Question:Based on Peter Weill article :
The strengths, weakness and rotatable features of the article? Mention logical argument and sufficient details.
3) Provide a critical discussion of the key issues raised in the article.
- Attachment 1
- Attachment 2
- Attachment 3
- Attachment 4
- Attachment 5
- Attachment 6
- Attachment 7
- Attachment 8
- Attachment 9
- Attachment 10
- Attachment 11
- Attachment 12
- Attachment 13
- Attachment 14
- Attachment 15
- Attachment 16
MISVIARTERLYDON'T JUST LEAD, GOVERN: HOWEXECUTIVETOP-PERFORMING FIRMS GOVERNIT 1Peter WeillExecutive SummaryMassachusettsTop-performing enterprises succeed in obtaining value from IT where others fail, in part,Institute ofby implementing effective IT governance to support their strategies and institutionalizeTechnologygood practices. IT governance involves specifying decision rights and accountabilitiesfor important IT decisions. The goal is to encourage "desirable behaviors" in the use ofIT.In studying the IT governance of more than 250 enterprises in 23 countries, we found awide array of IT governance arrangements. Enterprises assign "decision rights" todifferent "archetypes" (Business or IT Monarchy, Federal, Duopoly, Feudal, orAnarchy) to govern five key IT decisions (IT investment, architecture, principles,application needs, and infrastructure).Top-performing enterprises govern IT differently from each other and from averageenterprises. Firms leading on growth decentralize more of their IT decision rights andplace IT capabilities in the business units. Those leading on profit centralize moredecision rights, senior business leaders make the major IT decisions. Top performersdesign their IT governance to reinforce their performance goals and link IT governanceto the governance of their other key enterprise assets and desired behaviors. A casestudy of State Street Corporation illustrates IT governance evolution and a method todiagrammatically represent II governance.esses and well-designed governance mechanisms) andWHY IS IT GOVERNANCEappropriately matched IT investments, top-performingIMPORTANT?enterprises generate superior returns on their IT in-vestments. One estimate is up to 40% greater returnIT governance matters because it influences the bene-than their competitors for the same IT investment."fits received from IT investments. Through a combi-nation of practices (such as redesigned business proc-These top-performing enterprises proactively seekvalue from IT in at least five ways: (1) they clarifybusiness strategies and the role IT plays in achievingJack Rockart was the accepting Senior Editor for this article.This paper draws on: 1. Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross IT Govern-them, (2) they measure and manage the amount spentance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superiorand the value received from IT, (3) they design organ-Results, Harvard Business School Press, forthcoming 2004 and 2. Peterizational practices to fit IT to their business strategies,Weill and Richard Woodham, "Don't Just Lead Govern: ImplementingEffective IT Governance," MIT Sloan School of Management, Center(4) they assign accountability for the organizationalfor Information Systems Research Working paper #326, April 2002.changes required to benefit from new IT capabilities,The author would like to gratefully acknowledge all the Patrons andSponsors of MIT Center for Information Systems Research (CISR) formaking this research possible. In addition, thanks to a number of col-See: 1. Brynjolfsson, E., L. Hitt, et al. (2002). "Intangible assets: Howleagues: Jeanne Ross, Susie Lee, Chris Foglia, Francisco Gonzalez-the interaction of computers and organizational structures affects stocksMeza Hoffmann, Richard Woodham from MIT, Marianne Broadbentmarket valuations," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Macro-and her Gartner colleagues, and Cynthia Beath, Ajit Kambil, Barbaraeconomics 1: 137-199 and 2. Peter Weill and Marianne Broadbent,Leveraging the New Infrastructure: How market leaders capitalize onMcNurlin, and Bob Zanid.IT (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998), Chapter 3.2004 University of MinnesotaMIS Quarterly Executive Vol. 3 No. 1 / March 2004
