3C97%3AI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W, pp. 97-112.
7. Efe, A. (2016). Unearthing and Enhancing Intelligence and Wisdom Within the COBIT 5 Governance of Information Model. Cobit Focus, 1-15.
8. Gani, A. (2011). Governance and Growth in Developing Countries . Journal of Economic Issues , 19-39.

9. Gwartney, J., Holcombew, R., & R., L. (2006). Institutions and the Impact of Investment on Growth, . Blackwell Publishing Ltd., KYKLOS, Vol. 59 – – No. 2, 255–273.
10. Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. W. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 177–202.
11. Ionescu, L. (2015). The Role Of E-Government In Curbing The Corruption In Public Administration . Economics, Management, and Financial Markets , 48–53.
12. Ionescu, L. (2016). E-Government And Social Media As Effective Tools In Controlling Corruption In Public Administration. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 66–72.
13. ISACA. (2012). A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT. USA: ISACA.
14. ISACA. (2012). COBIT 5: A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT. Rolling Meadows, IL: ISACA.
15. ISACA. (2012). Enabling Processes. USA: ISACA.
16. ISACA. (2012a). COBIT 5 Implementation. . Rolling Meadows, IL: ISACA.
17. Işıklı, Ş. (2015). Digital Citizenship: An Actual Contribution to Theory of Participatory Democracy. AJIT-¬‐e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 19-37.
18. Karkin, N. (2013). Web 2.0 Tools for Public Participation through Government Websites. Gestión y Política Pública, 309-332.
19. Karkın, N. (2014). Barriers for Sustainable e-Participation Process: The Case of Turkey. In L. G. Anthopoulos, & C. G. Reddick, Government e-Strategic Planning and Management (pp. 227-243). New York: Springer .
20. Kim, S., & Law, M. T. (2012). History, Institutions, And Cities: A View From The Americas. Journal Of Regional Science, 10–39.
21. Kuhn, T. (1962). the structure of scientific revoluiton. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago.
22. Lăzăroiu, G. (2014). The Social Construction of Participatory Media Tech- nologies. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice , 104–110.
23. Leite, D. N., Silva, S. T., & Afonso, O. (2014). Institutions, Economics And The Development Quest. Journal of Economic Surveys, 491–515.
24. Liu, S. M., & Yuan, Q. (2015). The Evolution Of Information And Communication Technology In Public Administration. Public Administration And Development, 140–151 .
25. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Shabani, L. (2016). E–Government As Socio-Economic Trend - Kosovo Case Study. Acta Technica Corviniensis Bulletin of Engineering, 1-5.
27. TBMM. (2006b). Kalkınma Ajanslarının Kuruluşu, Koordinasyonu ve Görevleri Hakkında 5449 sayılı Kanun. Retrieved from www.mevzuat.gov.tr: http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin1.Aspx?MevzuatKod=1.5.5449&MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=&Tur=1&Tertip=5&No=5449