[An Unbalanced] Discussion of “On IT Governance Structures and Their Effectiveness in COS”

1. [An Unbalanced] Discussion of “On IT Governance Structures and Their Effectiveness in COS” Kevin Kobelsky PhD, CA•CISA

2. Proviso • A violation of instructions from Efrim… • Unbalanced in the interest of time…focus on weaknesses to aid in improvement. • 8 points • Summary comment: It’s interesting, and well worth moving forward.

3. Motivation • Intersection of 2 areas: • IT Governance • Collaborative Organizational Structures (COS), particularly Web 2.0 • Points out gap in literature investigatinginter-organizational IT governance • Interesting…tough enough within a single firm, but across firms…incentives? structures? capabilities?

4. IT Governance Sustainable IT - Process Level Firm - Level Structures for Related Capabilities Performance Performance Collaborative Alliance 1. Theoretical Model • Figure 1 (p.5) • Each relation is already a well-established research topic. What’s new?Adding ‘for Collaborative Alliance’ to first link • Tension? • Contribution must lie in identifying the specific/unique aspects governance structures for COS that affect capabilities

5. IT Governance Sustainable IT - Process Level Firm - Level Structures for Related Capabilities Performance Performance Collaborative Alliance 1. Theoretical Model • Figure 1 (p.5) • Each relation is already a well-established research topic. What’s new?Adding ‘for Collaborative Alliance’ to first link • Tension? • Contribution must lie in identifying the specific/unique aspects governance structures for COS that affect capabilities

6. 2. Theory-IT Gov’ce Structures • Attempt to decompose COS IT governance. • No mention of key theories: • Agency theory • Incentives, control (measurement, monitoring) • 2. Transaction Cost theory,COSO • Deep communication mechanisms vital to operational implementation of control • Key themes in interviews reflect these: • “Consensus on benefit” (4.1:1), “must be valuable to all” (4.1:2), [Avoid] free riders… Broader benefit [to] alliance must… come in” (4.3:1), “Performance also needs to be considered as one [supply chain]” (4.3:3), “for the benefit of all in the group” (4.4:2) - Incentives, measurement

7. 2. Theory-IT Gov’ce Structures • Key themes found in interviews (cont’d): • “Have much more open communication channels” (4.2:1), “..engage more in a virtual context” (4.2:2), “continually talking about business with others” (4.2:3) – Communication • “Needs to be regular meetings at the operational level” (4.4:1), “need to blend… low level management” (4.4:3) – Communication • Consistent with prior theory Suggestion: link to prior non-COS research

8. 3. Theory–Model of Capabilities • Sn. 5.1 (p.18-19): 3 types of IT capability taken from literature, not interviews. • Prior lit. focus: capability WITHIN (intra) • Expect to see: discussion of issues of extending this ACROSS (inter) firms. • But only 6 lines in text, listing the 3 types. Discussion not joined. • How would each Capability Type for COS IT differ from the same type for other IT? • Vital since Structure-Capability relation is the key potential contribution of paper

9. 4. Theory - Gov’ce-Cap Link • Sn 5.2 – How do specific inter-firm IT governance mechanisms affect intra and inter-firm (“within the COS”) IT capabilities? • These specific governance elements investigated in non-IS research. • Other specific governance elements investigated in IS research. • Suggested potential contribution: Investigate these specific elements within IS context • Helpful to clarify tension in literature review.

10. 5. Theory - Gov’ce-Cap Link • Sn 5.2 – How do specific inter-firm IT governance mechanisms affect intra and inter-firm (“within the COS”) IT capabilities? • H1,2,3: All 4 mechanisms affect all 3 capabilities (12 relationships!) • But no discussion of how inter-firm IT capabilities are different from intra-firm IT capabilities. No basis for differentiation. • AND • Everything affects everything, so why are distinctions important?

11. 6. Method: Gov’ceMeasures • Isn’t an “inter-organizational IT steering committee” (CTSC) also an “inter-organizational committee” (COSC)? • May explain high cross loadings in Table 3. • Construct difference may be level of managers (‘top mgmt’ (CTSC) vs ‘operational and tactical managers’ (COSC) rather than IT vs. operations focus

12. 7. Method: Capability Measures • In contrast to theory, measures don’t address inter-firm capabilities. • “within the organization” – Commitment • “Each unit’s management team…” – Shared knowledge • “Data is sharable across systems and business units” - Infrastructure

13. 7. Method: Perf’ceMeasures • Internal Process/Customer Service/Financial measures also focus on intra-firm, and not performance across the supply chain. • Contrary to Governance construct #3 – Need for Inter-organizational performance measures • Given intra-firm focus of capabilities, what does this add to prior research?

14. 8. Result: Structural Model (p.34) • Only 1 summary IT Governance construct linked to (firm-level) IT Capabilities. • Can’t conclude re individual Governance constructs. • Key potential contribution not addressed • Inserted to avoid 12 relationships in H1-3?

15. Remember Proviso • A violation of instructions from Efrim… • Unbalanced in the interest of time…focus on weaknesses to aid in improvement. • Summary comment: It’s interesting, and well worth moving forward.