AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE DRIVERS AND OUTCOMES OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GOVERNANCE BY BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the extent to which board of directors are providing âgovernance oversightâ of their organizationâs IT activities and whether their efforts are making any difference in terms of organizational performance. Building on contingency theory we theorize that the magnitude of IT oversight exercised by boards depends on an organizationâs particular IT situation and especially its need for (1) fast and reliable IT, and (2) new innovative IT. However, we also posit that the contingency approach may be suboptimal because it focuses only on current IT needs, and may ignore other potential competitive and defensive uses of IT. These future-looking considerations are in line with the resource-based view of the firm according to which IT is a key resource which, when utilized efficiently and effectively, can create a competitive advantage. Accordingly, we hypothesize that the magnitude of board-level IT oversight positively affects firm performance regardless of existing IT needs, Using structural equation modelling analysis applied to data collected from a sample of 146 directors, representing 146 Canadian firms we found support for all our hypotheses. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".