Revista
de
Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração52(2017)256–267
Information
technology
A
study
on
the
impact
of
non-operational
mechanisms
on
the
effectiveness
of
public
information
technology
governance
Um
estudo
sobre
o
impacto
dos
mecanismos
não
operacionais
na
efetividade
da
governan¸ca
de
tecnologia
da
informa¸cão
pública
Un
estudio
acerca
de
la
influencia
de
los
mecanismos
no
operacionales
en
la
efectividad
de
la
gobernanza
de
tecnología
de
la
información
pública
Leonel
Cerqueira
Santos
∗,
Carlos
Denner
dos
Santos
Jr.
UniversidadedeBrasília,Brasília,DF,Brazil
Received15February2016;accepted1December2016 Availableonline15May2017
ScientificEditor:MariaSylviaMacchioneSaes
Abstract
Thisstudyproposesananalysisofnon-operationalmechanismsthatcanimpacttheeffectivenessofinformationtechnologygovernanceinthe Brazilian publicadministration.Aquestionnaire wassentto informationtechnologymanagersand experiencedprofessionals inthe area of informationtechnologygovernance,whoworkinpublicorganizations.Basedonthecollecteddata,weusedthestructuralequationstechniqueto verifytheimpactofthefollowingmechanismsontheeffectivenessofinformationtechnologygovernance:topmanagementsupport;performance oftheinformationtechnologysteeringcommittee;useofinformationtechnologystrategicplanning;performanceoftheinformationtechnology investmentportfoliomanagement.Thestudyindicatesthatthefirstthreemechanismsdonotinfluencetheperceivedeffectivenessofinformation technologygovernanceintheBrazilianpublicsector.However,theperformanceoftheinformationtechnologyinvestmentportfoliomanagement hasadirectandpositiveconsequenceoneffectiveness;also,asamediatingvariable,itsignificantlyaffectstheperformanceoftheinformation technologysteeringcommittee,increasingtheeffectivenessofBrazilianpublicinformationtechnologygovernance.Throughtheachievedresults andtheanalysisoftheseeffects,thisstudyaimstocontributetheoreticallytotheliteratureoninformationtechnologygovernance,astherearefew studiesthatexaminewhichmechanismsassisttoestablishthiseffectivenessinpublicorganizations,andevenlesswhenitcomestotheBrazilian publicsector.
©2017DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: Effectiveness;ITGovernance;MechanismsofITGovernance;Stakeholders;BrazilianPublicAdministration
Resumo
Nesteestudo,osautorespropõemumaanálise dosmecanismosnão operacionaisquepodemimpactarnaefetividade dagovernanc¸ada tec-nologia da informac¸ão na administrac¸ão pública. Nestapesquisa utilizou-se um questionário, o qual foi aplicado em gestores da área de tecnologia da informac¸ão e profissionais experientes naárea de governanc¸ade tecnologia da informac¸ão que trabalham em organizac¸ões daadministrac¸ão pública.Apartir dosdados coletados,aplicou-se atécnica deequac¸õesestruturais paraverificaroimpacto dosseguintes mecanismosnaefetividadedagovernanc¸adetecnologiadainformac¸ão:suportedaaltaadministrac¸ão;atuac¸ãodo comitêdedirec¸ãode tec-nologiadainformac¸ão;utilizac¸ãodo planejamentoestratégicodetecnologiadainformac¸ão;atuac¸ãodagestão deportfóliodeinvestimentos detecnologiadainformac¸ão.Osresultadosindicam queos trêsprimeirosmecanismos não têminfluênciasobre aefetividade percebidada
∗Correspondingauthorat:CampusUniversitárioDarcyRibeiro,PrédiodaFACE,CEP70910-900Brasília,DF,Brazil.
E-mail:dfleonelbr@gmail.com(L.C.Santos).
PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸ão,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸ãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo –FEA/USP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2017.05.005
governanc¸adetecnologiadainformac¸ãodosetorpúblico.Porém,aatuac¸ãodagestãodeportfóliodeinvestimentosdetecnologiadainformac¸ão influenciadiretaepositivamenteaefetividade,sendoquetambématravésdasuapresenc¸acomovariávelmediadora,équeaatuac¸ãodocomitêde tecnologiadainformac¸ãopassaaterefeitosignificativosobreaefetividadedagovernanc¸adetecnologiadainformac¸ãopública.Comosresultados obtidoseaanálisedestesefeitos,estetrabalhoalmejacontribuirteoricamenteparaaliteraturadegovernanc¸adetecnologiadainformac¸ãodentrodo contextoemqueexistempoucaspesquisasqueexaminamquaismecanismoscontribuemparaestabeleceressaefetividadedentrodasorganizac¸ões públicas,sendoestenúmeroaindamaisincipientequandooambienteserestringeaosetorpúblicobrasileiro.
©2017DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palavras-chave:Efetividade;Governanc¸adeTI;MecanismosdeGovernanc¸adeTI;Stakeholders;Administrac¸ãoPúblicaFederal
Resumen
Enesteestudiolosautoresproponenunanálisisdelosmecanismosnooperacionalesquepuedeninfluirenlaefectividaddelagobernanzade tecnologíadelainformaciónenlaadministraciónpública.Sehaaplicadouncuestionarioagestoresdeláreadetecnologíadelainformaciónya profesionalesexperimentadoseneláreadegobiernodetecnologíadelainformaciónquetrabajanenorganizacionesdelaadministraciónpública. Sehaaplicadoalosdatosrecogidoslatécnicadeecuacionesestructuralesconelfindeverificarlainfluenciadelossiguientesmecanismosenla efectividaddelagobernanzadetecnologíadelainformación:apoyodelaaltadirección;actuacióndelacomisióndedireccióndetecnologíade lainformación;utilizacióndelplanestratégicodetecnologíadelainformación;actuacióndelagestióndecarteradeinversionesdetecnología delainformación.Losresultadosindicanquelostresprimerosmecanismosnotieneninfluenciaenlaefectividadpercibidadelagobernanzade tecnologíadelainformacióndelsectorpúblico.Sinembargo,laactuacióndelagestióndecarteradeinversionesdetecnologíadelainformación influyedirectaypositivamenteenlaefectividad;además,espormediodesupresenciacomovariablemediadoraquelaactuacióndelacomisiónde tecnologíadelainformaciónlogratenerunefectosignificativosobrelaefectividaddelagobernanzadetecnologíadelainformaciónpública.Con estetrabajo,mediantelosresultadosobtenidosyelanálisisdeestosefectos,sepretendecontribuirteóricamentealaliteraturadegobernanzade tecnologíadelainformación,enuncontextoenqueseobservanpocosestudiosdedicadosaexaminarcuálesmecanismoscontribuyenaestablecer estaefectividaddentrodelasorganizacionespúblicas,ysiendoestenúmeroaúnmásreducidocuandoelambienteselimitaalsectorpúblicoen Brasil.
©2017DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palabrasclave: Efectividad;GobernanzadeTI;MecanismosdegobernanzadeTI;Stakeholders;Administraciónpúblicafederal
Introduction
Brazilianpublicadministrationisinspiredbythetheoretical modelsoftheNewPublicManagementandNewPublic Gover-nance,whichrequirestateefficiencytogetherwiththeprovision ofpublic servicesof higherquality, andbased onsocial con-trolandwarranty of individual rights (Bresser-Pereira,2007;
Imasato,Martins,&Pieranti,2011).
Inthisscenario,publicorganizationsaresubjecttothe influ-enceofstakeholdersinestablishingtheirinstitutionalactivities, since the interested parts affectand are also affected by the achievementoftheorganizations’objectives(Freeman&Reed, 1983).
All these influential conditions lead the public sector to improve its corporate governance, as it helps organizations makebetterdecisions,thusenhancinggovernment’soperation (Carvalho & Laurindo, 2007; Chan, Sabherwal, & Thatcher, 2006; Cumps et al., 2009; Davenport, 1993; Earl, 1993; Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993; Hirscheim & Sabherwal, 2001;Jorfi,Nor,Najjar,&Jorfi,2011;Niederman,Brancheau,& Wetherbe,1991;Nolan&McFarlan,2005).Thisideabecomes strongerwhenthesubjectisinformationtechnology(IT),since ithasturnedintoanintegralpartoftheorganizationalstrategy. Hence,inthetechnologicalfield,ITgovernanceisestablished aspartofcorporategovernance,whichisunderstoodasasetof mechanismsofstructures,proceduresandrelationshipsdefined
bytopmanagement,inordertodirectITactionsandtoexercise control overtheir useandmanagement(Information Systems AuditandControlAssociation[ISACA],2011;Peterson,2003; Weill&Ross,2006).
Several researchers have studied the implementation of mechanisms of ITgovernance and their impactonthe effec-tivenessofcorporategovernance,butmostofthemfocusonthe privatesector(Al-Farsi&Haddadeh,2015;Ali&Green,2007, 2012;Bermejo,Tonelli,&Zambalde,2014;Bowen,Cheung,& Rohde,2007;Bradleyetal.,2012;DeHaes&VanGrembergen, 2008; Heindrickson&Santos,2014;Huang,Zmud, &Price, 2010;Liang,Chiu,Wu,&Straub,2011;Lunardi,Dolci,Mac¸ada, &Becker,2014;Nfuka &Rusu,2010;Rau,2004;Schlosser, Beimborn,Weitzel,&Wagner,2015;Vaswani,2003;Weill& Woodham,2002).
In viewof this context,thisresearchaimedto answer the followingquestion:whichnon-operationalmechanismsaffect thelevelofperceivedeffectivenessofITgovernanceinpublic administration?
results(Campbell,McDonald,&Sethibe,2009;Rodrigues & Souza, 2014; Tonelli,Bermejo, Santos,Zuppo, &Zambalde, 2015).
The next sections present the theoretical framework, the methodologyusedfordatacollection,thepresentationand anal-ysisofthedata,andintheend,thefinalconsiderations,withthe researchlimitationsandsuggestionforfuturestudies.
Theoreticalmodelsofpublicadministration:newpublic managementandnewpublicgovernance
AccordingtoDenhardt(2008),theNewPublicManagement (NPM) hadits startingpoint inan academic seminar heldin 1968at the MinnowbrookConvention Center, Syracuse Uni-versity,NewYork.Itsbasesarerelatedtothefollowingfactors: focusonthecitizen;orientationtowardresults,throughstrategic planningandperformanceindicators;emphasisontransparency andsocialcontrol;managementflexibilization,andappreciation anddevelopmentofcivilservants(Hood,1995).
ForNPM,the relationshipbetweencommitmenttoresults forthecitizenandresponsibilityofpoliticiansandcivilservants raisedtheideaofeffectivenessinthecontextofthepublic sec-tor.Thiseffectivenessmovestowardmoreflexibleorganizations (reductionofbureaucracy),innovativeandefficient,whosemain focus forthe delivery of publicservices isthe citizen(called “customer”),whoreceivesamorepersonalizedtreatment.
In Brazil, NPM began tobe implementedin1990, during PresidentFernandoCollordeMello’sgovernment(1990–1992), andbecamecentralduringFernandoHenriqueCardoso’sfirst term(1995–2002),throughthecreationoftheMasterPlanfor ReformoftheStateApparatus,whichdefinedtheguidelinesand establishedthegoalsforthepublicadministrationreform, jus-tifiedbythecrisisabouttheStaterole(Brasil,1995;Ferrarezzi &Amorim,2007).
However,there are gaps when NPM makesuse of private sectorbusinessprinciplestoimprovegovernmentperformance. Thisinconsistencyoccursduetothelackofdenominatorssuch as“profit”or“returnoninvestment”inthepublicsector,which arecommon intheprivateenvironment.Therefore,it is diffi-cult to make a common comparison across the full range of public programs, as these are based on the citizens’ trust in thelegitimacyof theirpoliticalinstitutions, ratherthaninthe market-centeredefficiency(Larsen,2008).
These gaps in NPM have generated a countermovement calledNewPublicGovernance(NPG)thatplacespolitical val-ues at the center of the debate, as opposed to the strictly instrumentalfocusofNPM.NPMputsmuchmoreemphasison citizen’sparticipationthanontheefficiencyofpublicpolicies’ implementation(Alford,2002;Stoker,2006).
Informationtechnologygovernanceanditseffectiveness
The implementationof the NewPublic Management rein-forcedtheinclusionofmeasuresthatcombinedtheachievement of the requested organizational performance andthe demand foraccountability(Barrett,2003).Thisneedbecomesstronger withtheNewPublicGovernance,sinceitconsiderscitizensas
co-producers,whoactivelyoperateintheprovisionofservices anddecisionmaking,bydemanding excellentservice render-ing (Bovaird, 2007; Fotaki,2011; Powell, Greener, Szmigin, Doheny,&Mills,2010;Simmons,Birchall,Doheny,&Powell, 2007).
These ideasareconsistent withthe concept ofpublic cor-porate governance, since this has, in its essence, the goal of balancing the competitiveness andproductivity of institu-tionswitharesponsibleandtransparentmanagement,whichis reflectedinthepublictechnologyareaespeciallythroughitsnew roleintheinstitutionalsetting.Currently,information technol-ogyisconsideredacriticalandstrategicassetfororganizations, whether public or private, and corporations are increasingly dependent on IT (Campbell et al., 2009; Gelinas, Sutton, & Fedorowicz,2004;Schlosseretal.,2015).
Therefore,thisnewconcept madeITinpublic administra-tion involvefactors that go far beyond technology – people, structures, processes and, above all, knowledge – andall of themmustbearticulatedsothatcomputingresources,infact, respond appropriatelytothe aspirationsofpublic administra-tionandsociety(Dunleavy,Margetts,Bastow,&Tinkle,2006,
Holden,2007;Juiz,Guerrero,&Lera,2014).
Thus,ITplaystheroleof afundamentalandtransforming elementofthepublicorganization,beingnolongerjustanobject ofmanagement,butofgovernance.Hence,publicITentersthe fieldofITgovernance,whichemerges–asafieldofstudyand practical discipline – as a subset of corporate governance. It specifies decisionrightsandthe frameworkof responsibilities inordertostimulatedesirablebehaviorsintheuseofIT,being the responsibilityof the organization’sboardof directorsand executivemanagement(Weill&Ross,2006).
In thespecificcaseof thepublic environment,governance must follow the environment’s objective, which is based on responsibilitiestotheHouseofRepresentativesandtotaxpayers, acquisitionanddistributionofpowerinsociety,andcitizensand stakeholders’demandsforadvertisingtheactsandtransparency ofpublicservice;inotherwords,thereareactivitiesthatdonot exist in the privatesector or that exceed its level of require-ment(Barrett,2003;Mello,2006).Itmustbeemphasizedthat suchstakeholdersareimportantbecausetheyhaveresourceson whichorganizationsdepend,whichgivethempoweroverthese institutions(Pfeffer&Salancik,1978).
Thediscussionontheeffectivenessoftechnological gover-nance arises from the need to evaluate the quality of results providedbyITgovernanceintheorganizations.
RegardingITgovernance,effectivenessischaracterizedby theachievementofgoalsrelatedtocost,growth,assetutilization andbusinessflexibility,aswellasmeetinglegalandregulatory requirements(Bowenetal.,2007).AccordingtoWeillandRoss (2006),theaccomplishmentoftheseobjectivesisexpressedby effectiveITgovernancethatmeetsthefollowingcriticalfactors: transparency,activeparticipation,frequentredesign, establish-mentofgovernanceatmultipleorganizationallevels,simplicity, existenceofaprocessfortreatingexceptionsandalignmentof incentiveandrewardsystems.
regardingtheorganization’scriticalfactorsofsuccess(ISACA, 2011).TheeffectivenessofITgovernance,bothinpublicand privateenvironments,willbe achieveddepending onhowthe qualityoftheresultsderivedfromdecision-makingstructures, processesandrelationalmechanismsforthedirectionand con-trolof IT operations affects the accomplishment of IT goals (Sambamurthy&Zmud,1999;Torres,2004),andconsequently willbereflectedintheorganizationalobjectives.
Thiseffectivenesswillbereachedthroughtheperformance of asetof arrangementsandpractices associated with struc-ture, processes and relationships (Grembergen, De Haes, & Guldentops,2004),whichact inordertomeet theobjectives oftheorganizationregardinginformationtechnology,andhave thefollowingmeanings:
1) Structuralmechanisms–involvetheorganizationand place-ment of the IT area in the hierarchical structure of the institution,aswellasthecleardefinitionofrolesand respon-sibilitiesofthepositionsthatcomposethisstructure(DeHaes &VanGrembergen,2008);
2) Processual mechanisms – deal with strategic decision-making,ITstrategicplanningandframeworksfor monitor-ing, control andprocesses (De Haes &Van Grembergen, 2008);
3) Relationalmechanisms–complementITgovernance, incor-poratingITrelationswithotherareasoftheorganizationand theirusers.Thesemechanismsguaranteethefunctioningof thestructurecreatedforITandoftheestablishedprocesses (DeHaes&VanGrembergen,2008).
Indiscussingwhichandhowmanymechanismsarerelevant forITgovernanceeffectiveness,thisresearchconfirmsprevious studiesinthisarea,whichstatethatamongseveralmechanisms ofITgovernancelistedanddocumented,onlyalimitednumber aretrulysignificantandcanimpacttheeffectivenessofpublic technologygovernance.
De Haes and Van Grembergen (2008) and Lunardi et al. (2014)examinedsomeofthesesurveysandconcludedthatthere arefivepracticeswhicharemoreeffectivecomparedtoothers, forexample,ITsteeringcommitteesandportfoliomanagement, consideringthattheresearchwasdoneinprivateinstitutions.On theotherhand,throughsinglecasestudiesconductedinlarge organizations,Bowen,CheungandRohde(2007)andAliand Green(2012)exploredthefactorsthatinfluencethemechanisms of ITgovernance, showing that itsperformanceis associated withmechanismssuchassharedunderstandingoftheobjectives betweenbusinessandIT,theactiveinvolvementofIT commit-teesinmanagementanddecisions,strategiesandpoliciesshared andcommunicatedbetweenbusinessandIT.
Inarecentstudy,HeindricksonandSantos(2014)foundthat mediationoftheprocessofITinvestmentportfolioisnecessary, sothattheperceivedeffectsofperformanceimprovementonthe ITcommitteeandontheITsolutionmanagerupongovernance effectivenessmaybestatisticallysignificant.
Therefore,basedonthesestudies,themechanismsdescribed below,whichhaveanon-operationalnature,wereexaminedin thisresearch:
1) Relationalmechanism–Topmanagementsupport–the com-mitmentoftopmanagementregardinginitiativesrelatedtoIT governanceenhancesITsuccessandhelpstointegrateitwith strategies, business processes, stakeholders’ expectations, andinstitutionalmechanismsthatensurethepermanenceof ITinvestmentsovertime(Armstrong&Sambamurthy,1999; Trites,2004;Weill&Ross,2004);
2) Structural mechanism – Performance of the IT commit-tee–literaturearguesthattheperformanceofthestructural mechanism“ITcommittee”inplanningandaligning respon-sibilitiestothe business isfundamentalfor thesupportof governance structures, planning and management of pro-cesses andinformationsystems; hence,it is an important governance mechanismused bycompaniesthat show bet-ter performance (Doll & Torkzadeh, 1987; Earl, 1989; Gupta&Raghunathan,1989;ISACA,2011;Ragunathan& Ragunathan,1989;Weill&Ross,2006).Thecommitteeis composed of ateamof executives fromdifferent areasof theorganizationwiththemainfunctionofconnecting busi-nessandITstrategies,aswellasmakingdecisionsregarding projects’ selection and prioritization (Castro & Carvalho, 2010; McKeen &Guimarães, 1985; Moraes &Laurindo, 2003;Nolan,1982).
Hence, by determining methods, formsof management andinvestmentprioritiesinITbusinesses,thismechanism has the missionof managing resources coming from the stakeholdersthat takepart inthe control andprovisionof institutionalresources(DeHaes&VanGrembergen,2009; Hardy,2003);
3) Processualmechanism–PerformanceoftheITinvestments portfolio management – the objective of the processual mechanism of IT investmentsportfolio management is to improvetheuseofinstitutionalresourcesinordertoselect a set of projects and programs that can bring the high-est possible return to the organization (De Haes & Van Grembergen, 2008). This mechanism includes prioritiza-tion processes,investmentsandprojects inwhichbusiness and IT are involved, and its development and existence are linked to the mechanism of IT committee (De Haes &VanGrembergen,2009;Heindrickson&Santos,2014). Portfolio management andthe IT steering committee are interconnected,because the committeeoperatesespecially inthephasesofprioritization,authorizationandreviewof investmentstobemade(Archer&Ghasemzadeh,1999;De Haes &Van Grembergen, 2008; Heindrickson& Santos, 2014).
Therefore, in the joint performance of committee and portfolio management,stakeholdersexpresstheir direction and actions inside the organizations are legitimated.That happens because these mechanisms provide the form of allocation/control of ITresources anddealwiththe trade-offbetweenprofitability/costefficiencyandthesustainable, reliable and stable growth of IT (Frooman, 1999; Korac-Kakabadse&Kakabadse,2001);
Top management support
H1
H2
H4 H5
H6 H3 = H2 + H4∗ H5
Performance of the IT committee
Performance of the IT investments
portfolio management
Effectiveness of IT governance in
public administration
Use of IT strategic planning
Fig.1.Conceptualmodelandhypotheses.
Source:BasedonDeHaesandVanGrembergen(2009)andHeindricksonandSantos(2014).
necessary for IT to successfully meet the organizational strategies(Lederer&Sethi,1988).
Basedonthesemechanisms,thefollowinghypotheseswere raised:
H1. Topmanagementsupporthasadirectandpositive influ-enceontheeffectivenessofITgovernance.
H2. The performanceof the IT committee hasadirect and positiveinfluenceontheeffectivenessofITgovernance.
H3. Thetotaleffect(directandindirecteffects)ofthe perfor-manceoftheITcommitteehasadirectandpositiveinfluence ontheeffectivenessofITgovernance.
H4. TheperformanceoftheITcommitteehasadirectand posi-tiveinfluenceontheperformanceoftheITinvestmentsportfolio management.
H5. TheperformanceoftheITinvestmentsportfolio manage-menthasadirectandpositiveinfluenceontheeffectivenessof ITgovernance.
H6. TheuseofITstrategicplanninghasadirectandpositive influenceontheeffectivenessofITgovernance.
Conceptualmodel
Based on the studies previously mentioned we present in
Fig.1themodelthatsummarizestheaddressedtopic,withits variables, relations andhypotheses that weretested.It points outthatthemechanismsPerformanceoftheITCommitteeand PerformanceoftheITInvestmentsPortfolioManagementwere extractedfromthemodeladoptedbyHeindricksonandSantos (2014),andthemechanismstopmanagementsupportanduse ofITstrategicplanningweretakenfromanexploratorystudy conductedbyDeHaesandVanGrembergen(2009).
Method
Thisresearchusedquantitativedatacollectionand quantita-tiveanalysistechniques;themethodologicalprocesswasdivided intwophases.
First, aquantitativefieldresearch(survey) wascarried out throughtheapplicationofaquestionnaire(AppendixA)tothe universeofBrazilianfederalpublicadministration.Thismade thestudyevenmorecomplexduetothedifficultyofaccessing ITgovernanceexecutives,whichwedefinedasthesubjectsof thesurvey.
In the second phase, the statistical technique of structural equationswasappliedtothecollecteddata,toanalyzethe par-ticipants’responses.
Thechoiceoftheresearchuniversecameprimarilyfromthe ideathat,usingtheNewPublicManagementandNewPublic Governanceasabasis,thegovernmentshouldundergoareform that has the announced mission of enhancing the efficiency of public services, improving the management of available resourcesandincreasingitstransparency,whichinfluencedthe MasterPlanforReformoftheStateApparatus(Diniz,Barbosa, Junqueira,&Prado,2009).
ThisinfluencebasedonefficiencyledthePlantodetermine, in four distinct groups (Strategic Core, Exclusive Activities, Non-ExclusiveServicesandProductionofGoodsandServices fortheMarket),theactivitiesthatshouldbecarriedoutbythe Stateand,foreachgroup,themostadequateformof manage-menttobeimplemented.
Inourstudy,wefocusedonthegroupsthatinvolveactivities carriedoutexclusivelybytheState,involvingorganizationsthat belongtotheStrategicCoreandExclusiveActivitiesgroups.
thePresidentoftheRepublicandtheministriesresponsiblefor theplanningandformulationofpublicpolicies(Brasil,1995).
ExclusiveActivitiescomprisethesectorswhereservicesare providedonlybytheState.Theseareservicesinwhichthe extro-vertpoweroftheStateisexercised,asthepowertoregulate,to inspect,andtopromote,andareexemplifiedbythecollection andcontroloftaxes,thepolice,andbasicsocialsecurity(Brasil, 1995).
Withinthisuniversethesamplewasdelimitedtomanagers of the information technology area and to experienced pro-fessionalsin the areaof ITgovernance, in different typesof organizationsthatcomposetheBrazilianfederalpublicscene.
Theseindividualsansweredaquestionnairethatwassentwith anelectronicletterofpresentation.Thequestionnaire(Appendix A) wasdevelopedusing theGoogleDocstool, andthe ques-tions were elaborated based on the objectives, activities and results of the governance mechanisms studied,as wellas on the attributes of IT governance effectiveness, based on aca-demicstudiesandbestpracticesofITgovernance(Ali&Green, 2007;Archer&Ghasemzadeh,1999;Castro&Carvalho,2010; Heindrickson&Santos,2014; ISACA,2011; IT Governance Institute,2007;Karimi,Bhattacherjee,Gupta,&Somers,2000;
Moraes&Laurindo,2003;Vaswani,2003;Weill&Ross,2006;
Weill,Woerner,&McDonald,2009).
Thequeries asked for responseson aLikert scale (donot know/donotrespond,totallydisagree,disagree,neither agree nordisagree,agree,totallyagree),andwereanalyzedthrough thestructuralequationstechnique.
Structuralequationmodelingisasetoftechniquesand proce-duresthatareanextensionofothermultivariatetechniques,and evaluatethe dependency relations betweenoneor more vari-ables,representing thosethat cannotbe measureddirectlyby usingothervariablescalledlatentconstructs.
Theassociationsofthesevariablescanbeestimatedthrough covariance and are discriminated in the linear model, which canbe separatedintotwo: measurementmodel,whichmakes theconnectionbetweenthemeasurementinstrument(observed variables)andthetheoretical construct(latent variables);and structuralmodel,whichdefinesthecasualor association rela-tionshipsbetweenvariablesandunobservedconstructs(latent variables), specifying whether a latent variable causes direct orindirectchangesinotherlatentvariables. Fig.2 showsthe structural/measurementmodelaccordingtothegraphical repre-sentationofstructuralequationmodelling.
Followingthismodel,wedidtheprogrammingbyusingthe RStatisticsfreesoftware,withthesupportofLavaanpackage (latentvariableanalysis),tomakethemodel diagnosisandto completethehypothesistestproposedinthisresearch.
Results
Fordatacollection,wesentinvitationsbye-mail.Atotalof 137civilservantsfrom58federalpublicorganizations,whoare managersoftheITarea,participatedinthestudy.Theyare expe-riencedprofessionalsintheir workingareasor understandthe subject.Table1showsthedistributionofrespondentsaccording toimportantfeaturesofthesample.
Table1
Characteristicsofthesample.
Characteristicsofthesample(n=137)
Characteristic Quantity Percentage(%)
Typeofpublicorganization DirectPublic
Administrationof theExecutiveBranch
59 43.1
Autarchicand FoundationalPublic Administrationof theExecutiveBranch
37 27.0
JudicialPower, ProsecutingCounsel, PublicDefense
22 16.1
LegislativePowerand TheFederalCourtof Accounts
19 13.9
Workingtimeintheinstitution
1–3years 39 28.5
4–9years 58 42.3
10–15years 10 7.3
16–20years 9 6.6
20–25years 9 6.6
26–30years 6 4.4
Over30years 6 4.4
Gender
Male 116 84.7
Female 21 15.3
Agegroup
18–29yearsold 17 12.4
30–39yearsold 50 36.5
40–49yearsold 42 30.7
50–59yearsold 20 14.6
Over60yearsold 0 0.0
Educationdegree
Bachelor 24 17.5
Specialist 75 54.7
Master 33 24.1
Doctorate 5 3.6
Thesamplesizerulewasrespected,giventhatitshouldhave the minimum value of ten casesper item(manifest variable) ofthequestionnaire(Nunnally,1967;Everitt,1975);therefore, forthisresearchtheminimumnumberofparticipantsshouldbe 120.
Theresearchensuredtheconfidentialityoftherespondents, focusingontheirperceptionabouttheconnectionbetweenthe mechanismsofITgovernanceandtheeffectivenessofthe gov-ernanceintheirorganizations.
With thesedatainhand,inadditiontotheconceptualand structuralmodels,weconducted theanalysisthroughthe pro-gramming built in the R statistics free software. The initial analysiswasdividedintwostages:studyofthemodel’s identi-fiabilityandoftheindicesthatrevealitsglobalfit.
Question 08
Question 09
Question 18
Question 19 Top management
support
Performance of the IT committee
Effectiveness of IT governance in
public administration
Performance of the IT investments
portfolio management
Use of IT strategic planning Question
10
Question 14
Question 15
Question 16
Question 17
Question 11
Question 12
Question 13
Fig.2.Structural/measurementmodelandhypotheses.
Source:BasedonDeHaesandVanGrembergen(2009)andHeindricksonandSantos(2014).
Regardingtheformsofdiagnosingthemodel’sglobalfit,the followingstatisticaltestswereapplied,andresultsareshownin
Table2.
Byanalyzingthevarioustests,weobservedthatonlythe chi-squaretestofadjustmentisagainstthetheoreticalformulation,
Table2
Resultsofthediagnostictestsforthemodel’sfit.
Statisticaltest Result Significance
Chi-squaretest Minimumfunctiontest
statisticvalue
69.293 Rejectedhypothesis
Chi-squaredp-value 0.0158a Rejectedhypothesis
Comparativefitindex(CFI) 0.975 Verygoodfit Tucker–Lewisindex(TLI) 0.964 Verygoodfit
Rootmeansquareerrorofapproximation(RMSEA)
RMSEA 0.061 Acceptedhypothesis
p-value 0.259a Acceptedhypothesis
aObs:p-value≤0.05.
sincemostoftheothertestshaveconfirmedthemodel’sadequate fit.
Anotheritemthatstrengthenedthesuitablefitofthemodel andshoweditsacceptableexplanationratewasthe determina-tion coefficient(R2).Themodel’s R2 hadthe valueof 0.795, thatis,79.5%ofallvariabilityofITgovernanceeffectiveness is explained by the relationships presented in the theoretical formulation.
Top management support
H1 (Estimated value = 0.304 ; p-value = 0.166)
H2 (Estimated value = –0.0306 ; p-value = 0.980)
H3
(Estimated value = 0.101; p-value = 0.000)
Performance of the IT investments
portfolio management
Use of IT strategic planning
H4 (Estimated value = 0.256;
p-value = 0.001)
H5
(Estimated value = 0.393 ; p-value = 0.016)
H6 (Estimated value = 0.222 ; p-value = 0.150)
Performance of the IT committee
Effectiveness of IT governance
in public administration
Fig.3.Structuralmodelwithestimatedvaluesandsignificanceofhypotheses.
Table3
Resultsoftherelationshipbetweenthemodelvariables.
Variables(n=137) EITG TMS UITSP PITC PITIPM
EITG
Correlationcoefficient 1.000 0.304 0.222 −0.031 0.393 p-value – 0.166a 0.150a 0.980a 0.016
PITIPM
Correlationcoefficient – – – 0.256 1.000
p-value – – – 0.01a –
a Thep-valuehassignificancelevelof5%.
The Performance of IT Committee (PITC) on the Perfor-manceof IT Investments Portfolio Management (PITIPM)is significant,withap-valueof0.001;andalsosignificantisthe influenceofPerformanceofITInvestmentsPortfolio Manage-ment (PITIPM) on Effectiveness of IT Governance (EITG), sinceitsp-valueis0.016.
Thus,wecanconcludethattheobservedrelationshipbetween theindependentvariablePerformanceofITCommittee(PITC) and the dependent variable Effectiveness of IT Governance (EITG)ismoreeffectivewhenthislinkageoccursthroughthe mediatorvariablePerformanceofITInvestmentsPortfolio Man-agement (PITIPM) than when there is a direct influence of thecommittee (PITC)onthe EffectivenessofIT Governance (EITG).
Our understanding is strengthened when we observe the negative regression coefficient of the relationship between
PerformanceofITCommittee(PITC)andEffectivenessofIT Governance(EITG)(estimatedvalue=−0.0301),inopposition to the positive coefficient derived from the multiplication of the regression coefficients of the influence of the committee (PITC) on the investments portfolio management (PITIPM), andtheinfluenceofPITIPMonEITG(estimatedvalueoftotal effects=0.256×0.393=0.101).
Continuingtheanalysis,againitispossibletonoticethe non-significant role of IT Committee (PITC) on Effectivenessof IT Governance (EITG)when examiningthe variances of the systemcomponents,sincethismechanismhasanon-significant variance(p-value=0.084).
Therefore,basedontheobservedstatisticalevidence,Fig.3
presentsthestructuralmodelwiththeestimatesandsignificance ofeachhypothesis–wheretherejectedhypothesesarewritten inred.
Discussionandfinalconsiderations
Thisstudysoughttoidentifyandunderstandtheachievement ofgoalsdefinedbythestrategiesoftheorganizationforIT gov-ernance,throughtherelationshipsbetweenthemechanismsof ITgovernanceanditseffectiveness.
PublicManagementandNewPublicGovernancemodels,and showsacombinationof featuresderivedfrompatrimonialism andtheWeberianbureaucraticmodel.NewPublicManagement andNewPublicGovernanceidealizetopmanagementbasedon technicaland meritocraticcompetences, inducing moderniza-tionthroughtheuseofinformationtechnologies,andsupporting governmentprograms that usetechnology topromote perfor-mance,efficiency,effectiveness,transparencyandqualityinthe relationships with citizens and other stakeholders (Agune & Carlos,2005;Bresser-Pereira,2007;Grant&Chau,2005;Tan andPan,2003).AndthisdoesnotfullyhappenintheBrazilian federalpublicsector.
AboutthePerformanceoftheITCommittee,weemphasize thatit isastructuralmechanism;thereforeit isinvolvedwith theorganizational compositionforthe functioningofIT gov-ernance,whichimpliesthe needfor arrangements.Andthese arrangementsarebuiltdifferentlyinpublicandprivate organi-zations.
Inthe privatesector,thereisacleardefinition ofthe roles andresponsibilitiesofthecommittees,astheyarecreatedwith themainobjectiveofmonitoringanddirectingthecompany’s informationtechnology. Havingdefinedtheir goal,the execu-tives consequently execute their functions within boundaries established inside the group, in order to give return (profit) totheinstitution. Thiswayof operatingexplainsthe positive influence of the performance of the IT committee observed inprevious studiesinthe private environment(Ali &Green, 2007,2012;Karimietal.,2000;Lunardietal.,2014;Vaswani, 2003).
Inthepublicsectorthisisnotclear,becausetherearemany levels of responsibility (and interests) insideand outside the organizations,atlocal,stateandfederallevels,whichincrease tensionsandconflictsindoingbusiness(Bermejoetal.,2014; Campbelletal.,2009;Edwards&Clough,2005).Therefore,the hypothesisthattheperformanceoftheITcommitteehasadirect andpositiveinfluenceontheeffectivenessofITgovernancewas rejected.
Given thissituation, the researchfound that onlythrough mediation of the IT Investments Portfolio Management the perceivedeffectsofimprovedperformanceoftheITcommittee oneffectivenessbecomestatisticallysignificant(H3,H4andH5
hypotheses).
Thisinteractionofmediationandthesignificantrelationship between IT committee and portfolio management is impor-tantandaffectsthemodelasawhole,probablybecausewhen dealingwiththeperformancemechanisminITInvestments Port-folio Management we use a criterioncommon to the budget area.
Budgetissuesmayhaveasignificantimpactontheprocess offormulatingITgovernancepoliciesinthepublicsector.After all,thebudgetprocessisthearenawheretheallocationofscarce resourcesofthesocietyisdeterminedand,assuch,itisakey elementofthepolicy-makingprocess.Evenifthepolicieshave alreadybeenapprovedinotherlevels,theymustgothroughthe budgetareatoensurethatthenecessaryresourcesareavailable for implementing them effectively (Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento[BID],2007).
Hence, we observe the importance of the performance of IT investments portfolio management, since it aims to prior-itize projects and investments, deciding how to split scarce resourcesamongthem,takingintoaccountresourcelimitations andbusinessneeds,byaligningthemwithorganizational strate-gic objectivesandconsideringthe highdegreeof uncertainty associatedwiththeuseoftechnologies(Hall&Liedtka,2005;
Xue,Liang,&Boulton,2008).
Therefore, the IT committee alone does not impact effec-tiveness, and only achieves this goal when it receives the responsibility of aligning ITactions andinvestments, justify-ingtechnology investmentsinfaceof arigidbudget structure (Kumar,Ajjan,&Niu,2008).
Inaddition,theFederalCourtofAuditors,institutionofthe Braziliangovernmentresponsibleforexternalcontrol, recom-mends thatpublic organizations establishan ITcommitteeto provide the allocation of public resources according to their needsandpriorities(Brasil,2008).
RegardingtheuseofITstrategicplanning,thereisa differ-ence between discourse andpractice. In the speech, strategic planning issaid to be the main methodfor defining actions; however,inpracticeithappensthroughinstitutionalprocesses ofisomorphism,bestpractices,andbenchmarking.These pro-cesses proliferate in the environment of public institutions, which aresystematized andinterconnected inadiscretionary way that encourages the adoption of models and practices for reasons that go far beyond efficiency (Bermejo, Tonelli, Zambalde,Brito,&Todesco,2012;Zattoni&Cuomo,2008).
Limitationsandsuggestionsforfutureresearch
Thisstudyhasrestrictionsregardingthesizeofthesample, whichis small duetothe numberof Brazilianfederal public organizationsthatbelongtothe‘strategiccore’and‘exclusive activities’groups.However,we shouldhighlightas apositive aspecttheuseoftherespondents’opinionstoevaluatethe impor-tanceofthequestionnaireitemsandtheirmeasure.
Concerningsuggestionsforfutureresearch,wepropose stud-iesthatuseLikerttypescalesandrankingcategoriesdirectedto expertsonthesubject;inotherwords,scalesthatdonotaccept absence of answers,sincerespondentswould havethe ability andtechnicalexpertisetoexpressrelevantopinions.
There isalsoaneed for studiesonthe effectivenessof IT governanceanditsmechanismsingovernmentinstitutionsthat offernon-exclusiveservicesandproducegoodsandservicesfor themarket,aswellasexpandingtheresearchtostateandlocal levels.
Finally,wesuggestasfutureresearchthereplicationofthis studywiththepurposeofvalidatingitsresultsandovercoming thelimitationspreviouslymentioned.
Conflictsofinterest
References
Agune,R., & Carlos, J.(2005).Governo eletrônico e novosprocessos de trabalho.InE.Levy,&P.Drago(Eds.),GestãopúblicanoBrasil contem-porâneo.SãoPaulo:Fundap.
Al-Farsi,K.,&Haddadeh,R.E.(2015).Framinginformationtechnology gov-ernanceinthepublicsector:Opportunitiesandchallenges.International JournalofElectronicGovernmentResearch,11(4),89–101.
Alford,J.(2002).Definingtheclientinthepublicsector:Asocialexchange perspective.PublicAdministrationReview,62(3),337–346.
Ali,S.,&Green,P.(2007).ITGovernancemechanismsinpublicsector organi-zations:AnAustraliancontext.JournalofGlobalInformationManagement, 15(4),41–63.
Ali,S.,&Green,P.(2012).Effectiveinformationtechnology(IT)governance mechanisms:AnIToutsourcingperspective.InformationSystemsFrontiers, 14(2),179–193.
Archer,N.P.,&Ghasemzadeh,F.(1999).Anintegratedframeworkforproject portfolioselection.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,17(4), 207–216.
Armstrong,C.P.,&Sambamurthy,V.(1999).Informationtechnology assim-ilationinfirms:TheinfluenceofseniorleadershipandITinfrastructures. InformationSystemResearch,10(4),304–331.
BancoInteramericano deDesenvolvimento.(2007).Apolíticadaspolíticas públicas:RelatóriodeprogressoeconômicoesocialnaAméricaLatina. RiodeJaneiro:Elsevier.
Barrett,P.(2003).Achievingbetterpractice:Corporategovernanceinthepublic sector.Canberra:AustralianNationalAuditOffice.
Bermejo,P.H.S.,Tonelli,A.O.,&Zambalde,A.L.(2014).DevelopingIT gov-ernanceinBrazilianpublicorganizations.InternationalBusinessResearch, 7(3),101–114.
Bermejo,P. H.S.,Tonelli,A.O.,Zambalde,A.L.,Brito,M.J.,& Tode-sco,J.L.(2012).Implementationofinformationtechnologygovernance throughITstrategicplanning.AfricanJournalofBusinessManagement, 6(45),11118–11179.
Bollen,K.A.(1989).Structuralequationswithlatentvariables.NewYork:John Wiley&Sons.
Bovaird,T.(2007).Beyondengagementandparticipation:Userand commu-nitycoproductionofpublicservices.PublicAdministrationReview,67(5), 846–860.
Bowen,P.L.,Cheung,M.D.,&Rohde,F.H.(2007).EnhancingITgovernance practices:Amodelandcasestudyofanorganization’sefforts.International JournalofAccountingInformationSystems,8(3),191–221.
Bradley,R.,Byrd,T.,Pridmore,J.,Thrasher,E.,Pratt,R.,&Mbarika,V.(2012).
AnempiricalexaminationofantecedentsandconsequencesofITgovernance inUShospitals.JournalofInformationTechnology,27(2),156–177.
Brasil.(1995).PlanoDiretor daReformadoAparelhodoEstado.Brasília: Presidência da República/Câmara da Reforma do Estado/Ministérioda Administrac¸ão Federale daReforma doEstado.Retrievedfrom http:// www.bresserpereira.org.br/documents/mare/planodiretor/planodiretor.pdf
Brasil.(2008).Levantamentode auditoria:Situa¸cãodagovernan¸ca de tec-nologiadainforma¸cão–TInaadministra¸cãopúblicafederal.Brasília: Tribunal de Contas da União. Retrieved from http://www.tcu.gov.br/ Consultas/Juris/Docs/judoc/Acord/20080814/008-380-2007-1-GP.doc
Bresser-Pereira,L.C.(2007).Thestructuralpublicgovernancemodel. Interna-tionalPublicManagementReview,8(1),16–32.
Campbell,J.,McDonald,C.,&Sethibe,T.(2009).Publicandprivatesector ITGovernance:Identifyingcontextualdifferences.AustralianJournalof InformationSystems,16(2),5–18.
Carvalho,M.M.,&Laurindo,F.J.B.(2007).Estratégiacompetitiva:Dos conceitosàimplementa¸cão(2aed.).SãoPaulo:Atlas.
Castro,H.G.D.,&Carvalho,M.M.D.(2010).Gerenciamentodoportfoliode projetos:Umestudoexploratório.Gestão&Produ¸cão,17(2),283–296.
Chan,Y.E.,Sabherwal,R.,&Thatcher,J.B.(2006).Antecedentsandoutcomes ofstrategicISalignment:Anempiricalinvestigation.IEEETransactionson EngineeringManagement,3(51),27–47.
Cumps,B.,Martens,D.,DeBacker,M.,Haesen,R.,Viane,S.,Dedene,G.,etal. (2009).Inferringcomprehensiblebusiness/ICTalignmentrules.Information andManagement,46(2),116–124.
Davenport,T.H.(1993).Processinnovation:Reengineeringworkthrough infor-mationtechnology.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.
DeHaes,S.,&VanGrembergen,W.(2008).Analyzingtherelationshipbetween ITgovernanceandbusiness/ITalignmentmaturity.InProceedingsofthe 41thHawaiiinternationalconferenceonsystemsciences.Waikoloa,HI: IEEEComputerSociety.
DeHaes,S.,&VanGrembergen,W.(2009).AnexploratorystudyintoIT gover-nanceimplementationsanditsimpactonbusiness/ITalignment.Information SystemsManagement,26(2),123–137.
Denhardt,R.B.(2008).Theoriesofpublicorganization(5thed.).Belmont,CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Diniz,E. H.,Barbosa, A.F.,Junqueira, A.R.B.,& Prado,O.(2009).O governoeletrôniconoBrasil:Perspectivahistóricaapartirdeummodelo estruturadodeanálise.RAP–RevistadeAdministra¸cãoPública,43(1), 23–48.
Doll,W.J.,&Torkzadeh,G.(1987).TherelationshipofMISsteeringcommittees tosizeoffirmandformalizationofMISplanning.Communicationsofthe ACM,30(11),972–978.
Dunleavy,P.,Margetts,H.,Bastow,S.,&Tinkle,J.(2006).Newpublic man-agement is dead– long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public AdministrationResearchandTheory,16(3),467–494.
Earl,M.J.(1989).Managementstrategiesforinformationtechnology. Engle-woodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Earl,M.J.(1993).Experiencesinstrategicinformationsystemsplanning.MIS Quarterly,17(1),1–24.
Edwards,M.,&Clough,R.(2005).Corporategovernanceandperformance:An explorationoftheconnectioninapublicsectorcontextIssuesSeriesPaper n.1.Australia:CorporateGovernanceARCProject,UniversityofCanberra.
Everitt,S.(1975).Multivariateanalysis:Theneedfordata,andotherproblems. BritishJournalofPsychiatry,126(3),237–240.
Ferrarezi, E., &Amorim,S.(2007). Concursoinovac¸ãona gestãopública federal: Análise de uma trajetória (1996–2006). Cadernos Enap, 32, 1–53.
Fotaki, M.(2011).Towards developingnewpartnerships inpublicservices: Usersasconsumers,citizensand/orco-producersinhealthandsocialcare inEnglandandSweden.PublicAdministration,89(3),933–955.
Freeman,R.E.,&Reed,D.L.(1983).Stockholdersandstakeholders:Anew perspectiveoncorporategovernance.CaliforniaManagementReview,25(3), 88–106.
Frooman,J.(1999).Stakeholderinfluencestrategies.AcademyofManagement Review,24(2),191–203.
Gelinas,U.,Sutton,S.,&Fedorowicz,J.(2004).Businessprocessesand infor-mationtechnology.Cincinnati:ThompsonLearning.
Grant, G., & Chau, D. (2005). Developing a generic framework for e-government.JournalofGlobalInformationManagement,13(1),1–30.
Gupta, Y. P., & Raghunathan, T. S. (1989). Impact of information sys-tems(IS)steeringcommitteesonISplanning.DecisionSciences,20(4), 777–793.
Hall,J.A.,&Liedtka,S.L.(2005).Financialperformance,CEO compensa-tion,andlarge-scaleinformationtechnologyoutsourcingdecision.Journal ofManagementInformationSystems,22(1),193–221.
Hardy,G.(2003).CoordinatingITgovernance–AnewroleforITstrategy committees.InformationSystemsControlJournal,4,21–24.
Heindrickson,G.,&Santos,C.D.,Jr.(2014).Informationtechnology gover-nanceinpublicorganizations:Howperceivedeffectivenessrelatestothree classicalmechanisms.JISTEM–JournalofInformationSystemsand Tech-nologyManagement,11(2),297–326.
Henderson,J.,& Venkatraman,N.(1993).Strategic alignment:Leveraging informationtechnologyfortransformingorganizations.IBMSystemJournal, 32(1),472–484.
Hirschheim,R.,&Sabherwal,R.(2001).Detoursinthepathtoward strate-gicinformationsystemsalignment.CaliforniaManagementReview,44(1), 87–108.
Holden,S.H.(2007).Theevolutionoffederalinformationtechnology manage-mentliterature.InD.Garson(Ed.),Modernpublicinformationtechnology systems:Issuesandchallenges.London:IGIGlobal.
Huang,R.,Zmud,R.W.,&Price,R.L.(2010).Influencingtheeffectivenessof ITgovernancepracticesthroughsteeringcommitteesandcommunication policies.EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems,19(3),288–302.
Imasato,T.,Martins,P.E.M.,&Pieranti,O.P.(2011).Administrativereforms andglobalmanagerialism:AcriticalanalysisofthreeBrazilianstatereforms. CanadianJournalofAdministrativeSciences,28(2),174–187.
InformationSystemsAuditandControlAssociation.(2011).COBIT5:A busi-nessframework for thegovernance and managementof enterprise IT. RollingMeadows,IL:ISACA.
ITGovernanceInstitute.(2007).AboutITGovernanceframework(CobiT4.0). RollingMeadows,IL:ITGI.
Jorfi,S.,Nor,K.,Najjar,L.,&Jorfi,H.(2011).TheimpactofITflexibilityon strategicalignment(withfocusonexport).InternationalJournalofBusiness &Management,6(8),264–270.
Juiz,C.,Guerrero,C.,&Lera,I.(2014).Implementinggoodgovernance princi-plesforthepublicsectorininformationtechnologygovernanceframeworks. OpenJournalofAccounting,3(1),9–27.
Karimi,J.,Bhattacherjee,A.,Gupta,Y.P.,&Somers,T.M.(2000).Theeffects ofMISsteeringcommitteesoninformationtechnologymanagement sophis-tication.JournalofManagementInformationSystems,17(2),207–230.
Korac-Kakabadse,N.,&Kakabadse,A.(2001).IS/ITgovernance:Needforan integratedmodel.CorporateGovernance,1(4),9–11.
Kumar,R.,Ajjan,H.,&Niu,Y.(2008).Informationtechnologyportfolio man-agement:Literaturereview,framework,andresearchissues.Information ResourceManagementJournal,21(3),64–87.
Larsen,G.L.(2008).Emerginggovernanceattheedgeofconstrained federal-ism:Publicadministratorsatthefrontierofdemocracy(PhDthesis)(PhD thesis).Portland,USA:PortlandStateUniversity.
Lederer,A.L.,&Sethi,V.(1988).Theimplementationofstrategicinformation systemsplanningmethodologies.MISQuarterly,12(3),445–461.
Liang,T.,Chiu,Y.,Wu,S.P.,&Straub,D.(2011).TheimpactofIT gover-nanceonorganizationalperformance.InProceedingsofthe17thAmericas conferenceoninformationsystems.Detroit,Michigan/USA:AMCIS.
Lunardi,G.L.,Dolci,P.C.,Mac¸ada,A.C.G.,&Becker,J.L.(2014).Análise dosmecanismosdegovernanc¸adeTImaisdifundidosentreasempresas brasileiras.RevistaAlcance,21(1),46–76.
Marôco,J.(2010).Análisedeequa¸cõesestruturais:Fundamentosteóricos soft-wareseaplica¸cões.PêroPinheiro:ReportNumberLtda.
McKeen,J.D.,&Guimarães,T.(1985).SelectingMISprojectsbysteering committee.CommunicationsoftheACM,28(12),1344–1352.
Mello, G. R. (2006). Governan¸ca Corporativa no Setor Público Federal Brasileiro(Dissertac¸ãodeMestrado).SãoPaulo:FaculdadedeEconomia, Administrac¸ãoeContabilidade,UniversidadedeSãoPaulo.
Moraes,R.O.,&Laurindo,F.J.B.(2003).Umestudodecasodegestãode port-foliodeprojetosdetecnologiadainformac¸ão.Gestão&Produ¸cão,10(3), 311–328.
Nfuka,E.N.,&Rusu,L.(2010).CriticalsuccessfactorsforeffectiveIT gover-nanceinthepublicsectororganizationsinadevelopingcountry:Thecaseof Tanzania.InProceedingsofthe18thEuropeanconferenceoninformation systems.Pretoria,SouthAfrica:ECIS.
Niederman,F.,Brancheau,J.C.,&Wetherbe,J.C.(1991).Informationsystems managementissuesforthe1990’s.MISQuarterly,15(4),475–500.
Nolan,R.L.(1982).Managinginformationsystemsbycommittee.Harvard BusinessReview,60(4),72–99.
Nolan,R.,&McFarlan,F.W.(2005).Informationtechnologyandtheboardof directors.HarvardBusinessReview,83(10),96–105.
Nunnally,J.C.(1967).Psychometrictheory.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Peterson,R.R.(2003).Informationstrategiesandtacticsforinformation tech-nologygovernance.InW.VanGrembergen(Ed.),Strategiesforinformation technologygovernance.Hershey,PA:IdeaGroupPublishing.
Pfeffer,J.,&Salancik,G.(1978).Theexternalcontroloforganizations:A resourcedependenceperspective.NewYork:Harper&Row.
Powell,M.,Greener,I.,Szmigin,I.,Doheny,S.,&Mills,N.(2010).Broadening thefocusofpublicserviceconsumerism.PublicManagementReview,12(3), 323–339.
Raghunathan,B.,&Raghunathan,T.S.(1989).MISsteeringcommittees:Their effectoninformationsystemsplanning.JournalofInformationSystems, 3(2),104–116.
Rau,K.G.(2004).EffectivegovernanceofIT:Designobjectives,roles,and relationships.InformationSystemsManagement,21(4),35–42.
Rodrigues,J.G.L.,&Souza,J.Neto.(2014).Diretrizesparaimplantac¸ãoda governanc¸adetecnologiadainformac¸ãonosetorpúblicobrasileiroàluzda teoriaInstitucional.RevistadoServi¸coPúblico,63(4),475–497.
Sambamurthy,V.,&Zmud,R.W.(1999).Arrangementsforinformation technol-ogygovernance:Atheoryofmultiplecontingencies.MISQuarterly,23(2), 261–290.
Schlosser,F.,Beimborn,D.,Weitzel,T.,&Wagner,H.T.(2015).Achieving socialalignmentbetweenbusinessandIT–Anempiricalevaluationofthe efficacyofITgovernancemechanisms.JournalofInformationTechnology, 30(2),119–135.
Simmons,R.,Birchall,J.,Doheny,S.,&Powell,M.(2007).Citizen gover-nance:Opportunitiesforinclusivityinpolicyandpolicymaking?Policy andPolitics,35(3),457–478.
Stoker,G.(2006).Publicvaluemanagement:Anewnarrativefornetworked governance?AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,36(1),41–57.
Tan,C.W.,&Pan,S.L.(2003).Managinge-transformationinthepublic sec-tor:Ane-governmentstudyoftheInlandRevenueAuthorityofSingapore (IRAS).EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems,12(4),269–281.
Tonelli,A.O.,Bermejo,P.H.S.,Santos,P.A.,Zuppo,L.,&Zambalde,A.L. (2015).ITgovernanceinthepublicsector:Aconceptualmodel.Information SystemsFrontiers,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9614-x
Torres,M.D.F.(2004).Estado,democraciaeadministra¸cãopúblicanoBrasil. RiodeJaneiro:EditoraFGV.
Trites,G.(2004).DirectorresponsibilityforITgovernance.International Jour-nalofAccountingInformationSystems,5(2),89–99.
VanGrembergen,W.,DeHaes,S.,&Guldentops,E.(2004).Structures, pro-cessesandrelationalmechanismsforITgovernance.InW.VanGrembergen (Ed.), Strategies for information technology governance. London:Idea GroupPublishing.
Vaswani, R. (2003). Determinants of effectiveinformation technology (IT) governance(HonorsThesis).Australia:SchoolofBusiness,Universityof Queensland.
Weill,P.,&Ross,J.(2004).ITgovernance:HowtopperformersmanageIT decisionrightsforsuperiorresults.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.
Weill,P.,&Ross,J.(2006).Governan¸cadeTI:Tecnologiadainforma¸cão.São Paulo:MakronBooks.
Weill,P.,Woerner,S.L.,&McDonald,M.(2009).ManagingtheITportfolio (updatecirca2009):Infrastructuredwindlinginthedownturn.MITSloan CenterforInformationSystemsResearch.CISRResearchBriefing,IX(8), 1–3.
Weill,P.,&Woodham,P.(2002).Don’tjustlead,govern:Implementingeffective ITgovernance.MITSloanCISRWorkingPapern.326.
Xue,Y.,Liang,H.,&Boulton,W.(2008).Informationtechnologygovernance ininformationtechnologyinvestmentdecisionprocesses:Theimpactof investmentcharacteristics,externalenvironment,andinternalcontext.MIS Quarterly,32(1),67–96.
