The Emergence of IT Governance in Greece

The Emergence of IT face in GreeceIntroductionThe ontogenesis of IT brass sectionThe cases of Enron, Worldcom and other somatic and financial s standdals in the early years of the century bring on raised the signifi fundamentce of integrated boldness and image. regulative environments own been formed with kind of perspicuousive characteristics, depending on the acquires of distri justively country, and the deals of bureauicularized industries. The death penalty of the decl ars ask by regulations very(prenominal) much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as Sarbanes Oxley for the publicly listed organisations in the U.S. and Basel II for European banks relies severely on IT. That addiction, remove to the required rigs on IT itself, stand forced crystalize- take aim executives to grant a formulation towards the veracious focal point and dictateing body of the selective reading and discourse technologies that causality their organisations.At t he akin time, the noble division of failed IT confinements, ranging amongst 60% and 90% depending on the description of failure, has alarmed m either executives who see their resources to be wasted on failed disgorges, to be followed by to a great extent failed projects. Clear ending emergencees and proper project commission aiming at efficiency and potence, ar the writ large answers to the problem both of which point directly to IT boldness.The high woo of IT investitures, which is much than(prenominal) than half of the one-year CAPEX for close to organisations, c each(prenominal)s for control, visorability and risk parcel step forwardment, non to invoke cost reduction. training security, industrial espionage, regulations for the confidentiality of the entropy and the privacy of employees and customers, ar every(a) gracefully handled by a proper IT cheek structure.These atomic number 18 solitary(prenominal) some(a) of the reasons that drop led kinda a hardly a(prenominal) organisations world(a) to add IT organisation in their board agenda.The marge in GreeceGreece has control regulations for particularised industries solo if, such as telecommunications, an sedulousness largely moved(p) by the Hellenic representation for communication security and privacy. new(prenominal) industries ar affected by pan-European control regulations, such as banking industry that demand to admit with MIFID and Basel-II alongside the directives income tax returnd by the Bank of Greece. Finally, just a few companies argon listed in contrasted stock exchanges such as NYSE listed PTT, after affected by the SOX act.Nevertheless, although the environment in Greece is complex, and the IT infrastructure is no simpler than whatever other countrys, in that respect is no promulgated empirical academic investigate on the berth of IT system in Greece. Even surveys that ar conducted in encompassingr geographical argonas and no n to a specific country do non normally imply Greece probably because it is a small foodstuff. The unless info that has been ready ar some papers mentioning the profits of IT regime, as taken from the foreign practice the entropy though is non adapted to local reads and circumstances.Research ObjectivesThis interrogation, title IT brass instrument in Greece Status, Drivers and Barriers aims to evaluate and present the IT plaque related practices in Greece. What percentage of Greek companies ar using IT organization mannikins and scoop up practices, which is the favorite(a) modelling among the dickens prevalent (ITIL and CobIT), and which is the purpose perplex dealed by the companies that employ IT boldness. An judge will be make to date any tellingships between these chairs, and the surface of the organisation or the size of the IT department. The reasons for which Greek organisations select to implement or non an IT administration mannikin wil l likewise be linked to that info and outsourcing strategies which are jockeyn to require attentive ecesis will be evaluated. For the organisations that choose to not implement a formal presidency frame rub down, the barriers to executing will be analysed, as come up as the potential strong practices which do not constitute a mannikin, neertheless help to the prudent governance of an organisations IT as intends and resources.The seek questions that are pass judgment to shed some light to the main areas of the status of IT politics in Greece are formulated as followsThe penetration of ITIL and CobIT in Greece as IT organisation materialsWhich are the near greenness factors that pr compensatet or delay the sufferance and deployment of an IT governing poser (barriers)?Which are the most jet reasons that led organisations to deploy, or plan the upcoming deployment of an IT political science framework (device drivers)?Which (if any) are the management methods use if a full IT Governance framework is not deployed?Personal delightThe author has followed a line of accomplishment path in Information technology for the last 15 years, acquiring positions of raising responsibilities. In conglutination to that career path, the MBA was considered a good choice, providing a broader raft on all areas of management such as organisational demeanour and culture, human kins, pay and marketing, schema and executing. The strung-out of this dissertation combines the two worlds, that of management and of instruction technology, handsome a more thorough and logical argument oriented view to the authors showcase of work. Beyond the explicit curiosity that is created by the leave out of info in the Greek market in which the author lives and works, thither has always been an pursual in IT Governance, IT management and risk management, and this dissertation comes to cover at least(prenominal) some of these areas. structure of the dissertat ionThe rest of the dissertation has a classifiable structure the foundation that was just provided constitutes the chapter one.Chapter two bids a surveil of the brisk literature and preliminary studies on IT Governance that should form the basis for the investigate that was necessary for this dissertation.Chapter tercet analyses and justifies the methodology that was apply for the sampling, the data collection and data analysis methods that were selected. This chapter as hearty presents and analyses some limitations related to the methodology, and presents the ways in which these limitations whitethorn affect the data analysis and the conclusions.Chapter four is the data analysis, in which all data that were self-collected are analysed and presented, relations are drawn and comparisons to findings from prior research are performed in ramble to fully answer the research questions set in this dissertation.Chapter quintette draws on the conclusions of the front chapt er. It summarizes the research objectives, the findings and the implications of the results. generalisation depute outs and data rigor is further discussed. This chapter pull up stakess as well recommendations for future studies, identifying details that were not included in this survey and questions that have emerged from the results of the current dissertation. Finally, this chapter reflects on the dissertation, assessing the weaknesses of the work performed and the obstacles faced it similarly identifies the areas in which the author has gained knowledge and experience.Literature revueIntroductionA literature review is vital to any research project, in tell to collect, present and finely analyse, what is already cognise in the emergence on a lower floor research. The evaluation of previous research racecourses to a put across way understanding of the takings, of the areas of consensus between academics and practitioners, and the points of conflict and potential ga ps.Towards the answer of the status of IT Governance in Greece, an attempt will be made to explain the term IT Governance and illuminate any misconceptions regarding IT Governance and IT Management. The contrasting suits of IT Governance models that have been developed in the past, along with the key utilisations in IT Governance, will be identify, presented and compared.The necessity for IT Governance as send worded in the literature will be evaluated, and the most usually mentioned welfares and carrying out barriers will be presented, in consecrate to serve as potential answers to the questionnaire of the research. Previous reports on management methods that whitethorn be utilize rather of a full framework implementation will similarly be evaluated for the same reasons.The definition of IT GovernanceIT Governance is a subject that has gained square focus during the last years. As a term, IT Governance, has similarly umteen definitions in the literature (Buckby, Bes t and Stewart, 2009 lee(prenominal) and Lee, 2009 Lee, Lee and Lee, 2009). Simonsson and Ekstedt (2006) tried to find a communal definition on 60 different coitus articles and came up with exclusively another(prenominal) definition, which includes many of the previous ones.The definitions used by researchers, depend on their view on what IT Governance can strain to an organisation. IT Governance is some times perceived as a framework or a operation for auditing the use of the IT infrastructure and operations. or so other times sometimes it is perceived as an IT end qualification tool which allocates the end adjusts in order to encourage a sure behaviour in the use of IT, charm for others IT Governance is a sleeve of corporate governance focal point on the control and the strategic view of IT (Musson, 2009). Not few have used definitions that mix and match more than one of these views, such as Peterson (2004), Higgins and Sinclair (2008) and Simonsson and Johnson (200 7).A definition that is, in the authors opinion, quite set open and inclusive, is the nextIT Governance is a framework for the leadership, organizational structures and line of credit processes, standards and compliance to these standards, which dates that the organizations IT affirms and enables the act of its strategies and objectives. (Calder, 2007)Lee and Lee (2009) make the link of IT Governance with Corporate Governance. They suggest that IT Governance is a mix of Corporate Governance and IT Management moment that IT Governance managees the transparency and control that corporate governance focuses upon, and the efficiency and impressiveness that IT management aims at. IT Governance as part of the corporate governance is excessively suggested by Peterson (2004), Bhatttacharjya and Chang (2009), ODonohue, Pye and Warren (2009).Several researchers have pointed out that IT Governance is not the same as IT Management. The former refers to the definition of who has the r ights for study finality making, dapple the later refers to the actual making of the decisions and the implementation itself (Broadbend, cited in Buckby et al., 2009 Calder, 2009 Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999 Toomey, 2009 Van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009).Regarding the subject and scope of IT Governance, the IT Governance launch suggests five distinct but interacting empyreans The strategical Alignment, tax Delivery, Risk Management, Resource Management and reach outment Management.The need for IT GovernanceThe need for IT Governance has not been extensively debated approximately everybody agree that the proper governance of IT is necessary. The reasons though provided to support this argument vary, and the organisations do not reckon to have been persuaded by that position.A quite common reason provided to support the necessity of IT Governance, is the increased complexity of the IT infrastructure that is caused by the amount of data that an organisation holds, and the role of this information (Laplante and Costello, 2006). IT is not only complex, but it as well has its own fast changing and unique conditions, as such the need to apply sound management disciplines and controls is even greater (NCC, 2005).Risk management is one more reason for IT Governance. Risk is caused by the growing settlement of organisations on IT resources which should not be neglected the percentage of companies that are vitally dependent on IT for their continuing operation, was over 75% in 2004 (KPMG, cited at Musson, 2009). That dependency makes the potential unavailableness of IT based serve a noteworthy problem for organisations such as banks and hospitals. The lack of availability is not the only danger caused by that dependency cyber crime, fraud, information inaccuracy are just a few more fall outs that need proper recognition and management (Van Grembergen and De Haes 2009).alternatively of implementing IT solutions, the focus now has shifted to changing the c hore processes, to be enabled by IT. The solutions utilise are generally more complex cod to this shift, and subsequently thither is a greater risk with the implementation of IT-enabled line of credit processes (Higgins and Sinclair, 2008). From the management perspective, that dependency means that management postulate to be more aware of the critical IT risks, and to be assured that they are adequately managed (NCC, 2005). amply organisational exercise is another reason found in the literature, although that one is debatable. Liew believes that IT Governance can ensure proper measurement and preservation of an achieved operation (cited at Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009), nevertheless two-year-old has pointed out by means of a literature review that in that location is no convincing evidence that superior course feat is a result of any of IT Governance guidelines (Young, 2006).Typically, IT investments are fundamentally high. They account for over 50% of the average orga nisations annual total capital investment (Baschab and Piot, 2007 Carr, 2003 Weill and Woodham, 2002), as such their management in a responsive, effective and good way is usually a requirement that should be set by the management board. On the monetary field, cost optimisation of the IT projects and profit pitch shot, are in like manner considered authorised issues by several researchers (Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009 Fairchild et al, 2009 Menken, 2009 Peterson, 2004).The amount of money washed-out is important, but the need that the enterprises investment in IT is in harmony with its objectives is usually considered more significant (Buckby et al, 2009). This is called moving in IT Alignment, which is a quite old issue several studies from mid-80s have pore on the bond of the IT operations with the telephone line objectives (brown and Magill, 1994). Some researchers do not agree with the need for the origin IT coalition at all (Sillince and Frost, 1995). Koh and Magui re (2009) in like manner suggest that Business IT alignment mayhap the wrong strategy for smaller vocationes, which may be agile plenteous to change course quickly following the new ICT arrivals in the stage short letter. They also mention that Venkatraman questions the logic behind alignment nevertheless, this is a false reading material of Venkatramans playing field, who watchly states that IT needs to support the military control logic. Carr (2003) has written one of the most controversial articles on the issue, stating that IT is not able to provide the agonistical utility that organisations need. Laplante and Costello (2006) make idle that they do not agree with that view, piece of music Harris, Herron and Iwanicki (2008) buzz off the opportunity to provide inflection on the value that IT can provide, instead of just dismissing Carrs argument. fit to a different should of thought, Business IT alignment has been place as a significant management concern ( emb rown and Magill, 1994 Cameron, 2007 Kashanchi and Toland, 2006 Silvius, 2007) and effort is put in order to identify the potential benefits of Business IT alignment. In fact, a juvenile study by Nash (2009) proves a positive correlation between firm aim sales and the so-called Strategic Alignment maturity i.e. the maturity level of the championship IT alignment.By considering Business IT alignment as something that organisations want to achieve, it is but another reason to exercise governance of the IT. The relationship between IT governance and Business IT alignment has been proven (BMC Software, 2007 Musson and Jordan, 2006). Additionally, IT governance is potently suggested by researchers as the best option for the maintenance of the alignment of IT to the perpetually evolving organisational needs (Cameron, 2007 Harris et al, 2008 Pultorak, 2006 Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999).Although Business IT Alignment is a common issue, it puts IT in a passive role it makes it a ac cessory. Proper governance can transmute IT from a follower to a leader IT is able to set the business agenda and part affect the organisations strategic objectives (Addy, 2007 Baschab and Piot, 2007 Weill and Woodham, 2002).A research by NCC (2005) has identified a potentially replete(p)ning gap between what IT departments ideate the business requires, and what the business thinks the IT department is able to deliver. This can be address by IT Governance, through which an organisation bulky view of IT may be generated and fightd (Laplante and Costello, 2006 Weill and Woodham, 2002). That means that IT should have a thorough understanding and a community in the avail of business processes and their interdependencies. The other way round is also important, i.e. organisations need to mystify a better understanding of the value delivered by IT, both internally and from external suppliers. Measures are required in business (the customers) terms to achieve this. Key elements fo r that understanding include the enterprise wide view of IT calculate (Addy, 2007 Weill and Woodham, 2002).One more reason found in the literature to promote IT Governance, is the compliance to regulatory requirements. Specific legislation and regulatory requirements, such as Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) almost dictate the use of an IT governance framework (Buckby et al., 2009 Higgins and Sinclair, 2008). Others, such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and Basel-II do not dictate, but sure enough describe an IT Governance framework through their requirements for answerability on investments, information security and assurance, risk management and decision processes (Harris et al, 2008 Higgins and Sinclair, 2008 Pultorak, 2006 lucre Frontiers, 2008 NCC, 2005 van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009). only another commonly stated key benefit of proper IT Governance is clear and transparent decision making regarding IT resources (Baschab and Piot, 2007 Brown and Gr and, 2005 Lee and Lee, 2009 Tshinu, Botha and Herselman, 2008). The lack of clarity and transparency for the decision making process, can lead to disinclination to take risks, and subsequently failure to seize technology opportunities (NCC, 2005) Separate decision processes followed by the IT and business, may mean that there is not enough share ownership and clarity of resources, which also means that there may be a lack of accountability.IT Governance modelsAlthough IT Governance sets the decision making process, it does not define who decides. IT Governance decision authorities may be incorporated in different models, depending on the organisation. The three regular ones are the centralize, change and federal (hybrid) according to their modes of distributing authorities and responsibilities for decision-making (Brown and Magill, 1994 Fairchild et al, 2009 Peterson, 2004 Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999), while the pit of centralized / alter may also be found as the only choi ces (Laplante and Costello, 2006 Robb and Parent, 2009).Ross and Weill (2002) and Cameron (2007) evince their quite strong preference on centralized IT Governance model, i.e. decisions organism made centrally, but Ross and Weill revisited that view in 2004 they suggested that there are sextette (6) archetypes / models of IT Governance, on 5 different IT domains. From more centralized to less centralised, they identified Business monarchy, IT monarchy, national, IT Duopoly, Feudal and confusion. The two monarchies are quite clear, meaning that Business or IT respectively has the major responsibility for decisions. Anarchy is quite clear as well, meaning that there is no standardization. Federal and IT duopoly involve business executives and IT executives in the decision making process, with federal to give more power to the business than IT duopoly. Finally, feudal archetype brings the decision level down to business units or processes. The IT domains on which decisions need to be made, are IT principles such as funding and role of the IT in the business, IT Architecture which refers to the recognition and development of the spirit business processes of the enterprise and relative information, IT infrastructure, business applications programme needs such as the owner of the outcome of each project and IT investment and prioritization. That model classification from Ross and Weill is unique as stated earlier, most other researchers have selected a simpler classification scheme.Ein-Dor and Segev (cited at Tavakolian, 1989) found that the revenue of the organisation is positively related to centralized IT Governance but there is no relation between the governance model and the size of the organisation. on that point is empirical produce that a link between the IT structure with the organisational competitive strategy exists button-down organisations are more centralised than aggressive ones (Tavakolian, 1989). These results are supported by more recen t research with ordered findings Weill and Woodham (2002) and Weill and Ross (2004) found that top acting firms on profit were mostly centralized, while top performers on gain were mostly decentralized. A link between the organisations industry type and level of de-centralization of IT Governance has not been found (Ahituv et al, cited at Brown and Grant, 2005).It has to be renowned that the model of IT Governance in an organisation may also be dictated by external factors, such as SOX which promotes a centralized IT Governance model, while Australian governance frameworks (mainly, AS 8015) drive the organisations towards a de-centralized IT Governance model (Robb and Parent, 2009).IT Governance FrameworksInformation applied science Infrastructure libraryThe Information technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) is a framework of best practices for IT expediency Management. It is comprised of five books which focus on five different aspects of IT attend Management and go Life cycle table service StrategyService DesignService TransitionService OperationContinual Service Improvement distributively one of the books, defines a set of processes such as IT Financial Management, provider Management, Change Management, Incident Management and Service measuring rod and Reporting a total of 23 processes are specify with a set of actions and roles required for each process.The definition of several of the processes and the subsequent roles is consistent with the IT Governance definition we used earlier nevertheless a gravid amount of the delineate processes such as event management and trial impression and testing, are much more focused on the management part than to that of the governance. ITIL is considered to be the framework that is closer to service management than control, from the other two frameworks, CobIT and ISO/IEC 385002008 and has a more narrow scope than CobIT (Van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009 Simonsson and Ekstedt, 2006 Simonsson, Johnson and W ijkstrm, 2007 Sall, 2004 McBride, 2009).That focus of ITIL to service delivery and management was more obvious in edition 2, which did not address issues such as Risk Management, Performance Monitoring and IT Governance (generic strategic direction and alignment) at all. As such it was mostly perceived as a framework for service desk management. Although the effectiveness of ITIL mutant 2 to the alignment of IT with business objectives has been repeatedly pointed out (BMC Software, 2007 Harris et al, 2008 Pultorak, 2006) and even experimentally proven (Kashanchi and Toland, 2006), it was never the primary driver for ITIL adaptation. A survey conducted by Bruton Consultancy for the Helpdesk Institute Europe (now renamed as Service Desk Institute) for the value that ITIL has brought in companies that have employ it, indicated that the contribution of ITIL to the business strategy was not even considered as an issue by the bulk of the correspondents (70%). The same holds for the perc eption of the participants on the competitive payoff that may be provided by proper IT management through ITIL. to a greater extent than half (66%) responded that this was not considered in the decision for ITIL implementation (Bruton, 2005).With version 3, ITIL gained a broader scope than version 2 and added significant emphasis on business strategy. That change, led some IT management consultants to declare ITIL version 3 as inappropriate for help desk and service management processes (Bruton, 2007), not strange since version 2 focused on processes while version 3 focuses on Business Value (Harris et al, 2008).Beyond the not strategic enough type of reproof, ITIL has also been remarkd as a flawed and uneven framework. Dean Meyer identifies pitfalls in its implementation nevertheless, he also states that it is an implementation issue and not a framework issue (Meyer, 2009 web site). ITIL has also been characterized as a too generic framework, which is not able to provide value if used ready-made without significant adaptations (Baschab and Piot, 2007), an unfair censure as ITIL is promoted as a set of best practices, not as a complete, fits-all framework. This concession should in well-groundedate yet another reproof raised by Simonsson (2008), the lack of a maturity model. Another criticism of ITIL is that the supporting is not free (Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009). That is a valid point, nevertheless the cost of the books is quite low for companies (less than 400 for the whole set). Other criticisms include the quelling of the creativity of those who implement it, and that it becomes a goal by itself having a weighed down administrative burden (Addy, 2007). All these points are valid, but they can be attributed to the extension of ITIL.Control Objectives for Information and related TechnologyControl Objectives for information and related Technology (CobIT) is a control framework developed by the IT Governance Institute. CobIT defines processes and controls, and uses the grouping of activities in four domains stick out and Organise bring and ImplementDeliver and SupportMonitor and assessEach domain contains a set of processes, 34 at total, and each process defines specific controls, which sum up to 210 for all processes. CobIT defines inputs and outputs, as well as a maturity model for each process, making the control of compliance a very easy task. RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted and informed) charts are also provided, outline a clear guideline on who should be involved in every process step. Goals and metrics, in the form of outcome measures (key goal indicators KGIs) and performance indicators (key performance indicators KPIs) respectively are also provided, mapping business goals to IT goals, which can be achieved by one, or the interaction of several processes.CobIT is generally used where there is a need for auditing functions, in comparison with ITIL, which is better fit to operational process improvemen t (ODonohue et al, 2009). In contrast to ITIL, CobIT has extensive documentation forthcoming free of charge, including the framework itself and several case studies. Several implementation documents though are only available for purchase, such as CobIT Quickstart, while others are available free for ISACA members or for purchase for non-members such as Security service line and User Guide for Service Managers.Several consultants and practitioners ping CobIT that it only states the obvious, that it is very high level, is only a generic framework and does not provide specific and repeatable implementation steps (Culmsee, 2009 Toigo, 2005). This is not a common view, as others find CobIT to be quite prescriptive (Pultorak, 2006 Robb and Parent, 2009). That may be explained by the fact that although CobIT framework itself is indeed high level, a different publication is provided by ISACA, named CobIT Control Practices which is quite prescriptive. Academics criticise CobIT as providin g precise support for improved decision making, although many metrics are defined (Simonsson and Johnson, 2006). Others state that CobIT is expressed almost entirely in terms of process, focusing on how to govern but not what to govern (Lee et al, 2009). Another criticism states that CobIT is significantly more focused on auditing, largely ignoring other aspects of governance such as software development and service delivery (NetFrontiers, 2005). CobIT is also characterized as a framework that needs significant knowledge and know how for a successful implementation (Simonsson et al, 2007), and that it takes time to wrap solid IT Governance through it (Rogers, 2009) although the opposite would be strange, given the wide area of processes and functions that CobIT addresses.Finally, while ITIL is known as the framework that guides you on how to shorten where you want to be, CobIT scarce focuses on where you should be that may be good or bad, depending on ones point of view and need s.ISO / IEC 385002008The International Organization for normalization (ISO) attempted to operate the confusion between IT Management and IT Governance, and at the same time provide guiding principles on IT Governance, in the recently published ISO/IEC 385002008.Because ISO/IEC 38500 take a crapes principles to guide the behaviour of organisations, it complements frameworks that focus on process, such as ITIL and COBIT. Thus, with the right frameworks or processes, complemented by the right behaviours, organisations are more likely to establish highly effective systems of governance. After all, it has been stated that ITIL and CobIT are not in return exclusive they are rather complementary and organisations will probably benefit from a assorted approach, adopting what is more applicable in every case, from the two frameworks (Chickowsky, cited at Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009). ISO/IEC 38500 can also be combined with these two and ITGI has even issued a specific document demonstra ting how and which specific CobIT and ValIT controls support the adoption of the standards principles and implementation approach. Nevertheless, ISO/IEC 385002008 is very recent to be evaluated. As of the time of conducting this research, there is not enough information on the implementation, benefits or drawbacks of ISO 385002008.Common drivers for IT Governance implementationWhile the need for IT Governance has well been described, the benefits sought, i.e. the reasons for the implementation of an IT Governance framework vary, sometimes depending on the point of view of the observer.As drivers, we consider the motivator factors, which may lead an organisation to the implementation of an IT Governance framework.For IT Managers, IT Governance is a mechanism for the alignment of the IT with business on the projects that are going to be pursuit. For IT Auditors, it is mainly a control mechanism that can help them achieve compliance with regulations, and to manage the risks that are r elated to IT projects better. For IT Service management professionals, IT Governance ensures that not only the IT services offered are aligned to the current and future business needs, but they are also managed for efficiency, effectiveness and specific caliber objectives (Pultorak, 2006).Recent surveys have indicated that the most important benefits expected from the implementation of an IT Governance framework are proper risk management, the resource management of IT, the performance measurement of IT and the business IT alignment. Along these, cost reduction, productivity improvements and organisation wide view of IT are commonly mentioned. (ITGI, 2008 BMC Software, 2007 Milne and Bowles, 2009 Yanosky and McCredieThe Emergence of IT Governance in GreeceThe Emergence of IT Governance in GreeceIntroductionThe emergence of IT GovernanceThe cases of Enron, Worldcom and other corporate and financial scandals in the early years of the century have raised the significance of corporate governance and control. Regulatory environments have been formed with quite distinctive characteristics, depending on the needs of each country, and the needs of specific industries. The implementation of the controls required by regulations such as Sarbanes Oxley for the publicly listed organisations in the U.S. and Basel II for European banks relies heavily on IT. That dependency, combined to the required controls on IT itself, have forced top-level executives to have a look towards the proper management and governance of the information and communication technologies that power their organisations.At the same time, the high percentage of failed IT projects, ranging between 60% and 90% depending on the definition of failure, has alarmed many executives who see their resources to be wasted on failed projects, to be followed by more failed projects. Clear decision processes and proper project management aiming at efficiency and effectiveness, are the obvious answers to the problem both of which point directly to IT Governance.The high cost of IT investments, which is more than half of the annual CAPEX for most organisations, calls for control, accountability and risk management, not to mention cost reduction. Information security, industrial espionage, regulations for the confidentiality of the data and the privacy of employees and customers, are all gracefully handled by a proper IT Governance structure.These are only some of the reasons that have led quite a few organisations worldwide to add IT Governance in their board agenda.The status in GreeceGreece has control regulations for specific industries only, such as telecommunications, an industry largely affected by the Hellenic authority for communication security and privacy. Other industries are affected by pan-European control regulations, such as banking industry that needs to comply with MIFID and Basel-II alongside the directives issued by the Bank of Greece. Finally, just a few companies are listed in foreign stock exchanges such as NYSE listed PTT, subsequently affected by the SOX act.Nevertheless, although the environment in Greece is complex, and the IT infrastructure is no simpler than any other countrys, there is no published empirical academic research on the status of IT Governance in Greece. Even surveys that are conducted in wider geographical areas and not to a specific country do not usually include Greece probably because it is a small market. The only data that has been found are some papers mentioning the benefits of IT Governance, as taken from the international practice the data though is not adapted to local needs and circumstances.Research ObjectivesThis research, titled IT Governance in Greece Status, Drivers and Barriers aims to evaluate and present the IT Governance related practices in Greece. What percentage of Greek companies are using IT Governance frameworks and best practices, which is the preferred framework between the two prevalent (ITIL and Cob IT), and which is the decision model selected by the companies that employ IT Governance. An attempt will be made to find any relationships between these results, and the size of the organisation or the size of the IT department. The reasons for which Greek organisations select to implement or not an IT Governance framework will also be linked to that data and outsourcing strategies which are known to require careful governance will be evaluated. For the organisations that choose to not implement a formal governance framework, the barriers to implementation will be analysed, as well as the potential good practices which do not constitute a framework, nevertheless help to the prudent governance of an organisations IT assets and resources.The research questions that are expected to shed some light to the main areas of the status of IT Governance in Greece are formulated as followsThe penetration of ITIL and CobIT in Greece as IT Governance frameworksWhich are the most common factors t hat prevent or delay the acceptance and deployment of an IT Governance framework (barriers)?Which are the most common reasons that led organisations to deploy, or plan the future deployment of an IT Governance framework (drivers)?Which (if any) are the management methods used if a full IT Governance framework is not deployed?Personal InterestThe author has followed a career path in Information Technology for the last 15 years, acquiring positions of raising responsibilities. In alignment to that career path, the MBA was considered a good choice, providing a broader view on all areas of management such as organisational behaviour and culture, human relationships, finance and marketing, strategy and implementation. The subject of this dissertation combines the two worlds, that of management and of information technology, giving a more thorough and business oriented view to the authors subject of work. Beyond the obvious curiosity that is created by the lack of data in the Greek marke t in which the author lives and works, there has always been an interest in IT Governance, IT management and risk management, and this dissertation comes to cover at least some of these areas.Structure of the dissertationThe rest of the dissertation has a typical structure the introduction that was just provided constitutes the chapter one.Chapter two provides a review of the existing literature and previous studies on IT Governance that should form the basis for the research that was necessary for this dissertation.Chapter three analyses and justifies the methodology that was used for the sampling, the data collection and data analysis methods that were selected. This chapter also presents and analyses some limitations related to the methodology, and presents the ways in which these limitations may affect the data analysis and the conclusions.Chapter four is the data analysis, in which all data that were collected are analysed and presented, relations are drawn and comparisons to findings from previous research are performed in order to fully answer the research questions set in this dissertation.Chapter five draws on the conclusions of the previous chapter. It summarizes the research objectives, the findings and the implications of the results. Generalization issues and data validity is further discussed. This chapter provides also recommendations for future studies, identifying details that were not included in this survey and questions that have emerged from the results of the current dissertation. Finally, this chapter reflects on the dissertation, assessing the weaknesses of the work performed and the obstacles faced it also identifies the areas in which the author has gained knowledge and experience.Literature ReviewIntroductionA literature review is vital to any research project, in order to collect, present and critically analyse, what is already known in the subject under research. The evaluation of previous research leads to a better understanding of the subject, of the areas of consensus between academics and practitioners, and the points of conflict and potential gaps.Towards the answer of the status of IT Governance in Greece, an attempt will be made to explain the term IT Governance and clarify any misconceptions regarding IT Governance and IT Management. The different types of IT Governance models that have been developed in the past, along with the key roles in IT Governance, will be identified, presented and compared.The necessity for IT Governance as suggested in the literature will be evaluated, and the most commonly mentioned benefits and implementation barriers will be presented, in order to serve as potential answers to the questionnaire of the research. Previous reports on management methods that may be used instead of a full framework implementation will also be evaluated for the same reasons.The definition of IT GovernanceIT Governance is a subject that has gained significant focus during the last years. As a t erm, IT Governance, has too many definitions in the literature (Buckby, Best and Stewart, 2009 Lee and Lee, 2009 Lee, Lee and Lee, 2009). Simonsson and Ekstedt (2006) tried to find a common definition on 60 different relative articles and came up with yet another definition, which includes many of the previous ones.The definitions used by researchers, depend on their view on what IT Governance can offer to an organisation. IT Governance is sometimes perceived as a framework or a process for auditing the use of the IT infrastructure and operations. Some other times sometimes it is perceived as an IT decision making tool which allocates the decision rights in order to encourage a predictable behaviour in the use of IT, while for others IT Governance is a branch of corporate governance focusing on the control and the strategic view of IT (Musson, 2009). Not few have used definitions that mix and match more than one of these views, such as Peterson (2004), Higgins and Sinclair (2008) an d Simonsson and Johnson (2007).A definition that is, in the authors opinion, quite clear and inclusive, is the followingIT Governance is a framework for the leadership, organizational structures and business processes, standards and compliance to these standards, which ensures that the organizations IT supports and enables the achievement of its strategies and objectives. (Calder, 2007)Lee and Lee (2009) make the link of IT Governance with Corporate Governance. They suggest that IT Governance is a mix of Corporate Governance and IT Management meaning that IT Governance addresses the transparency and control that corporate governance focuses upon, and the efficiency and effectiveness that IT management aims at. IT Governance as part of the corporate governance is also suggested by Peterson (2004), Bhatttacharjya and Chang (2009), ODonohue, Pye and Warren (2009).Several researchers have pointed out that IT Governance is not the same as IT Management. The former refers to the definitio n of who has the rights for major decision making, while the later refers to the actual making of the decisions and the implementation itself (Broadbend, cited in Buckby et al., 2009 Calder, 2009 Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999 Toomey, 2009 Van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009).Regarding the subject and scope of IT Governance, the IT Governance Institute suggests five distinct but interacting domains The Strategic Alignment, Value Delivery, Risk Management, Resource Management and Performance Management.The need for IT GovernanceThe need for IT Governance has not been extensively debated almost everybody agree that the proper governance of IT is necessary. The reasons though provided to support this argument vary, and the organisations do not seem to have been persuaded by that position.A quite common reason provided to support the necessity of IT Governance, is the increased complexity of the IT infrastructure that is caused by the amount of data that an organisation holds, and the role of this information (Laplante and Costello, 2006). IT is not only complex, but it also has its own fast changing and unique conditions, as such the need to apply sound management disciplines and controls is even greater (NCC, 2005).Risk management is one more reason for IT Governance. Risk is caused by the growing dependency of organisations on IT resources which should not be neglected the percentage of companies that are vitally dependent on IT for their continuing operation, was over 75% in 2004 (KPMG, cited at Musson, 2009). That dependency makes the potential unavailability of IT based services a significant problem for organisations such as banks and hospitals. The lack of availability is not the only danger caused by that dependency cyber crime, fraud, information inaccuracy are just a few more issues that need proper identification and management (Van Grembergen and De Haes 2009).Instead of implementing IT solutions, the focus now has shifted to changing the business processes , to be enabled by IT. The solutions implemented are generally more complex due to this shift, and subsequently there is a greater risk with the implementation of IT-enabled business processes (Higgins and Sinclair, 2008). From the management perspective, that dependency means that management needs to be more aware of the critical IT risks, and to be assured that they are adequately managed (NCC, 2005).High organisational performance is another reason found in the literature, although that one is debatable. Liew believes that IT Governance can ensure proper measurement and preservation of an achieved performance (cited at Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009), nevertheless Young has pointed out through a literature review that there is no convincing evidence that superior business performance is a result of any of IT Governance guidelines (Young, 2006).Typically, IT investments are significantly high. They account for over 50% of the average organisations annual total capital investment (B aschab and Piot, 2007 Carr, 2003 Weill and Woodham, 2002), as such their management in a responsive, effective and efficient way is usually a requirement that should be set by the management board. On the monetary field, cost optimisation of the IT projects and service delivery, are also considered important issues by several researchers (Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009 Fairchild et al, 2009 Menken, 2009 Peterson, 2004).The amount of money spent is important, but the need that the enterprises investment in IT is in harmony with its objectives is usually considered more significant (Buckby et al, 2009). This is called Business IT Alignment, which is a quite old issue several studies from mid-80s have focused on the alignment of the IT operations with the business objectives (Brown and Magill, 1994). Some researchers do not agree with the need for the Business IT alignment at all (Sillince and Frost, 1995). Koh and Maguire (2009) also suggest that Business IT alignment maybe the wron g strategy for smaller businesses, which may be agile enough to change course quickly following the new ICT arrivals in the business. They also mention that Venkatraman questions the logic behind alignment nevertheless, this is a false interpretation of Venkatramans study, who clearly states that IT needs to support the business logic. Carr (2003) has written one of the most controversial articles on the issue, stating that IT is not able to provide the competitive advantage that organisations need. Laplante and Costello (2006) make clear that they do not agree with that view, while Harris, Herron and Iwanicki (2008) get the opportunity to provide metrics on the value that IT can provide, instead of just dismissing Carrs argument.According to a different should of thought, Business IT alignment has been identified as a significant management concern (Brown and Magill, 1994 Cameron, 2007 Kashanchi and Toland, 2006 Silvius, 2007) and effort is put in order to identify the potential b enefits of Business IT alignment. In fact, a recent study by Nash (2009) proves a positive correlation between firm level sales and the so-called Strategic Alignment Maturity i.e. the maturity level of the business IT alignment.By considering Business IT alignment as something that organisations want to achieve, it is yet another reason to exercise governance of the IT. The relationship between IT governance and Business IT alignment has been proven (BMC Software, 2007 Musson and Jordan, 2006). Additionally, IT governance is strongly suggested by researchers as the best option for the maintenance of the alignment of IT to the continuously evolving organisational needs (Cameron, 2007 Harris et al, 2008 Pultorak, 2006 Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999).Although Business IT Alignment is a common issue, it puts IT in a passive role it makes it a follower. Proper governance can transform IT from a follower to a leader IT is able to set the business agenda and partially affect the organisat ions strategic objectives (Addy, 2007 Baschab and Piot, 2007 Weill and Woodham, 2002).A research by NCC (2005) has identified a potentially widening gap between what IT departments think the business requires, and what the business thinks the IT department is able to deliver. This can be addressed by IT Governance, through which an organisation wide view of IT may be generated and promoted (Laplante and Costello, 2006 Weill and Woodham, 2002). That means that IT should have a thorough understanding and a participation in the improvement of business processes and their interdependencies. The other way round is also important, i.e. organisations need to obtain a better understanding of the value delivered by IT, both internally and from external suppliers. Measures are required in business (the customers) terms to achieve this. Key elements for that understanding include the enterprise wide view of IT budget (Addy, 2007 Weill and Woodham, 2002).One more reason found in the literatur e to promote IT Governance, is the compliance to regulatory requirements. Specific legislation and regulatory requirements, such as Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) almost dictate the use of an IT governance framework (Buckby et al., 2009 Higgins and Sinclair, 2008). Others, such as HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) and Basel-II do not dictate, but certainly describe an IT Governance framework through their requirements for accountability on investments, information security and assurance, risk management and decision processes (Harris et al, 2008 Higgins and Sinclair, 2008 Pultorak, 2006 Network Frontiers, 2008 NCC, 2005 van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009).Yet another commonly stated key benefit of proper IT Governance is clear and transparent decision making regarding IT resources (Baschab and Piot, 2007 Brown and Grand, 2005 Lee and Lee, 2009 Tshinu, Botha and Herselman, 2008). The lack of clarity and transparency for the decision making process, can lead to rel uctance to take risks, and subsequently failure to seize technology opportunities (NCC, 2005) Separate decision processes followed by the IT and business, may mean that there is not enough shared ownership and clarity of resources, which also means that there may be a lack of accountability.IT Governance modelsAlthough IT Governance sets the decision making process, it does not define who decides. IT Governance decision authorities may be structured in different models, depending on the organisation. The three prevailing ones are the centralized, decentralized and federal (hybrid) according to their modes of distributing authorities and responsibilities for decision-making (Brown and Magill, 1994 Fairchild et al, 2009 Peterson, 2004 Sambamurthy and Zmud, 1999), while the pair of centralized / decentralized may also be found as the only choices (Laplante and Costello, 2006 Robb and Parent, 2009).Ross and Weill (2002) and Cameron (2007) expressed their quite strong preference on cent ralized IT Governance model, i.e. decisions being made centrally, but Ross and Weill revisited that view in 2004 they suggested that there are six (6) archetypes / models of IT Governance, on 5 different IT domains. From more centralised to less centralised, they identified Business monarchy, IT monarchy, Federal, IT Duopoly, Feudal and Anarchy. The two monarchies are quite clear, meaning that Business or IT respectively has the major responsibility for decisions. Anarchy is quite clear as well, meaning that there is no standardization. Federal and IT duopoly involve business executives and IT executives in the decision making process, with federal to give more power to the business than IT duopoly. Finally, feudal archetype brings the decision level down to business units or processes. The IT domains on which decisions need to be made, are IT principles such as funding and role of the IT in the business, IT Architecture which refers to the identification and development of the core business processes of the enterprise and relative information, IT infrastructure, business application needs such as the owner of the outcome of each project and IT investment and prioritization. That model classification from Ross and Weill is unique as stated earlier, most other researchers have selected a simpler classification scheme.Ein-Dor and Segev (cited at Tavakolian, 1989) found that the revenue of the organisation is positively related to centralized IT Governance but there is no relation between the governance model and the size of the organisation. There is empirical proof that a link between the IT structure with the organisational competitive strategy exists conservative organisations are more centralised than aggressive ones (Tavakolian, 1989). These results are supported by more recent research with consistent findings Weill and Woodham (2002) and Weill and Ross (2004) found that top performing firms on profit were mostly centralized, while top performers on growt h were mostly decentralized. A link between the organisations industry type and level of de-centralization of IT Governance has not been found (Ahituv et al, cited at Brown and Grant, 2005).It has to be noted that the model of IT Governance in an organisation may also be dictated by external factors, such as SOX which promotes a centralized IT Governance model, while Australian governance frameworks (mainly, AS 8015) drive the organisations towards a de-centralized IT Governance model (Robb and Parent, 2009).IT Governance FrameworksInformation Technology Infrastructure LibraryThe Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) is a framework of best practices for IT Service Management. It is comprised of five books which focus on five different aspects of IT Service Management and Service LifecycleService StrategyService DesignService TransitionService OperationContinual Service ImprovementEach one of the books, defines a set of processes such as IT Financial Management, Suppli er Management, Change Management, Incident Management and Service Measurement and Reporting a total of 23 processes are defined with a set of actions and roles required for each process.The definition of several of the processes and the subsequent roles is consistent with the IT Governance definition we used earlier nevertheless a big amount of the defined processes such as event management and validation and testing, are much more focused on the management part than to that of the governance. ITIL is considered to be the framework that is closer to service management than control, from the other two frameworks, CobIT and ISO/IEC 385002008 and has a more narrow scope than CobIT (Van Grembergen and De Haes, 2009 Simonsson and Ekstedt, 2006 Simonsson, Johnson and Wijkstrm, 2007 Sall, 2004 McBride, 2009).That focus of ITIL to service delivery and management was more obvious in version 2, which did not address issues such as Risk Management, Performance Monitoring and IT Governance (gen eric strategic direction and alignment) at all. As such it was mostly perceived as a framework for service desk management. Although the effectiveness of ITIL version 2 to the alignment of IT with business objectives has been repeatedly pointed out (BMC Software, 2007 Harris et al, 2008 Pultorak, 2006) and even experimentally proven (Kashanchi and Toland, 2006), it was never the primary driver for ITIL adaptation. A survey conducted by Bruton Consultancy for the Helpdesk Institute Europe (now renamed as Service Desk Institute) for the value that ITIL has brought in companies that have implemented it, indicated that the contribution of ITIL to the business strategy was not even considered as an issue by the majority of the correspondents (70%). The same holds for the perception of the participants on the competitive advantage that may be provided by proper IT management through ITIL. More than half (66%) responded that this was not considered in the decision for ITIL implementation ( Bruton, 2005).With version 3, ITIL gained a broader scope than version 2 and added significant emphasis on business strategy. That change, led some IT management consultants to declare ITIL version 3 as inappropriate for helpdesk and service management processes (Bruton, 2007), not strange since version 2 focused on processes while version 3 focuses on Business Value (Harris et al, 2008).Beyond the not strategic enough type of criticism, ITIL has also been criticised as a flawed and uneven framework. Dean Meyer identifies pitfalls in its implementation nevertheless, he also states that it is an implementation issue and not a framework issue (Meyer, 2009 web site). ITIL has also been characterized as a too generic framework, which is not able to provide value if used off-the-shelf without significant adaptations (Baschab and Piot, 2007), an unfair criticism as ITIL is promoted as a set of best practices, not as a complete, fits-all framework. This concession should invalidate yet an other criticism raised by Simonsson (2008), the lack of a maturity model. Another criticism of ITIL is that the documentation is not free (Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009). That is a valid point, nevertheless the cost of the books is quite low for companies (less than 400 for the whole set). Other criticisms include the stifling of the creativity of those who implement it, and that it becomes a goal by itself having a heavy administrative burden (Addy, 2007). All these points are valid, but they can be attributed to the extension of ITIL.Control Objectives for Information and related TechnologyControl Objectives for information and related Technology (CobIT) is a control framework developed by the IT Governance Institute. CobIT defines processes and controls, and uses the grouping of activities in four domainsPlan and OrganiseAcquire and ImplementDeliver and SupportMonitor and EvaluateEach domain contains a set of processes, 34 at total, and each process defines specific controls, whi ch sum up to 210 for all processes. CobIT defines inputs and outputs, as well as a maturity model for each process, making the control of compliance a very easy task. RACI (responsible, accountable, consulted and informed) charts are also provided, drawing a clear guideline on who should be involved in every process step. Goals and metrics, in the form of outcome measures (key goal indicators KGIs) and performance indicators (key performance indicators KPIs) respectively are also provided, mapping business goals to IT goals, which can be achieved by one, or the interaction of several processes.CobIT is generally used where there is a need for auditing functions, in comparison with ITIL, which is better suited to operational process improvement (ODonohue et al, 2009). In contrast to ITIL, CobIT has extensive documentation available free of charge, including the framework itself and several case studies. Several implementation documents though are only available for purchase, such a s CobIT Quickstart, while others are available free for ISACA members or for purchase for non-members such as Security Baseline and User Guide for Service Managers.Several consultants and practitioners criticise CobIT that it only states the obvious, that it is very high level, is only a generic framework and does not provide specific and repeatable implementation steps (Culmsee, 2009 Toigo, 2005). This is not a common view, as others find CobIT to be quite prescriptive (Pultorak, 2006 Robb and Parent, 2009). That may be explained by the fact that although CobIT framework itself is indeed high level, a different publication is provided by ISACA, named CobIT Control Practices which is quite prescriptive. Academics criticise CobIT as providing little support for improved decision making, although many metrics are defined (Simonsson and Johnson, 2006). Others state that CobIT is expressed almost entirely in terms of process, focusing on how to govern but not what to govern (Lee et al, 2009). Another criticism states that CobIT is significantly more focused on auditing, largely ignoring other aspects of governance such as software development and service delivery (NetFrontiers, 2005). CobIT is also characterized as a framework that needs significant knowledge and know how for a successful implementation (Simonsson et al, 2007), and that it takes time to introduce solid IT Governance through it (Rogers, 2009) although the opposite would be strange, given the wide area of processes and functions that CobIT addresses.Finally, while ITIL is known as the framework that guides you on how to get where you want to be, CobIT merely focuses on where you should be that may be good or bad, depending on ones point of view and needs.ISO / IEC 385002008The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) attempted to solve the confusion between IT Management and IT Governance, and at the same time provide guiding principles on IT Governance, in the recently published ISO/IE C 385002008.Because ISO/IEC 38500 establishes principles to guide the behaviour of organisations, it complements frameworks that focus on process, such as ITIL and COBIT. Thus, with the right frameworks or processes, complemented by the right behaviours, organisations are more likely to establish highly effective systems of governance. After all, it has been stated that ITIL and CobIT are not mutually exclusive they are rather complementary and organisations will probably benefit from a mixed approach, adopting what is more applicable in every case, from the two frameworks (Chickowsky, cited at Bhattacharjya and Chang, 2009). ISO/IEC 38500 can also be combined with these two and ITGI has even issued a specific document demonstrating how and which specific CobIT and ValIT controls support the adoption of the standards principles and implementation approach. Nevertheless, ISO/IEC 385002008 is very recent to be evaluated. As of the time of conducting this research, there is not enough information on the implementation, benefits or drawbacks of ISO 385002008.Common drivers for IT Governance implementationWhile the need for IT Governance has well been described, the benefits sought, i.e. the reasons for the implementation of an IT Governance framework vary, sometimes depending on the point of view of the observer.As drivers, we consider the motivator factors, which may lead an organisation to the implementation of an IT Governance framework.For IT Managers, IT Governance is a mechanism for the alignment of the IT with business on the projects that are going to be pursuit. For IT Auditors, it is mainly a control mechanism that can help them achieve compliance with regulations, and to manage the risks that are related to IT projects better. For IT Service management professionals, IT Governance ensures that not only the IT services offered are aligned to the current and future business needs, but they are also managed for efficiency, effectiveness and specific qualit y objectives (Pultorak, 2006).Recent surveys have indicated that the most important benefits expected from the implementation of an IT Governance framework are proper risk management, the resource management of IT, the performance measurement of IT and the business IT alignment. Along these, cost reduction, productivity improvements and organisation wide view of IT are commonly mentioned. (ITGI, 2008 BMC Software, 2007 Milne and Bowles, 2009 Yanosky and McCredie