The Effect of Critical... - Artigo - 2011

7/25/2019 The Effect of Critical... - Artigo - 2011

1/31

The effect of critical successfactors on IT governance

performanceEdephonce N. Nfuka and Lazar Rusu

Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the effect of critical success factors (CSFs) oninformation technology (IT) governance performance in public sector organizations in a developingcountry such as Tanzania.

Design/methodology/approach Based on a previous study and a further literature review,a research model was developed for analysing the relationship between the CSFs found for effective IT

governance in this environment and their effect on IT governance performance. A survey researchmethod was applied for data collection and sample data from Tanzanian public sector organizations(this environment) obtained. Subsequently, a second-generation structural equation modellingtechnique, namely partial least squares, was applied to test statistically the correlated effect.

Findings The results indicate significant small to strong positive correlated effects on ITgovernance performance. The CSF with the most significant correlated effect was involve and getsupport of senior management and the one with the least consolidate, standardize and manage ITinfrastructure and application to optimize costs and information flow across the organization. Finally,a CSF model for effective IT governance in this environment was proposed.

Research limitations/implications The findings imply that decision makers can optimizeIT-related plans and use of scarce resources by concentrating on the CSFs that have a significant effecton IT governance performance that could lead to an improvement of public service delivery. Thisstudy is limited to a single developing country but future studies can involve more such countries to

broaden the insights into the effect of CSFs on IT governance performance in such environments.Originality/value By establishing the correlated effects between these CSFs and the ITgovernance performance, this study has revealed a significant impact of CSFs on IT governanceperformance. It also suggests a CSFs model for effective IT governance in this less-resourcedenvironment in which such studies have not been conducted before, yet which are vital for analysingand improving IT governance.

KeywordsTanzania, Developing countries, Public administration, Critical success factors,IT governance performance, Correlated effect, Public sector

Paper typeResearch paper

1. IntroductionRecently, in many public sector organizations, the use of information technology (IT)

has become pervasive in endeavours to support and evolve public service delivery(Ali and Green, 2007; UN, 2010). This pervasive use of technology has caused criticaldependency on IT, which in todays economic and administrative world that deals withgovernment service delivery involves a complex mix of political, organizational,technical and cultural concerns (Sethibeet al., 2007). This calls for a focus on effectiveIT governance, which is an actively designed set of IT governance mechanisms thatencourage behaviours consistent with the organizations mission, strategy and culture(Weill and Ross, 2004).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

IMDS111,9

1418

Received 2 February 2011Revised 16 June 2011Accepted 16 June 2011

Industrial Management & DataSystemsVol. 111 No. 9, 2011pp. 1418-1448q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0263-5577DOI 10.1108/02635571111182773


2/31

While there are various definitions of IT governance (Simonsson and Johnson,2005), one of the most prevalent is:

[. . .] an integral part of enterprise governance and has potential to provide mechanisms forleadership and organizational structures and processes that ensure the organizations ITsustains and extends the organizations strategies and objectives (ITGI, 2003).

Its potential lies in the fact that most significant IT concerns, current and future, are nottechnology related, but governance related (Guldentops et al., 2002). For example,Weill and Ross (2004) showed at least a 20 percent better return on IT investment wheneffective IT governance is in place. Thus, IT-governance-related success factors must beentrenched and adhered to in order to do away with inadequate governanceeffectiveness, which has negative consequences for the IT contribution to public servicedelivery.

Several studies have looked at such a concern about inadequate governanceeffectiveness (Weill and Ross, 2004; Ali and Green, 2007) and the necessary successfactors (Weill, 2004; Tan et al., 2009). However, none of these studies has been carried outwithin the context of a developing country like Tanzania (Imran and Gregor, 2007;Nfuka etal., 2009), which has low human development in contrast to developed countries(UNDP, 2010). For example, while the human development index that includes lifeexpectancy, gross national income per capita and access to knowledge was 0.398 inTanzania, in developed countries it was mostly above 0.8.

Such governance concern in Tanzanian public sector organizations(this environment) is due to the fact that today there is a remarkable amount of ITapplications. Examples include applications to manage government employees, incometax and the distribution of medical supplies (Nfuka et al., 2009). However, suchapplications among others are coupled with fragmented IT initiatives with loss ofsynergies and economies of scale in and across organizations, leading to duplication of

effort and resources (Ndou, 2004; Bakari, 2007). For example, the TanzanianGovernments weakness in streamlining some IT applications and enablinginfrastructure cost US$200m and caused duplication of work (Maimu, 2006).

Such a concern is also due to the need to manage the rising IT investmentcost-effectively, e.g. the implementation of a national fibre-optic backbone wasestimated at US$170m (IP, 2010) and an upgrade of the HR system that managesgovernment employees at US$1m (PO-PSM, 2010). This also applies to a guide tostrategic IT integration into public sector reforms and poverty reduction and economicgrowth strategy, in which most improvements are based (Mutagahywaet al., 2007).

This concern is amplified by constraints on IT resources, knowledge and culture inthis environment. For example, IT infrastructure accessibility that apart fromremarkable mobile penetration with tele-density increasing from 1 percent in 2000 to

about 46 percent by June 2010 (TCRA, 2010), there is still low access to the internet: theavailable statistics indicate 1.6 percent of the population in contrast to more than60 percent in most developed countries (IWS, 2010). Other constraints are awareness ofIT potential and familiarity and culture to embrace the optimal management and use ofIT (Nfukaet al., 2009; Rusu and Paul Tenga, 2010).

However, based on IT governance focus areas (ITGI, 2003; Buckby et al., 2008) andfive organizations in this environment, an exploratory study to address such a gap waspursued (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a). This study identified critical success factors (CSFs),

The effect ofCSFs on ITgovernance

1419


3/31

which are limited to a number of areas in which satisfactory results ensure success inan organization (Rockart and van Bullen, 1986), in this case effective IT governanceimplementation. Though, based on this study, it is reasonable to believe there is acorrelated effect between these CSFs and the IT governance performance, this has not

been statistically confirmed.In this paper, we address such a gap by hypothesizing that the correlated effect exists

and therefore analysing it in this environment. This is achieved based on a surveyresearch method, sample data from Tanzanian public sector organizations and partialleast squares (PLS)-based structural equation modelling to analyse the proposed model.The remainderof the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 covers IT governance CSFsand performance. This is followed by the research model in Section 3 and themethodology in Section 4. The results and discussion appear in Sections 5 and 6,respectively, and concluding remarks and future research in Section 7.

2. IT governance CSFs and performance

2.1 IT governance CSFsCSFs are the limited number of areas in which satisfactory results will ensure asuccessful competitive performance for the individual, department or organization(Rockart and van Bullen, 1986). They are used to direct the focus towards the factorsthat define key areas central to the organizations objectives in which to invest theirresources and time to ensure success (Ward and Peppard, 2002; Caralli, 2004). Owing totheir importance, CSFs are widely researched (Gil-Garcia and Pardo, 2005; Tanet al.,2009) and applied in many organizations from different perspectives: from a singleproject to the whole organizations strategic direction (Esteves, 2004; Fortune andWhite, 2006). However, in the area of IT governance, and considering CSFs as essentialelements for its effective implementation, few CSF studies have been undertaken, whileIT governance has become critical to most organizations today (Sethibeet al., 2007).

An earlier study on CSFs for effective IT governance in this environment identified anumber of related CSFs (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a). These include the governance of ITstructures (Guldentops, 2004) and stakeholders involvement (ITGI, 2003). Additionally,there are: defining and tracking benefits (ITGI and PwC, 2006), well-communicated ITstrategies and policies (Bowenet al., 2007) and the integration of IT/business decisions(Ribbers etal., 2002). Furthermore, there are IT/business alignment-related CSFs, the topranked being managements commitment to the strategic use of IT (Teo and Ang, 1999),and six enablers of IT/business alignment that include IT/business partnership(Luftman et al., 1999). Similarly, there are minimum conditions for implementing ITgovernance, the most important including IT leadership (de Haes and van Grembergen,2008). Moreover, the study identified such CSFs in the public sector including alignedincentives (Weill, 2004) and senior management commitment (Tan et al., 2009).

In identifying these CSFs, the referred-to study (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a) undertook aliterature review to explore the existing IT governance CSFs in general and the publicsector in particular. To gain a holistic view of CSFs, the IT governance life cycle wasconsidered mainly based on IT governances five focus areas, i.e. strategic alignment,value delivery, risk management, resource management and performance management(ITGI, 2003; Buckby et al., 2008). This was achieved through relevant journals andconferences including access to Google Scholar. As a result of this process, 100 paperswere explored, ten of which were found to be relevant, as highlighted already.

IMDS111,9

1420


4/31

Given the similarities and different levels of granularity, the referred-to studyharmonized them logically, obtaining 17 CSFs that were operationalized throughquestionnaires and face-to-face interviews in five organizations. Through rankedresponses, interview comments and validation, some CSFs were dropped, merged and

adjusted as per contextual needs, leading to five-focus-areas-based 11 CSFs for effectiveIT governance in this environment (Figure 1).

Different to the existing CSFs in IT-governance-related studies like Guldentops (2004)and Tan et al. (2009) pointed out above, these CSFs were identified with holistic view and

Figure 1.CSFs for effective ITgovernance in public

sector organizations in adeveloping country like

Tanzania

IT leadership to understand the business goals and IT

contribution and bring it to the management attention

StrategicAlignment

ValueDelivery&

RiskManagement

Resource

Management

Performance

Measurement

Involve and get support of senior management

Encourage and support IT/Business communication and

partnership

Engage key stakeholders

Define and align IT strategies to corporate strategies and

cascade them down in an organization

Consolidate IT structures to ensure responsiveness and

accountability

Consolidate, standardize and manage IT infrastructure to

optimize costs and infromation flow across the

organization

Consolidate, communicate and enforce policies and

guidelines for cost-effective acquisition and use of ITacross the organization

Provide IT governance awareness and training for optimal

IT use

Attract, develop and retain competitive IT professionals

Consolidate performance measures and benchmarks to

track and demonstrate success

Source:Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a


1421


5/31

a focus to this environment (NfukaandRusu, 2010a). In this way, the newly re-establishedCSFs included: IT leadership to understand the business goals and IT contribution andto bring this to the attention of management. This was due to the criticality of ITleadership understanding business imperatives and necessary IT intervention while the

top management are aware of ITs potential. Others were: engage key stakeholders dueto the broader and harmonized view of the approach to e-government, attract, developand retain competitive IT professionals due to the criticality of sustainable skills in sucha widespread and low-paying environment and consolidate, standardize and manage ITinfrastructure and application to optimize costs and information flow across theorganization given the critical need for facilities, harmonized IT initiatives andcost-effectiveness. Furthermore, was consolidate, communicate and enforce policies andguidelines for cost-effective acquisition and use of IT across the organization due to thecrucial need for enforcement across the organization, sharing of scarce IT resources andcreating and preserving IT value in this environment.

The remaining CSFs were also considered due to the contextual elements in such anenvironment including required political and senior management support andprioritization of scarce resources amid the still many pressing basic needs. Others weredue to the required accountability from both IT and business, change of mindset,integration of IT in reform programmes, active monitoring and demonstration of ITscontribution (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a).

2.2 IT governance performanceIT governance performance is the rate of IT governanceeffectiveness or how effective ITgovernance is, i.e. how well its arrangements encourage desirable behaviour andultimately performance goal achievement in the organization (Weill and Ross, 2004;Huang etal., 2010). This performance can be measured by the value of services that an ITorganization delivers from a business point of view. The simplest way to measure such

performance in the organization is reported in a study by Weill and Ross (2004), whichwas conducted on 250 case studiesof IT governance and published in a book that may bethe most cited in the area today. The measure is defined as the effectiveness of ITgovernance in delivering four outcomes weighted by their importance to theorganization: the cost-effective use of IT, the effective use of IT for asset utilization,the effective use of IT for growth and the effective use of IT for business flexibility. Thismeasure provides IT value from a business perspective and is well recognized and usedby researchers and practitioners (Simonssonet al., 2010).

3. Research model and hypotheses developmentThis study investigates the research model shown in Figure 2. It includes 11 hypotheses

in five IT governance focus areas suggested as independent variables (IV). Thesehypotheses are based on the earlier-identified CSFs for effective IT governance in thisenvironment (Figure 1) that were achieved based on existing IT-governance-relatedCSFs studies like Weill (2004) and Tanet al.(2009) presented in Subsection 2.1 and fiveTanzanian public sector organizations case studies. Also in the model is the ITgovernance performance (presented in Subsection 2.2) suggested as a dependentvariable (DV). Though, based on these studies and organizations case studies in whichthese CSFs were identified, it is reasonable to believe a correlated effect between them

IMDS111,9

1422


6/31


7/31

in tabling relevant business cases for the management and ensuring the necessaryunderstandability and interventions. Thus:

H1. IT leadership that understands business goals and IT contribution and brings

it to the attention of management will positively influence IT governanceperformance.

Involve and get support of senior management. This practice refers to organizationssenior executives personal engagement in IT-related decision making and monitoringprocesses (Huanget al., 2010). IT, being an important enabler of business strategies andunderlying operating processes, implies a need for greater involvement and support atsuch a level for effective management and use of IT (Luftman et al., 1999; Teo and Ang,1999; Weill and Ross, 2004). Also, users tend to conform to the senior managementscommitment and practices (Tanet al., 2009). In the context of this environment, whichalso includes the need for strong political support, such a practice was shown to be vitalfor widely strategic use and management of IT (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a). For example,

a highly rated problem of business peoples lower acceptance of new IT applications(Nfukaet al., 2009) was reduced in some organizations due to such a practice. Thus:

H2. The involvement and support of senior management will positively influenceIT governance performance.

Encourage and support IT/business communication and partnership. The role of thispractice has been examined extensively including understanding and involvement ineach others imperatives and initiatives, respectively, to create more value from IT(Luftman et al., 1999; Teo and Ang, 1999; ITGI, 2003; Bowen et al., 2007; Lee et al.,2008). In the context of this study, Nfuka and Rusu (2010a) showed commonunderstanding by IT/business people of IT opportunities and business imperatives asessential for effective IT governance given lower awareness and wider coordination.

Similarly applies to viable communication and partnership among them. These arealso supported by Nfuka et al. (2009), as an improvement to revealed problems ofinadequate IT/business alignment indicated the contribution to governanceperformance in such environments that require relational mechanisms. Thus:

H3. The encouragement and support of IT/business communication andpartnership will positively influence IT governance performance.

Engage key stakeholders. The success of IT governance implementations in suchwidespread organizations requires the engagement of stakeholders with clear roles,goals and a shared understanding of the common agenda (Ribbers et al., 2002). Forexample, Weill and Ross (2004) revealed that the more the organization involves key

stakeholders, the more successful the governance of IT becomes. This also applies to thecontext of this study in which such success depends on a broader view of needs andinformation integration that entails stakeholders participation (Nfukaand Rusu, 2010a).Likewise, embracing e-government initiatives showed dependency on such a practicegiven the interdependent nature and required rational use of the scarce resourcesavailable. Thus:

H4. The engagement of key stakeholders will positively influence IT governanceperformance.

IMDS111,9

1424


8/31

Define and align IT strategies to corporate strategies and cascade them down in anorganization. Effective IT governance requires alignment between IT and business indefining and eventually implementing the strategies (Luftman et al., 1999; Ribberset al.,2002; Guldentops, 2004; van Grembergen and de Haes, 2009). Equally important is

cascading them across and down to the operational levels to bring IT/business peopleontothe same page, thus encouraging desirable IT behaviours (ITGI, 2003; Weill and Ross,2004). In the context of this study, such a practice was found vital to the environment withmultifaceted objectives (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a). This also applies to IT governancematurity, which indicated organizations with such a practice (e.g. balanced scorecard) tohave a relatively higher maturity level (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010b). Thus:

H5. Defining and aligning IT strategies to corporate strategies and cascadingthese down in an organization will positively influence IT governanceperformance.

Consolidate IT structures that ensure responsiveness and accountability. IT structurerefers to the responsible functions and committees in an organization (Huang et al.,2010) vital for ensuring responsiveness and accountability. Such assurance can bemaximized by the CIO who reports to the CEO, a clear role and responsibilities andcommittee/s to prioritize and oversee IT projects/investment (Guldentops, 2004; Weill,2004; Bowenet al., 2007; de Haes and van Grembergen, 2008; Tan et al., 2009). In thecontext of this study environment, Nfuka et al. (2009) showed broader and clearlystated practices regarding the roles and responsibilities in some organizations. Thisalso applies to IT steering and project committees in an environment characterized bymultiple levels of IT decision making. Though not optimally exploited, subsequentstudies on maturity showed a better governance maturity of related processes in suchorganizations (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010b). Thus:

H6. Consolidated IT structures that ensure responsiveness and accountability willpositively influence IT governance performance.

Consolidate, communicate and enforce policies and guidelines for cost-effectiveacquisition and use of IT across the organization. Such a practice is vital to effective ITgovernance as it institutes and enforces best practices and informs the organization as awhole about the clear processes, methods and framework to adhere to, thus encouragingdesirable behaviours and optimal IT value creation and preservation (ITGI, 2003;Guldentops, 2004; Weill, 2004; ITGI and PwC, 2006; Tanet al., 2009; de Haes and vanGrembergen, 2008). In the context of this study, Nfukaet al.(2009) showed lower use ofsuch best practices like COBIT, ITIL and balanced scorecard. However, in a subsequentstudy (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010b), even with scarce resources a few organizations thatapplied such a practice indicated relatively higher maturity in some processes, such as

communicating management aims and direction (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a). Thus:

H7. Consolidated, communicated and enforced policies and guidelines forcost-effective acquisition and use of IT across the organization willpositively influence IT governance performance.

Consolidate, standardize and manage the IT infrastructure and applications to optimizecosts, responsiveness and information flow across the organization. This practice is akey result of effective IT governance (Teo and Ang, 1999; ITGI, 2003). Peterson (2004)


1425


9/31

also indicated it in relation to IT delivery and innovation that ensure the provisionand management of a reliable and cost-effective infrastructure and delivery of ITapplications. In the context of this study, Nfuka etal. (2009) revealed some problems, likefragmented IT initiatives, the improvement of which in some organizations led to

economies of scale, better information flow and increased responsiveness (Nfuka andRusu, 2010a). Thus:

H8. Consolidated, standardized and managed IT infrastructure and applicationsto optimize costs, responsiveness and information flow across theorganization will positively influence IT governance performance.

Providing IT governance awareness and training for optimal use of IT. This practice isparamount and acts as a stepping stone to effective IT governance (Weill, 2004). It is theengine of innovation and optimization of IT capabilities and governance (ITGI, 2003;Warland and Ridley, 2005; Tanetal.,2009).Inthisstudycontext,NfukaandRusu(2010a)showed the practice to contribute to competencies and mindset changes to improve ITgovernance in an environment that portrays lower IT knowledge and culture. Thus:

H9. Provision of IT governance awareness and training for optimal use of IT willpositively influence IT governance performance.

Attract, develop and retain competitive IT professionals. This practice is important foreffective IT governance (Tanet al., 2009). It is the engine of IT innovation, optimizationand performance (Peterson, 2004; Warland and Ridley, 2005). In the context of this study,Nfuka and Rusu (2010a) showed its value to sustainable competencies in the planningand management of IT. This also applies to the recognition of such personnel as workingcapital for successful IT/business strategies and operations in an environment that isstill characterized by immature IT development and lower remuneration. Thus:

H10. Attracting, developing and retaining competitive IT professionals willpositively influence IT governance performance.

Consolidate performance measures and benchmarks to track and demonstrate success.This practice, which cuts across skills/innovation, internal operations, customerexcellence and corporate contribution (de Haes and van Grembergen, 2008), is anintegral part of effective IT governance (ITGI, 2003; Weill, 2004; Peterson, 2004; ITGIand PwC, 2006; Tan et al., 2009). This is also supported by Sethibe et al. (2007), whoconsidered performance to be measurable beyond conventional accounting given thebest value rather than profit nature of the public sector. Such a practice for effectiveIT governance is also shown by Ali and Green (2007). In the context of this environment,characterized by scarce resources and a lack of active performance measures, Nfuka etal.(2009) showed the importance of aligned rewards and clearly set and monitored targets

for higher performance and demonstration of IT contribution. Thus:

H11. Consolidated performance measures and benchmarks to track anddemonstrate success will positively influence IT governance performance.

3.2 Dependent variableThe DV in this study is IT governance performance, which was revealed by Weill andRoss (2004) in a study on how top performers manage IT. Its measurement allows

IMDS111,9

1426


10/31

an organization to reveal its performance through four outcomes/objectives:cost-effective use of IT, effective use of IT for asset utilization, effective use of ITfor growth and effective use of IT for business flexibility. Also, the approach is simplerand has been used in several studies (Simonsson et al., 2010).

4. Research methodologyThe aim of this study, which took place from January to May 2010, was to analyse theeffect of CSFs on IT governance performance in public sector organizations from adeveloping country: Tanzania. Given the nature of the problem, context and aim, weused a survey research method that studies a population sample and provides thepossibility to generalize (Fowler, 2002).

4.1 The population and sampleDefining the concerned population and the subsequent determination of a sample frame,method and size are paramount for a less-biased sample and the ability to generalize(Kothari, 2004). Our study population consisted of public sector organizations, mainlyministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), of which there are currently 75 (PO-PSM,2010). The unit of analysis was individuals consisting of IT and business managementpersonnel, mainly directors of departments and heads or managers of units. Thesampling frame was mainly the Tanzanian Government directory, which providedcontacts for MDAs (PO-PSM, 2010). Disproportional stratification was applied prior tosample selection to avoid under-representing IT or business respondents. Since thedirectory did not have e-mail addresses for all individuals, it was mainly complementedby the participants list of a workshop of capacity building on effective management ofIT. This list with e-mail addresses resulted from invitations to MDAs requesting theparticipation of both IT and business management personnel.

The determination of the minimum sample size took into consideration the use ofPLS and Monte Carlo simulations on confirmatory factor analysis (Marsh et al., 1998)from which the results suggested minimum sample sizes that can be calculated asfollows:

n $ 50r2 2 450r1100 Therefore n $ 100

where,n is the minimum sample size;r is the ratio of indicators to latent variable, forwhich in this case the maximum ratio is 5.

This consideration resulted in a minimum required sample size of 100. Also, it iscomplemented by Urbach and Ahlemann (2010), who indicated minimumrecommendations that range from 30 to 100 cases. However, for many social researchstudies like this, the response rates are typically 40-50 percent (Salkind, 2005). Takingintoaccountaminimumsizeof100andarateof50percenttobeonthesafeside,togetherwith the fact that the respondents were mainly heads of departments or units who tend tohave a busy schedule in such an environment, 198 questionnaires in total were sent out.Given our unit of analysis, these questionnaires were sent directly to two to threeindividual respondents in each MDA.

4.2 Operationalization of the studyThe operationalization was based on the research model in Figure 2. The CSFs as IVwere tested by the 11 developed hypotheses, each with 3-5 measurement items


1427


11/31

(MacCallum et al., 1999) on the level of their fulfilment in the organization on a five-pointLikert scale, i.e. 1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 undecided, 4 agree and5 strongly agree (Kothari, 2004). IT governance performance as a DV was tested byfour objectives (outcomes) on the influence of their measure of success (Q2) weighted by

how important they are (Q1) in their organizations. This was achieved by Weill andRosss (2004) performance measurement instrument scaled not important/notsuccessful to very important/very successful. The measurement items and source ofconstruct are found in Appendix 1.

The DV result for each respondent was computed by the formula below (Weill andRoss, 2004):

Governance performance

Pn124importance of outcome{Q1}*influence of IT governance{Q2}

*100P

n1245importance of outcome

All the measurement items were developed into a self-administered survey

questionnaire (Fowler, 2002) and distributed mainly through e-mail and in somecases physical delivery. This also applies to reminders, a stage at which weadditionally used phones.

4.3 Data analysis approachThe analysis is mainly based on the developed research model (Figure 2) and the use ofPLS: variance-based structural equation modelling and second-generation dataanalysis techniques (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Wold, 1985). PLS is useful for testingstatistical conclusion validity (Cook and Campbell, 1979). It answers a set ofinterrelated research questions in a single, systematic and comprehensive analysis bymodelling the relationships among multiple independent and dependent constructssimultaneously (Gefenet al., 2000). Differently, from multiple regressions, it assesses

relationship pathways simultaneously, thus there are no statistical issues with a lack ofconnection between runs. It also tends to be resilient in the face of multicollinearity anddistribution-free (Gustafsson and Johnson, 2004; Garson, 2008). It was adopted in ourstudy due to the Likert scales non-parametric nature and the high number of IV thuslikely elements of multicollinearity. Also, it has been used widely in informationsystems research (Urbach and Ahlemann, 2010). Specifically, we used SmartPLS,a prevalent PLS with favourable requirements, methodological options, readilyavailable support and ease of use (Ringleet al., 2005; Urbach and Ahlemann, 2010).

The test for the proposed research model is based on two PLS key components: themeasurement and structural models (Fornell and Bookstein, 1982; Hairet al., 1995). Theformer focuses on the relationship between the unobserved variables not directlymeasured (latent variables) and the measurable items (manifest variables). The latterfocuses on the hypothesized relationships, i.e. paths, between latent variables.Following our research model (Figure 2) and operationalization details, Table Iindicates the latent and manifest variables and respective short codes for reference inthis study.

The measurement model was assessed in terms of convergent and discriminantvalidity with a focus on fit and constructs validity. The convergent validity was metwhen each measurement item correlated strongly with its proposed construct (Table II).This also applies to discriminant validity, which was met when each measurement

IMDS111,9

1428


12/31

item correlated weakly with all the other constructs except for the one with which it isproposed to be associated.

The structural model was assessed for our hypotheses test. It focused on the ability ofthe DV to explain variance in the IV and the significance of path coefficients (Table II).

The analysis was complemented by the use of SPSS to store and producedescriptive statistics.

IV/DV variables(latent variables) Short code

Measurement items(manifest variables) No. of items

H1 ITLeadp ITLeadp1 to ITLeadp3 3H2 SenMag SenMag1 to SenMag4 4H3 ComPart ComPart1 to ComPart5 5H4 KeyStak KeyStak1 to KeyStak3 3H5 ITCorStr ITCorStr1 to ITCorStr5 5H6 ITStruc ITStruc1 to ITStruc5 5H7 PolGuid PolGuid1 to PolGuid5 5H8 ITInfr ITInfr1 to ITInfr3 3H9 ITGAwTr ITGAwTr1 to ITGAwTr3 3H10 ITProf ITProf1 to ITProf3 3H11 PerfMeas PerfMeas1 to PerfMeas4 4IT governance performance ITGPerf ITGPerfCalMeas Compared using four items

Note:Variables/items names in Appendix 1

Table I.Research model variables

and short codes

Type of ass. Criteria Guideline Source

Measurementmodel

Convergent validity

Item loading $0.4 Hairet al. (2006)Composite reliability .0.5 Fornell and Larcker (1981)AVE $0.5 Fornell and Larcker (1981)Cronbachs alpha coefficient $0.7 Gefen and Straub (2005)t-value of outer loading $1.96 Gefen and Straub (2005)

Discriminant validityItem cross loadings to

construct correlations

Item loads on its own

construct $ to otherconstructs Gefen and Straub (2005)Square root of AVE of eachconstruct correlation withothers

Square root of AVEbetween construct and itsmeasures $ to otherconstructs

Gefen and Straub (2005),Fornell and Larcker (1981)

Structuralmodel Variance (R2)

Variance in DV $0.5 Hairet al. (1995)Path coefficients significance

Path coefficients$0.1 small, $0.3moderate, $0.5 strong Cohen (1988)

Significance of pathcoefficients (t-value) $1.96 (0.05), $2.58 (0.001) Hairet al. (1995)

Table II.Criteria for assessment

of measurement andstructural models


1429


13/31

4.4 Pilot studyA pilot test was performed to verify the internal consistency of the construct (Fowler,2002) based on 25 individuals from 25 MDAs. The selection was based on the TanzanianGovernment directory, balance of IT/business personnel and related experience and the

availability of an individual to comment on and try out the questionnaire for correctnessand time needed to complete it. The results showed minor issues, for instance, with thewording in the introduction and constructs. Adjustments were also made to somemeasures forH6and an item was added inH7. The time to complete the questionnairewas an average of 30 minutes, which is considered acceptable (Rea and Parker, 2005).Moreover, the pilot showed that the preliminary estimates of the reliability and validityof construct measurement, i.e. average variance extracted (AVE), Cronbachs alpha andcomposite reliability, were acceptable above 0.5, 0.7 and 0.5, respectively (Fornell andLarcker, 1981; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) (Table III).

5. Results5.1 Sample characteristicsOut of 198 questionnaires sent out, a total of 137 were returned, accounting for69 percent. However, two of them were only half completed, thus the usable onestotalled 135, corresponding to 68 percent. These were from 51 out of 75 MDAs to whichquestionnaires had been sent for individuals. The distribution based on organizationtype and the role of individuals is shown in Table IV.

Furthermore, the sample characteristic was indicated by respondents experience inthe use and management of IT that mostly were beyond five years. Also, regardingfamiliarity with IT governance implementation, the majority indicated being four on afive-point Likert scale (Table IV).

5.2 Test of the measurement model

The criteria discussed for data analysis (Table II) were used to validate themeasurement model. Two main validity aspects were tested, i.e. convergent anddiscriminant validity.

Convergent validity. Convergent validity was assessed by item reliability and thelowest item loading score was 0.658 (Figure 3), thus above the minimum requirement of0.4 (Hair et al., 2006). The corresponding t-values of outer loading were greater than2.58 for all the loaded measurement items, thus highly significant at 0.001 (Appendix 2).

Construct AVE Cronbachs a Composite reliability

ITLeadp (H1) 0.6382 0.7987 0.8976SenMag (H2) 0.7604 0.8177 0.9406

ComPart (H3) 0.8003 0.8471 0.9231KeyStak (H4) 0.6463 0.7877 0.8449ITCorStr (H5) 0.8345 0.8731 0.9380ITStruc (H6) 0.7714 0.8493 0.9099PolGuid (H7) 0.5715 0.8547 0.9259ITlnfr (H8) 0.6901 0.7952 0.8693ITGAwTr (H9) 0.7462 0.8088 0.9216ITProf (H10) 0.5641 0.8650 0.8988PerfMeas (H11) 0.6824 0.8907 0.8952

Table III.Pilot constructs validity

IMDS111,9

1430


14/31

Frequency Percentage

1. Respondents organization type (n 135)Ministry 58 43.0

Department 6 4.4Agency 71 52.6

2. Role in the organization (IT or business) (n 135) directors and heads/managers

IT 89 65.9Business 46 34.1

3. Experience and familiaritya MedianExperience of use of IT (years) 5Experience of managing IT (years) 5Familiarity with IT governance 4

Notes: aOn a five-point Likert scale (1 not at all, 5 beyond five years); (1 not at all, 5 to a greatextent)

Table IV.Sample characteristics

Figure 3.Some results of the

measurement model andstructural model values


1431


15/31

Convergent validity was also checked by assessing the internal consistency of theconstructs through composite reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The resultsindicated to be above the threshold of 0.5, ranging between 0.844 and 1. This also appliesto the traditional measure of consistency (Cronbachs alpha), which was between 0.773

and 1 and thus above the threshold of 0.7. Similarly, internal consistency was assessedby the more conservative test, i.e. AVE, and the result was 0.521, thus above threshold of0.5. These three internal consistency values: AVE, Cronbachs alpha and compositereliability are shown in Figure 3.

Discriminant validity. This validity was measured in two steps. The first oneexamined the item cross loading related to a construct. This test indicated the loadingsof the items on their constructs to be higher (shaded) than the related cross loadings(Appendix 3). In the second step and following Fornell and Larcker (1981), we checkedthe square root of AVE for each construct and associated intercorrelations. The resultsindicated the square root of AVE to exceed the corresponding intercorrelations asshown in Table V. Therefore, both steps met criteria for this validity.

5.3 Test of the structural model and hypothesesThe criteria discussed for data analysis (Table II) were used for structural model andhypotheses tests. The DVs ability to explain the variance in the IV and the significanceof path coefficients were tested. The result indicated that 87 percent of the variance inIT governance performance (Figure 3) can be explained by the 11 hypotheses, thusabove 50 percent (Hairet al., 1995). It also indicated the positive path coefficients to bein the range of 0.170-0.515 (Figure 3; Table VI), which, according to Cohen (1988),is between small and strong relationship strength. This also applies to the t-values(significance) generated by SmartPLS bootstrapping, which were above 1.96.

Therefore, the 11 hypotheses were significant, though variably: 0.05 (above 1.96)and 0.001 (above 2.58). These results of CSFs influence on IT governance performance

are further presented in five IT governance focus areas, i.e. IT strategic alignment,value delivery, risk management, resource management and performance management(ITGI, 2003; Buckby et al., 2008).

IT strategic alignment. The hypotheses (CSFs) from this focus area were significantweak to strong positive effects with involve and get support of senior managementbeing the highest (g 0.515, t 4.645) in the whole study. Next, in this focus areawere engage key stakeholders (g 0.180, t 2.463) and encourage and support

Construct H3 H5 H9 H8 H1 H10 H6 H4 H11 H7 H2

ComPart (H3) 0.77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ITCorStr (H5) 0.6994 0.87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ITGAwTr (H9) 0.6647 0.6808 0.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ITInfr (H8) 0.4751 0.4744 0.4404 0.87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ITLeadp (H1) 0.6409 0.6506 0.5946 0.5332 0.85 0 0 0 0 0 0ITProf (H10) 0.6677 0.666 0.6394 0.4421 0.644 0.86 0 0 0 0 0ITStruc (H6) 0.6129 0.6639 0.6269 0.5144 0.6795 0.5927 0.79 0 0 0 0KeyStak (H4) 0.6246 0.6675 0.5985 0.3856 0.6549 0.5947 0.5957 0.85 0 0 0PerfMeas (H11) 0.6764 0.6481 0.6517 0.465 0.6451 0.6278 0.6172 0.618 0.83 0 0PolGuid (H7) 0.6028 0.5056 0.5242 0.3624 0.5311 0.5518 0.5068 0.4347 0.4671 0.72 0SenMan (H2) 0.6691 0.6241 0.613 0.5381 0.6203 0.6272 0.6392 0.6245 0.643 0.5105 0.79

Table V.Intercorrelation ofconstructs and thecorresponding squareroot of AVE

IMDS111,9

1432


16/31

IT/business communication and partnership (g 0.392, t 2.290). Though theyhave small to moderate path coefficient strength, their significant effect indicates theirinfluence. This also applies to define and align IT strategies to corporate strategiesand cascade them down in an organization (g 0.396,t 2.973) and consolidate ITstructures to ensure responsiveness and accountability (g 0.316,t 2.654). Finally,IT leadership to understand the business goals and IT contribution and bring it to theattention of the management (g 0.201, t 2.925) attained small path coefficientstrength yet with a highly significant effect.

IT value delivery and risk management. Consolidate, communicate and enforcepolicies and guidelines for cost-effective acquisition and use of IT across theorganization had a small path coefficient but with a significant positive effect

(g 0.285,t 2.460). This positive significant effect indicated the importance of sucha practice to IT governance performance.

IT resource management. The correlated effects in this focus area were indicated bysmall but significant path coefficients. Significance of provide IT governanceawareness and training for optimal IT use (g 0.201,t 2.149) and attract, developand retain competitive IT professionals (g 0.176,t 2.037) emphasized sustainablecompetencies for success. Consolidate, standardize and manage IT infrastructure andapplication to optimize costs and information flow across the organization (g 0.170,t 2.338) surprisingly had the least path coefficient strength in the whole study.

IT performance management. This area consisted of consolidate performancemeasures and benchmarks to track and demonstrate success. It showed a small butsignificant effect (g 0.210, t 2.351) and thus its importance to IT governance

performance.

6. DiscussionAs we saw, the results indicated a significant effect of CSFs on IT governanceperformance. Involve and get support of senior management being the mostsignificant in the whole study, is certainly due to its importance in resource prioritizationand the strategic use of IT given the scarce resources and still competing basic needs inthis environment (Nfuka et al., 2009). This also applies to the fact that users tend

Construct Path coeff. ( g) t-values (t)

SenMan (H2) 0.515 4.645 * *

ITCorStr (H5) 0.396 2.973 * *

ITStruc (H6) 0.316 2.654 * *ITLeadp (H1) 0.201 2.925 * *

ComPart (H3) 0.392 2.290 *

PolGuid (H7) 0.285 2.460 *

PerfMeas (H11) 0.210 2.351 *

ITGAwTr (H9) 0.201 2.149 *

KeyStak (H4) 0.180 2.463 *

ITProf (H10) 0.176 2.037 *

ITInfr (H8) 0.170 2.338 *

Notes:Strength and significance of path coefficients; path coefficient significance (Hairet al.(1995)):significant at: *0.05 (t. 1.96) and * *0.001 (t. 2.58); path coefficient strength (Cohen (1988)):(,0.1 small, ,0.3 moderate, ,0.5 strong)

Table VI.Testing of hypotheses


1433


17/31

to conform to their bosses expectations and what they follow-up closely (Nfuka andRusu, 2010a). The finding complements Weill and Rosss (2004) study, which found thatIT being a vital part of business strategies and operations implies a need for greaterinvolvement at such a level for higher IT governance performance.

While engage key stakeholders and encourage and support IT/businesscommunication and partnership had small to moderate path coefficient strength, theformers significant effect is certainly due to cross-agency functions, thus a need forcommon goals and actions. This contributes to stakeholder theory, which emphasizesinside-in and inside-out stakeholder involvement for success (Freeman, 1984). Thelatters significant effect is certainly due to the required shared understanding of ITspotential for business people and business imperatives for IT people (Nfuka and Rusu,2010a). This complements Leeet al.(2008) study, which found a need for awareness ofeach others imperatives to attain higher performance and value from IT.

Define and align IT strategies with corporate strategies and cascade them down inan organization and consolidate IT structures to ensure responsiveness andaccountability showed high significance. This is certainly due to the shown importanceof aligned and cascaded IT/business strategies down to operational levels and rightstructures across the widespread MDAs (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a). They complementstudies like that of Guldentops (2004), which showed that governance success requiressuch alignment in defining and eventually implementing these strategies andHuang et al. (2010) on correct governance structures. This also applies to Weill and Ross(2004) and governance theory (Garson, 2008) on fact that the more you cascade themdown taking into account the organizational experiences of those at the operational level,the more effective will be the implementation. Additionally IT leadershipto understandthe business goals and IT contribution and to bring it to the attention of themanagement, though highly significant, its small path coefficient strength wassurprising given its much-attributed effectiveness (de Haes and van Grembergen, 2008).

However, this indicates how important other basic aspects still are, like high-levelsupport and structures for this to happen.

Furthermore, even with a small path coefficient, the significance effect ofconsolidate, communicate and enforce policies and guidelines for cost-effectiveacquisition and use of IT across the organization showed its importance in suchwidespread MDAs. This is certainly due to the controls; changes and enforcements vitalfor people to abide by when performing IT-enabled functions (Nfuka and Rusu, 2007,2010b). It complements the studies of Weill (2004) and Huanget al.(2010) that found aneed of such practice for higher IT governance performance.

Also, the significance of provide IT governance awareness and training for optimalIT use indicated its importance due to the required competencies for cost-effectivemanagement and the use of IT in this environment (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a). This also

applies to attract, develop and retain competitive IT professionals, which emphasizedattracting and sustaining such competencies. These complement the studies of Peterson(2004) and Tan et al. (2009), which found governance-related awareness andcompetencies vital for higher IT governance performance. Additionally, thoughconsolidate, standardizeand manage IT infrastructure and application to optimize costsand information flow across the organization has been a major concern (Peterson, 2004;Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a), its smallest path coefficient significance shows the priority to bestill on the basics like awareness, structures and alignment for this to happen.

IMDS111,9

1434


18/31

Moreover, the significance of consolidate performance measures and benchmarksto track and demonstrate success was certainly due to the importance of setting andadhering to performance benchmarks in such an environment with diverse roles andaccountabilities (Nfuka and Rusu, 2010a). This also applies to demonstrating IT

success with both IT and business metrics (ITGI, 2003) and the best value ratherthan profit nature of the public sector (Sethibe et al., 2007). It complements studieslike that of van Grembergen and de Haes (2009) on performance measurable beyondconventional accounting and Weill and Ross (2004) on the cost-effective use of IT andservice improvement. However, it differs from Ali and Green (2007), who found nosupport for corporate performance systems. This could be due to necessary activeperformance measures and demonstration of success for current and future IT supportand prioritization, for example.

Finally, even with constraints on IT resources, knowledge and culture, these 11 CSFsthat cut across IT governance focus areas showed a positive influence on ITgovernance performance. This suggests a foundation for IT governance improvementin the form of a CSF model for effective IT governance (Figure 4). The model linksCSFs and IT governance performance and includes contextual elements for the formerand governance outcomes for the latter.

7. Concluding remarks and future researchThis paper analyses the effect of 11 CSFs for effective IT governance on IT governanceperformance in public sector organizations in the developing country of Tanzania.A research model for this study was developed and tested statistically using sampledata from 51 organizations. In accordance with our data analysis approach mainlyusing PLS-based structural equation modelling, these CSFs across five IT governancefocus areas showed a significant small to strong positive correlated effect on IT

governance performance.One CSF, namely involve and get support of senior management, indicatedstrong path coefficient strength and a highly significant effect on IT governanceperformance. The rest of the CSFs had a significant effect and small to moderate pathcoefficient strength with consolidate, standardize and manage IT infrastructure andapplication to optimize costs and information flow across the organization being thesmallest.

These CSFs, even with the constraints on IT resources, knowledge and culture,have shown significant positive correlated effects on IT governance performance.ThissuggestsafoundationforITgovernanceimprovementintheformofaCSFmodelforeffective IT governance in this environment. The results from this study also haveimportant implications both for practitioners and for the academic world.

From a practitioners viewpoint, the results imply that decision makers can optimizetheir IT-related plans and use of scarce resources by concentrating on the CSFs thathave a significant effect to IT governance performance and could lead to animprovement of public service delivery. Specifically, they imply:

. Active involvementof senior management, stakeholders as wellas both IT/businesspersonnel in IT functions. This can increase IT resources prioritization and optimaluse in this environment with scarce resources and IT becoming a vital part ofbusiness strategies and operations.


1435


19/31

. Alignment of IT with business strategies and enabling IT structures. This canmake possible successful integration of IT with effects in the public service

delivery improvement in and across these widespread organizations.. Consolidationand communication of IT-governance-related policiesand guidelines.

This can enhance the control, changes and enforcement of IT-governance-relatedpolicies and guidelines for performing IT-enabled functions.

. IT governance awareness, training as well as attracting and retainingcompetitive IT leadership and professionals. This can strengthen and sustainrequired competencies for harmonized, standardized and cost-effective ITapplications in this environment.

Figure 4.CSF model for effective ITgovernance in the publicsector organizations froma developing country

Contextual Elements Critical Success Factors

Strategic Alignment

Value Delivery & Risk Management

IT

governance

Performance

Resource Management

Performance Measurement

IT leadership to understand the business goals and IT

contribution and bring it to the management attention

IT leadership Business

understand goals/imperatives

Top/business management

understand IT opportunities

IT leadership competencies

Political support

Committed top management

Action oriented involvement

Resource prioritization

IT/Business communication

IT opportunities/business goals

IT/Business cooperation

Broader view of needs/approach

to solution/e-government

Leapfrog widely use of IT

Shared services

IT strategic plan/communicating

IT/Business alignment

IT Integration in perf. reforms

Cost-effectiveuse of IT

Effective use of

IT for growth

Effective use of

IT for resources

utilization

Effective use of

IT for business

flexibility

Active IT committeesRole & responsibilities/categories

Experts/managers accountability

IT usage enforcement with

rewards/punishment

Sharing IT resources

Return on Investment

Controls- value preservation

Meager IT resources/Asset

utilization

Optimize costs, information

flow & increase responsiveness

Providing IT facilities

Standardized and sharable IT

resources

Governance of IT awareness

and know-how

Change of MindsetBest practices

Reasonable remunerations

IT/Business Competencies

Innovations/Sustainability skills

Active performance measures

Demonstrate IT success/

Contribution

Performance aligned rewards &

penalties

Involve and get support of senior management

Encourage and support IT/Business communication and

partnership

Engage key stakeholders

Define and align IT strategies to corporate strategies and

cascade them down in an organization

Consolidate IT structures to ensure responsiveness and

accountability

Consolidate, standardize and manage IT infrastructure and

application to optimize costs and infromation flow across

the organization

Consolidate, communicate and enforce policies and

guidelines for cost-effective acquisition and use of IT

across the organization

Provide IT governance awareness and training for optimal

IT use

Attract, develop and retain competitive IT professionals

Consolidate performance measures and benchmarks to

track and demonstrate success

Note:Case of Tanzania

IMDS111,9

1436


20/31

. IT business-value-oriented performance measures and benchmarking in thisenvironment. This can strengthen demonstration of success and enablement ofcontinuous business-oriented improvement and higher contribution of IT tobusiness.

From an academicians point of view, the findings can be used to widen the CSFs scopefor effective IT governance, for instance, across five IT governance focus areas and adimension of public sector organizations in a developing country setting. Also, it canbe used to validate the existing IT governance frameworks usefulness like COBIT. Forinstance, activity goals to achieve COBITs IT processes could be strengthened basedon results of and insights of the revealed CSFs effects, e.g. enforcing IT policies incommunicate management aims and direction.

Moreover, the findings may present an interesting avenue for further research onCSFs. One way could be to use them to develop guidelines for improving ITgovernance performance. For example, this could be in the form of a CSFs frameworkfor implementing effective IT governance in this environment. It would also beinteresting to involve more than one developing country in a single study to compareand broaden the insights into CSFs effect on IT governance performance in publicsector organizations. This approach will also extend the generalizability fromorganizations within the country to similar developing countries.

References

Ali, S. and Green, P. (2007), IT governance mechanisms in public sector organizations:an Australian context,Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 41-63.

Bakari, J.B. (2007), Holistic approach for managing ICT security in non-commercialorganizations: a case in a developing country, doctoral thesis, Stockholm University,

Stockholm.Bowen, P.L., Cheung, M.D. and Rohdeb, F.H. (2007), Enhancing IT governance practices:

a model and case study of an organizations efforts, International Journal of AccountingInformation Systems, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 191-221.

Buckby, S., Best, P. and Stewart, J. (2008), The current state of information technologygovernance literature, in Cater-Steel, A. (Ed.), Information Technology Governance andService Management Frameworks and Adaptations, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA,pp. 1-43.

Caralli, R.A. (2004), The critical success factor method: establishing a foundation for enterprisesecurity management, Technical Report CMU/SEI-2004-TR-010, Software EngineeringInstitute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd ed. ,

Lawrence-Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field

Settings, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL.

de Haes, S. and van Grembergen, W. (2008), An exploratory study into the design of an ITgovernance minimum baseline through Delphi research, Communications of the AIS,Vol. 22 No. 24, pp. 443-58.

Esteves, J. (2004), Definition and analysis of critical success factors for ERP implementationprojects, doctoral thesis, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona.


1437


21/31

Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F.L. (1982), Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS appliedto consumer exit-voice theory, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 440-52.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. (1981), Structural equation models with unobservable variables andmeasurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Fortune, J. and White, D. (2006), Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model,International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, pp. 53-65.

Fowler, F.J. (2002), Survey Research Methods, 3rd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.

Garson, G.D. (2008), Partial least squares regression and governance theory, Statnotes: Topicsin Multivariate Analysis, available at: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm (accessed 15 December 2010).

Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (2005), A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: tutorialand annotated example, Communications of the AIS, Vol. 16 No. 25, pp. 91-109.

Gefen, D., Straub, D. and Boudreau, M. (2000), Structural equation modeling techniques andregression: guidelines for research practice, Communications of the AIS, Vol. 7, pp. 1-78.

Gil-Garcia, J.R. and Pardo, T.A. (2005), E-government success factors: mapping practical tools totheoretical foundations, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 187-216.

Guldentops, E. (2004), Key success factors for implementing IT governance: lets not wait forregulators to tell us what to do, Information Systems Control Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 22-3.

Guldentops, E., van Grembergen, W. and de Haes, S. (2002), Control and governance maturitysurvey: establishing a reference benchmark and a self-assessment tool, InformationSystems Control Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 32-5.

Gustafsson, A. and Johnson, M.D. (2004), Determining attribute importance in a servicesatisfaction model, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 124-41.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis,Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006),Multivariate Data Analysis,6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Huang, R., Zmud, R.W. and Price, R.L. (2010), Influencing the effectiveness of IT governancepractices through steering committees and communication policies, European Journal of

Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 288-302.

Imran, A. and Gregor, S. (2007), A comparative analysis of strategies for e-government indeveloping countries, Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, Vol. 2 No. 3,pp. 89-99.

IP (2010), Tanzania launches first phase of national fibre backbone, Information Policy Blog(IP), available at: www.i-policy.org/2010/05/tanzania-launches-first-phase-of-national-fibre-backbone.html (accessed 30 May 2010).

ITGI (2003), Board Briefing on IT Governance, 2nd ed., available at: www.itgi.org (accessed7 January 2010).

ITGI and PwC (2006), IT governance in practice: insight from leading CIOs, available at: www.itgi.org (accessed 3 April 2010).

IWS (2010), Internet World Statistics (IWS), available at: www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm(accessed 15 June 2010).

Kothari, C.R. (2004), Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, 2nd ed., New AgePublications, New Delhi.

IMDS111,9

1438


22/31

Lawry, R. and Waddell, D. (2008), Roles, responsibilities and futures of chief information officers(CIOs), International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 163-75.

Lee, S.M., Kim, K., Paulson, P. and Park, H. (2008), Developing a socio-technical framework forbusiness-ITalignment,Industrial Management & Data Systems,Vol.108No.9,pp.1167-81.

Luftman, J., Papp, R. and Brier, T. (1999), Enablers and inhibitors of business-IT alignment,Communications of the AIS, Vol. 1 No. 11, pp. 1-32.

MacCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Zhang, S. and Hong, S. (1999), Sample size in factor analysis,Psychological Methods, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 84-99.

Maimu, D. (2006), Poor ICT policy cost government billions, says expert, Daily News, Seminarfor district officers in Tanzania, available at: http://dailynews-tsn.com/page.php?id4006(accessed 1 March 2010).

Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., Balla, J.R. and Grayson, D. (1998), Is more ever too much? The numberof indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis,Multivariate Behavioral Research,Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 181-220.

Mutagahywa, B., Kinyeki, C. and Ulanga, J. (2007), A review of e-government related

interventions in PSRP I and advice on a strategy framework towards PSRP II, availableat: www.utumishi.go.tz/index.php?optioncom_docman&taskcat_view&gid62&Itemid57 (accessed 1 February 2010).

Ndou, V.D. (2004), E-government for developing countries: opportunities and challenges, TheElectronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-24.

Nfuka, E.N. and Rusu, L. (2007), Management of IT-enabled change in a public organization inTanzania,International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management, Vol. 2No. 4, pp. 334-49.

Nfuka, E.N. and Rusu, L. (2010a), Critical success factors for effective IT governance in thepublic sector organizations in a developing country: the case of Tanzania, in Trish, A.,Turpin, M. and van Deventer, J.P. (Eds),Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on

Information Systems, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, pp. 1-15.

Nfuka, E.N. and Rusu, L. (2010b), The IT governance maturity in the public sector organizationsin a developing country: the case of Tanzania, Proceedings of the 16th AmericasConference on Information Systems, Lima, Peru, AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), Atlanta,GA, pp. 1-12.

Nfuka, E.N., Rusu, L., Johannesson, P. and Mutagahywa, B. (2009), The state of IT governancein organizations from the public sector in a developing country, Proceedings of the 42nd

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, IEEE ComputerSociety Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1-12.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Peterson, R.R. (2004), Crafting information technology governance for todays turbulentenvironment, Information Systems Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 7-21.

PO-PSM (2010), About President Office, Public Service Management (PO-PSM) and related factsfor this study, available at: www.utumishi.go.tz (accessed 15 March 2010).

Rea, L.M. and Parker, R.A. (2005), Designing and Conducting Survey Research: A ComprehensiveGuide, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Ribbers, P.M.A., Peterson, R.R. and Parker, M.M. (2002), Designing IT governance processes:diagnosing contemporary practices and competing theories, Proceedings of the 35th

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, Computer SocietyPress, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 1-12.


1439


23/31

Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0(M3) Beta, University of Hamburg,Hamburg, available at: www.smartpls.de (accessed 22 December 2010).

Rockart, J. and van Bullen, C. (1986), A primer on CSFs, in Rockart, J. and Bullen, C.V. (Eds),The Rise of Managerial Computing, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL, pp. 383-423.

Rusu, L. and Paul Tenga, R. (2010), IT governance in healthcare sector: a case study of a publicand private hospital in Tanzania, International Journal of Information Systems andChange Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 314-37.

Salkind, N.J. (2005), Exploring Research, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Sethibe, T., Campbell, J. and McDonald, C. (2007), IT governance in public sector organisations:examining the differences and defining future research directions,Proceedings of the 18th

Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Toowoomba, Australia, University ofSouthern Queensland, Toowoomba, pp. 833-42.

Simonsson, M. and Johnson, P. (2005), Defining IT governance a consolidation of literature,working paper, Department of Industrial Information and Control Systems, Royal Instituteof Technology (KTH), Stockholm, 15 November.

Simonsson, M., Johnson, P. and Ekstedt, M. (2010), The effect of IT governance maturity on ITgovernance performance, Information Systems Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 10-24.

Tan, W., Cater-Steel, A. and Toleman, M. (2009), Implementing IT service management: a casestudy focussing on CSFs, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 50 No. 2,pp. 1-12.

TCRA (2010), Tele-density Statistics: Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority (TCRA),available at: www.tcra.go.tz/publications/telecomStatsJune10.html (accessed 30 July 2010).

Teo, S. and Ang, J. (1999), Critical success factors in the alignment of IS plans with businessplans, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 173-85.

UN (2010), United Nations e-Government Survey 2010, available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN-DPADM/UNPAN038853.pdf (accessed 15 May2010).

UNDP (2010), Human Development Report 2010, available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete.pdf (accessed 15 November 2010).

Urbach, N. and Ahlemann, F. (2010), Structural equation modeling in information systemsresearch using partial least squares, Journal of IT Theory & Application, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 5-40.

van Grembergen, W. and de Haes, S. (2009), Enterprise Governance of Information Technology:Achieving Strategic Alignment and Value, Springer, New York, NY.

Ward, J. and Peppard, J. (2002), Strategic Planning for Information Systems, 3rd ed., Wiley,Chichester, pp. 41, 211.

Warland, C. and Ridley, G. (2005), Awareness of IT control frameworks in an Australian stategovernment: a qualitative case study, Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International

Conference on System Sciences, Kona, HI, IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC,pp. 1-10.

Weill, P. (2004), Dont just lead, govern: how top-performing firms govern IT, MIS QuarterlyExecutive, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Weill, P. and Ross, J.W. (2004), IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rightsfor Superior Results, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Wold, H. (1985), Partial least squares, in Kotz, S. and Johnson, N.L. (Eds), Encyclopedia ofStatistical Sciences, Vol. 6, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 581-91.

IMDS111,9

1440


24/31

Appendix 1

Variable

Measurement

items(towhatextentcanthe

followinginfl

uencepositivelyITgovernance

performanceinyourorganization?)

Source

ITleadershiptoundersta

ndthebusinessgoals

andITcontributionand

tobringittothe

attentionofthemanagem

ent(H1)

EffectiveITleadershipcompetencies

Luftmanetal.(1999),LawryandWaddell(2008),

deHaesandvanGrembergen(2008),Nfukaand

Rusu(2010a)

ITleadership

understandingofbusinessgoals/

imperativesa

ndactionableITintervention

Management

teamunderstandingofIT

opportunities

andcontribution

Involveandgetsupportofseniormanagement

(H2)

Seniormanag

ementsupporttostrategicuseof

IT

Luftmanetal.(1999),TeoandAng(1999),Weill

an

dRoss(2004),Tanetal.(2009),Nfuk

aand

Rusu(2010a),Huangetal.(2010)

Seniormanag

ementaction-oriented

involvement

High-levelpoliticalsupporttostrategicuseofIT

IT-relatedres

ourcesprioritization

EncourageandsupportI

T/business

communicationandpartnership(H3)

Sharedunder

standingofbusinessITgoals,

strategiesand

imperatives

TeoandAng(1999),Luftmanetal.(1999),

Bowenetal.(2007),Leeetal.(2008),ITG

I(2003),

NfukaandRusu(2010a)

Businessand

ITcooperationformally/

informally

ITgovernanc

emechanismstransparencyto

managers

Businessinvo

lvementinITinitiativesandvice

versa

Frequentcom

municationbetweenbusinessand

IT

Engagekeystakeholders

(H4)

Buildingcolla

borativerelationshipswithkey

stakeholders

Ribbersetal.(2002),WeillandRoss(20

04),

NfukaandRusu(2010a)

Creatingshar

edunderstandingamongkey

stakeholdersoncommonagenda

Stakeholders

activelyparticipateinITplanning

andimplementationofsharedresources

services

(continued)

Table AI.Variables, questions andsources of constructs in

the study


1441


25/31

Variable

Measurementitems(towhatextentcanthe

following

influencepositivelyITgovernance

performa

nceinyourorganization?)

Source

DefineandalignIT

strategiestocorporate

strategiesandcascadethemdowninan

organization(H5)

AlignmentofITbusinessgoals,strategyand

operation

s

Luftmanetal.(1999),Ribbersetal.

(2002),ITGI

(2003),Guldentops(2004),vanGrembergenand

deHaes(2009),WeillandRoss(2004),Nfuka

andRusu(2010a)

Awell-communicatedITstrategyandpolicy

downto

alllevelsoforganization

Well-alig

nedandprioritizedITprojects

ActiveparticipationofITpeopleincorporate

strategy

andbusinesspeopleinITstrategy

planning

AlignedITtoperformancereformsinpublic

sector

ConsolidateITstructurestoensure

responsivenessandaccountability(H6)

Participa

torydesignedandwidely

communicatedITgovernancemechanismson

ITstruct

urewithafocusonpartnership

ownershipandaccountability

Weill(2004),Guldentops(2004),Bo

wenetal.

(2007),deHaesandvanGrembergen(2008),Tan

etal.(2009),NfukaandRusu(2010

a)

Havinga

ctiveITsteeringcommitteesthat

overseeI

Tinvestment,prioritizationand

operation

s

HavingITprojectcommitteetooversee/monito

r

theprojectactivitiesandoutcome

CIOonexecutivemanagementandreportingto

CEOClearand

adequateroleandresponsibilities/

categorie

s

Consolidate,communicateandenforcepolicies

andguidelinesforco

st-effectiveacquisitionand

useofITacrossthe

organization(H7)

Provision

ofeffectiveITprocessesguidelines

formana

gementandITstaff/users

ITGI(2003),Weill(2004),ITGIand

PwC(2006),

Guldentops(2004),Tanetal.(2009),deHaesand

vanGrembergen(2008),NfukaandRusu(2010a)

ImplementinganITgovernanceandcontrol

framework

(continued)

Table AI.

IMDS111,9

1442


26/31

Variable


following


performa


Source

ITprojec

tgovernance/management

methodologies

ClearIT

budgetcontrol,reportingand

responsibleusage

Enforced

IT-governance-relatedpoliciesand

guideline

s

Consolidate,standardizeandmanageIT

infrastructureandapplicationtooptimizecosts

andinformationflow

acrosstheorganization

(H8)

Effective

provisionandmanagementofIT

facilities

TeoandAng(1999),ITGI(2003),P

eterson

(2004),NfukaandRusu(2010a)

Standard

izedandsharableITinfrastructure

andappl

icationstooptimizecostsand

informationflow

Provisionofefficientandreliableservicesto

userdepartments

ProvideITgovernan

ceawarenessandtraining

foroptimalITuse(H

9)

ProvisionofgovernanceofITtrainingtoIT/

business

managementandexpertsforcost-

effective

managementandoptimaluseofIT

Tanetal.(2009),Weill(2004),War

landand

Ridley(2005),ITGI(2003),Nfukaa

ndRusu

(2010a)

ProvisionofgovernanceofITawarenessto

usersfor

optimalandcost-effectiveuseofIT

IncorporationofchangemanagementinIT

governan

cebestpracticesawarenessand

training

Attract,developand

retaincompetitiveIT

professionals(H10)

AfocusonattractingandretainingcoreIT/

business

competenciesrelatedtoplanning,

developm

entandmanagementofITresources

Peterson(2004),Tanetal.(2009),W

arlandand

Ridley(2005),NfukaandRusu(2010a)

RecognitionandencouragementofIT

innovations,appropriatenessandexcellence

(continued)

Table AI.


1443


27/31

Variable


following


performa


Source

SkilledITpersonnelasworkingcapitalof

successfulIToperations

Consolidateperformancemeasuresand

benchmarkstotrack

anddemonstratesuccess

(H11)

Clearlys

etITtargetsinbusinessoperations,

customerexcellence,skills/innovationand

corporatecontribution

Peterson(2004),Weill(2004),ITGI

andPwC

(2006),AliandGreen(2007),Sethibeetal.(2007),

Tanetal.(2009),ITGI(2003),Nfuk

aandRusu

(2010a)

Clearlys

et,activeandmonitoredperformance

measuresforbusinessvaluefromIT

Demonst

rationofITsuccess/contribution

Performa

nce-alignedrewardsandpenalties

PerceivedoverallIT

governanceperformance

Howimp

ortantarethefollowingoutcomesof

yourITgovernance?(Ql)

WeillandRoss(2004)

Cost-effectiveuseofIT

EffectiveuseofITforgrowth

EffectiveuseofITforresourcesutilization

EffectiveuseofITforbusinessflexibility

WhatistheinfluenceofITgovernanceinyou

r

business

ontheseoutcomes(asmeasuresof

success)?

(Q2)

Table AI.

IMDS111,9

1444


28/31

Appendix 2

Construct

Item

Loading

t-v

alue

Construct

Item

Loading

t-v

alue

ComPart(H3)

C

omPart1

0.6978

14.1201

ITStruc(H6)

ITStruc1

0.8048

28.685

C

omPart2

0.7746

18.7393

ITStruc2

0.7505

15.851

C

omPart3

0.7811

25.1465

ITStruc3

0.8323

23.9953

C

omPart4

0.7614

17.9359

ITStruc4

0.7815

19.1132

C

omPart5

0.8264

33.8818

ITStruc5

0.7903

24.5792

ITCorStr(H5)

ITCorStr1

0.8432

28.4487

KeyStak(H4)

KeyStak1

0.8676

39.9986

ITCorStr2

0.8917

53.836

KeyStak2

0.9146

50.2303

ITCorStr3

0.8719

48.9537

KeyStak3

0.7566

15.9627

ITCorStr4

0.8649

37.0259

PerfMeas(H11)

PerfMeas1

O.8043

27.0603

ITCorStr5

0.8644

46.5652

PerfMeas2

0.825

26.0293

ITGAwTr(H9)

ITGAwTr1

0.8632

32.7141

PerfMeas3

0.8532

39.0568

ITGAwTr2

0.8489

25.845

PerfMeas4

0.8218

25.0513

ITGAwTr3

0.888

46.0158

PolGuid(H7)

PolGuid1

0.6874

9.6161

ITInfr(H8)

ITInfr1

O.8568

32.3175

PolGuid2

0.6605

9.7642

ITInfr2

0.8944

32.2872

PolGuid3

O.8013

22.6378

ITInfr3

0.8612

35.6243

PolGuid4

0.7877

18.4032

ITLeadp(H1)

ITLeadp1

0.8789

28.7775

PolGuid5

0.6577

11.1795

ITLeadp2

0.8966

48.7199

SenMan(H2)

SenMan1

0.7914

29.1383

ITLeadp3

0.7778

18.1476

SenMan2

0.847

28.5762

ITProf(H10)

ITProf1

0.8627

48.8103

SenMan3

0.8218

31.7047

ITProf2

0.8924

43.438

SenMan4

0.6937

13.2616

ITProf3

0.8221

19.5951

Table AII.Outer loading bootstrap

analysis


1445


29/31


30/31

ComPart

ITCorStr

ITGAwTr

ITInfr

ITLeadp

ITProf

ITStruc

Ke

yStak

PerfMeas

PolGuid

SenMa

n

Construct

(H3)

(H5)

(H9)

(H8)

(H1)

(H10)

(H6)

(H4)

(H11)

(H7)

(H2)

ITGPerf

PerfMeas2

0.532

0.563

0.577

0.360

3

0.5016

0.5133

0.4852

0.4577

0.825

0.3663

0.5289

0.64

PerfMeas3

0.62

0.5272

0.4646

0.403

6

0.5704

0.5675

0.5537

0.5324

0.8532

0.4286

0.533

0.6363

PerfMeas4

0.5657

0.5187

0.553

0.320

7

0.5316

0.4903

0.4741

0.5004

0.8218

0.3766

0.5355

0.6148

PolGuid1

0.3693

0.3917

0.2951

0.244

6

0.3422

0.3812

0.3341

0.2415

0.3083

0.6874

0.3578

0.3907

PolGuid2

0.3173

0.2773

0.3331

0.070

1

0.3457

0.4065

0.2211

0.2339

0.2737

0.6605

0.2685

0.38

PolGuid3

0.5812

0.4503

0.5155

0.371

4

0.4219

0.4148

0.4366

0.3923

0.4605

0.8013

0.4612

0.5734

PolGuid4

0.5062

0.3996

0.3771

0.311

4

0.447

0.4741

0.4678

0.4184

0.3513

0.7877

0.4289

0.5432

PolGuid5

0.3325

0.2754

0.3321

0.252

4

0.3429

0.3053

0.3182

0.2246

0.2505

0.6577

0.282

0.3907

SenMan1

0.4531

0.3369

0.3751

0.429

2

0.4831

0.326

0.4488

0.3788

0.4

0.4065

0.7914

0.6299

SenMan2

0.5419

0.51

0.5414

0.400

2

0.5069

0.4861

0.5343

0.5125

0.5573

0.3794

0.847

0.674

SenMan3

0.5538

0.5304

0.5073

0.429

9

0.5021

0.5748

0.5201

0.5169

0.548

0.455

0.8218

0.6398

SenMan4

0.5655

0.5959

0.5099

0.443

7

0.4665

0.5974

0.515

0.5657

0.5234

0.3728

0.6937

0.6144

ITGPCal-Meas

0.6812

0.6763

0.737

0.603

5

0.7642

0.7407

0.7503

0.7119

0.748

0.6452

0.7903

1

Table AIII.


1447


31/31

About the authorsEdephonce N. Nfuka is currently a PhD student in the Department of Computer and SystemsSciences, Stockholm University, Sweden and an employee of University of Dar es Salaam,Tanzania. He holds a degree in Computer Engineering (BSc) from CUJAE in Havana, a degree in

Software Engineering (MSc) from Universitat Polytecnic de Catalunya in Barcelona and a degreeof Licentiate of Philosophy in Computer and Systems Science from Stockholm University,Sweden. He is a Member of the Association for Information Systems (AIS) and InformationSystems Audit and Control Association (ISACA). He has over ten years of industrial andacademic experience in the area of IT management. His current research focuses on ITgovernance, specifically on approaches to IT governance effectiveness in the public sectororganizations in a developing countrys environment/setting. Edephonce N. Nfuka is thecorresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Lazar Rusu is an Associate Professor and Leader of Research Group in IT Managementwithin the Information Systems Laboratory, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences,Stockholm University, Sweden. He holds a degree in Electrical Engineering (MSc) fromCluj-Napoca Polytechnic Institute, a degree in Management (MSc) from Babes-Bolyai UniversityCluj-Napoca, a PhD in Management from West University of Timisoara, Romania and a Docent

in Information Systems from Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Stockholm, Sweden. Duringhis career, he has focused mainly in carrying out research on the management of informationsystems/information technology and has professional experience of over 25 years both inindustry and academia in the area of information technology.

IMDS111,9

1448

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The Effect of Critical... - Artigo - 2011

Documents

Transcript of The Effect of Critical... - Artigo - 2011