Abstract
In this study we evaluate ISO/IEC 38500:2008, the Corporate Governance of Information Technology standard, as a design artefact in the context of development and deployment of a large IT system in a public/private-sector context. The findings show that ISO/IEC 38500:2008 has merit as an analytical framework, providing a good basis upon which to objectively evaluate the corporate governance of IT. Further, the study identified specific areas where the standard could be enhanced to take better account of the IT governance requirements of inter-organisational IT systems in public/private-sector contexts. For example, the standard does not adequately address possible agency effects in inter-organisational contexts, the kinds of relational mechanisms that might be needed, or ways to govern the negotiation of diverse and sometimes conflicting stakeholder world views. We conclude by proposing an IT governance model illustrating the need for balance between principle-based and procedure-based approaches for different levels of IT governance.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Proceedings of the Australiasian Conference on Information Systems : ACIS 2011 |
| Editors | P Seltsikas, D Bunker |
| Place of Publication | Sydney, Australia |
| Publisher | University of Sydney |
| Pages | 1-11 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| ISBN (Print) | 9781742102399 |
| Publication status | Published - 2011 |
| Event | Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) 2011: Identifying the Information Systems Discipline - The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia Duration: 30 Nov 2011 → 2 Dec 2011 http://www.acis2011.org/ (Conference information) https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2011/ (Conference Papers) |
Conference
| Conference | Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) 2011 |
|---|---|
| Abbreviated title | ACIS 2011 |
| Country/Territory | Australia |
| City | Sydney |
| Period | 30/11/11 → 2/12/11 |
| Other | Our disciplinary area within business and ICT is still relatively immature when compared to others. Over the years we have had many scholarly debates about what constitutes the IS discipline and what is acceptable methodologically to advance core knowledge and theory in the area. With the drive to bring focus, relevance and rigor we have also, however, accommodated a broad range of ideas and interests. In spite of all of the excellent scholarly work conducted globally and locally within Australasia in IS, practitioners and students still often argue exhaustively about the articulation and recognition of what the IS discipline is about. Our colleagues in other disciplines often fail to see where our scholarly contributions lie and our universities continually restructure our position within them. Could it be that the accommodating nature of the discipline and our inter-disciplinary appeal may also be contributing to our difficulty in identifying, defining, and positioning what it is that we do? |
| Internet address |
|