IT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS AS METHODS
Matthias Goeken and Stefanie Alter
Frankfurt School of Finance and Management, IT-Governance-Practice-Network, Sonnemannstraße 9-11, Frankfurt
Keywords: IT Governance, IT Management, Method Engineering, Metamodel, COBIT (Control Objectives for
Information and Related Technology).
Abstract: IT management of today only to a surprisingly low degree is based on sound methods. Rather it is consid-
ered still as an art attributed to the capabilities of individual managers. On the other hand, there is little aca-
demic support for the challenges of IT management. To fill this obvious gap, various best practice frame-
works have been developed. These frameworks cover both support of management tasks and improvement
of compliance with regulations. Both areas can be subsumed under the topic IT governance. Whereas the
frameworks reflect best practice experience, they do not provide prove of e.g. completeness and coherence
with respect to the application area they were designed for. To undertake a step in this direction we will ex-
plore, to what degree the well known IT governance framework COBIT may be classified as a method. By
analyzing the underlying logical and semantically rich structure of this framework we gain insights on how
to compare and integrate further frameworks with COBIT. We will conclude by giving indications on how
we intend to implement IT governance frameworks into a toolset based on semantic nets.
1 INTRODUCTION
Unfortunately there is little academic guidance for
the management of IT in general and for specific
challenges, especially for business/IT alignment or
risk management (Booth/Philip, 2005; p 395; Avison
2004, p 224). The better part of computer science
research deals with system development and related
issues. Given the fact that in enterprises usually a
higher percentage of expenditure is spent on ‘run-
ning IT’ rather than on systems engineering and de-
velopment of new systems, it is obviously critical to
offer guidance for governance challenges, i.e. long
term management and compliance with regulations.
Due to the fact, that there is a clear need for
methodological support for the actual tasks and
challenges of IT management and IT governance, it
is surprising, that little attention is paid to these
questions. Chan et al. (1997) and Reich/Benbasat
(1996) censured researchers for the lack of effort put
into evaluating e. g. how business and IT can be
properly aligned, how IT related risks can be man-
aged and how IT (Information Technology) can
contribute to the overall value of the enterprise.
In recent years, there were some associations and
public institutions like ISACA (Information Systems
Audit and Control Association) and CCTA (Central
Computer and Telecommunication Agency)/OGC
(British Office of Government Commerce) which
developed frameworks (e.g. COBIT and ITIL) to
support management and governance of IT. These
frameworks are well established in practice (KPMG
2004; ITGI 2006). However, these frameworks are
lacking of theoretical foundation which would allow
conclusion with regard to e.g. completeness and co-
herence.
This paper takes steps towards the theoretical
foundation of best practice frameworks by proposing
to model them as methods. We will discuss frame-
works as ‘methods’ for IT management. Due to the
fact, that ‘method engineering’ and ‘method con-
struction’ can be seen as the core of a design science
oriented information systems research (Hevener
2004; Braun et al. 2005), we argue, that methods for
IT management should be based on these well elabo-
rated approaches.
We therefore derive an adapted method meta-
model for IT governance from a discussion of well
established method engineering approaches (part 2).
These we propose to extend, in order to capture
management and governance related aspects. Fur-
thermore we present a method metamodel of
COBIT, the popular governance framework of the
ISACA (part 3). This will be compared with the
theoretically derived method metamodel. Afterwards
331
Goeken M. and Alter S. (2008).
IT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS AS METHODS.
In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - ISAS, pages 331-338
DOI: 10.5220/0001705403310338
Copyright
c
SciTePress
we discuss the advantages of this approach and pre-
sent some research in progress – e.g. a prototype
with which we modeled COBIT.
2 METHOD ENGINEERING
In IS/CS research, the notion of the term ‘method’ is
mainly related to system development and similar
disciplines. In general ‘method’ is being used as a
quite generic term – coming from Greece
“méthodos” (way/procedure). Henceforth we will
relate it to IT management only. The following sec-
tion will give a brief introduction of the terms
method and method engineering and will provide the
foundation for the discussion about the notion of
methods in IT management / IT governance.
Methods are usually comprehensive approaches,
structuring the whole process of system develop-
ment. Therefore, a method typically has a holistic
scope and covers all tasks and activities, necessary
to plan, design and implement a system. Although
there is much research on the topics of methods and
method engineering (e.g. Ralyté et al. 2007), a gen-
erally accepted definition of ‘method’ including its
components is still missing. As a result, ‘process
model’, ‘lifecycle model’ as well as ‘technique’ are
often used synonymously or interchangeable.
An often cited definition has been coined by
Brinkkemper: „A method is an approach to perform
a systems development project, based on a specific
way of thinking, consisting of directions and rules,
structured in a systematic way in development ac-
tivities with corresponding development products.”
Method engineering deals with the engineering-
based and systematic construction of methods as
well as with their comparison and integration. Thus,
methods themselves are objects of development.
Brinkkemper (1996) defines: „Method Engineering
is the engineering discipline to design, construct and
adapt methods, techniques and tools for the devel-
opment of information systems.”
According to the method engineering approach
of the University of St. Gallen, a method is the
“systematic and structured process of the develop-
ment, modification and adaptation of software de-
velopment methods through the description of
method components and their relationships” (Heym
1993, translated). In this perspective, the compo-
nents of a method are of central importance: Heym
specifies the components ‘metamodel’, result, activ-
ity, technique and role.
A comparable approach is the one of Karlsson
(2002). He represents his definition also as a UML
diagram (fig. 1): “A method is normative prescribed
actions performed by human actors in order to reach
the actors’, or a subset of the actors’, goals”. A
method aims at creating a product, e.g. models, as
the final result or an intermediate milestone in the
development process. This is called artifact by
Karlsson: “An artifact is either a final or intermedi-
ate work product that is produced and used by actors
during a system engineering project.”
Concept
Notation
Artifact
is used in
is used in
Prescribed Action
Role
i
s
inpu
t
to
re
su
lt
in
is used durring
modifies
carry out
Actor
act in a
Business Context
i
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
related to
part of
Purpose
has
System
Engineering
Method
i
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
c
e
n
t
e
r
o
n
exists in a
Figure 1: Method Metamodel (Karlsson 2002).
Despite the differences in the various approaches,
many similar method components could be identi-
fied. Table 1 shows a comparison of the components
in three selected approaches.
Table 1: Components of System Development Methods –
Comparison (Goeken 2006).
Metamodel
Technique
Result / Model
Role
Activities
Reason / Purpose
Concept
Notation
Principle
Tool
St. Gallen X X X X X
Brinkkemper X X X X X X
Karlsson X (X) X X X X X
We conclude that methods of systems development
describe who (role) carries out activities in order to
create a product (final or intermediate). The activi-
ties are supported by techniques and tools; the prod-
uct (usually a document, a model or the final tech-
nical system) is created using a specific notation.
The whole method is affected by principles. In a
broader sense, Braun et al. (2005) characterize
methods like follows: “a method is a process for
systematically acquiring, representing and imparting
knowledge.”
ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
332
An (sub-) area of research, which might be of
importance for IT governance related aspects, is the
“situational method engineering”. It treats the con-
text-related adaptation and configuration of meth-
ods. The adaptation of methods in the area of system
development happens in general via metamodeling
and method fragments (Hofstede, Verhoef 1997;
Brinkkemper et al. 1999; Saeki 1994). Brinkkemper
et al (1999) build a framework for the classification
of method fragments. It contains the three dimen-
sions ‘perspective’, ‘level of abstraction’ and
‘granularity’. The dimension perspective is divided
into product and process, the abstraction into a con-
ceptual and a technical level. Additionally, an ontol-
ogy is proposed as an anchoring system. The classi-
fied fragments can be combined rule-based into
methods.
It has to be discussed, if the notion and the un-
derstanding of methods can be used for IT manage-
ment as well, or if methods of IT management are
generally of different characteristics and thus, ideas
of method engineering can not be transferred into
this area. The notion of method, which currently is
mainly affected by system development, possibly
has to be extended in order to capture the rather
management-driven tasks and processes of IT gov-
ernance.
It seems that the components presented in fig. 1
and tab. 1 are sufficient generic. A method for IT
management should be able to specify results and
the techniques as well as the activities to reach them.
Furthermore it should define responsibilities and
roles for the defined activities. On the other hand,
e.g. the component ‘notation’ is of particular impor-
tance in a method for system development. If this
component is of the same importance in IT govern-
ance, and if the significance of the superior control
in management-orientated methods has to be distin-
guished to a greater extent, remains to be seen.
Furthermore, the situational adaptation to a spe-
cific context, which is developed in “situational
method engineering”, seems to be relevant for IT
governance. Having identified the “one-fits-
all-”method as unreachable in the 1990s, also the
different requirements and needs of companies in the
IT management aspects can not be satisfied via one
static method. Accordingly, an attribute-based
approach to situational adaptation and configuration
of the presented frameworks is desirable.
3 BEST PRACTICE
FRAMEWORKS
3.1 Basics
As indicated, science offers little guidance to IT
management and IT governance issues. Therefore, in
the last ten years a range of open best practice
frameworks (ITIL, COBIT) as well as proprietary
frameworks were developed (Microsoft Operations
Framework (MOF), IT-Service-Management
(ITSM) of Hewlett-Packard, or the IBM IT Process
Model (ITPM)).
These frameworks which are also subsumed un-
der the developing topic “IT governance”, describe
goals, processes and organizational aspects of IT
management and control.
One point regarding the development of best
practice models is very interesting: practitioners
from the business world consolidate their knowledge
aiming to define generally accepted rules, processes,
and characteristics. Despite the fact that a few scien-
tists participate in the development of already men-
tioned frameworks such as COBIT, especially prac-
titioners are members of the relevant committees and
boards. (Johannsen, Goeken 2006, 2007)
From an academic viewpoint these best practice
frameworks can be seen as an interesting object of
research, not only because the models are widely
spread but also because they incorporate a huge
amount of consolidated knowledge. As mentioned
before, a sound scientific discussion and foundation
of these models is missing but could be fruitful.
3.2 COBIT
In the following we will focus on COBIT (Control
Objectives for Information and Related Technol-
ogy). COBIT describes a generic process model, that
defines relevant processes and activities which
should be found – according to the idea of best
practice – in every well managed IT department or
organization. Whereas earlier versions put the main
focus on IT audits, the COBIT framework mean-
while developed to a full-blown support of IT man-
agement covering most relevant tasks and areas of
this topic. (ITGI 2003, 2007)
In a macro-perspective the IT processes are ar-
ranged by grouping them into four so called control
areas which are structured similar to the well known
Deming cycle (plan, build, run, monitor) (figure 2)
IT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS AS METHODS
333
MONITOR AND
EVALUATE
DELIVER AND
SUPPORT
ACQUIRE AND
IMPLEMENT
IT RESOURCES
INFORMATION
CRITERIA
PLAN AND
ORGANISE
PO1 Define a Strategic IT Plan
PO2 Define the Information Architecture
PO3 Determine Technological Direction
PO4 Define the IT Processes, Organization
and Relationships
PO5 Manage the IT Investment
PO6 Communicate Management Aims
and Direction
PO7 Manage IT Human Resources
PO8 Manage Quality
PO9 Assess and Manage IT Risks
PO10 Manage Projects
AI1 Identify Automated Solutions
AI2 Acquire and Maintain Application
Software
AI3 Acquire and Maintain Technology
Infrastructure
AI4 Enable Operation and Use
AI5 Procure IT Resources
AI6 Manage Changes
AI7 Install and Accredit Solutions and
Changes
DS1 Define and Manage Service Levels
DS2 Manage Third-party Services
DS3 Manage Performance and Capacity
DS4 Ensure Continuous Service
DS5 Ensure Systems Security
DS6 Identify and Allocate Costs
DS7 Educate and Train Users
DS8 Manage Service Desk and Incidents
DS9 Manage the Configuration
DS10 Manage Problems
DS11 Manage Data
DS12 Manage the Physical Environment
DS13 Manage Operations
ME1 Monitor and Evaluate IT Processes
ME2 Monitor and Evaluate Internal Control
ME3 Ensure Regulatory Compliance
ME4 Provide IT Governance
BUSINESS OBJECTIVES
GOVERNANCE
OBJECTIVES
COBIT 4.1
Figure 2: The COBIT Framework – Macro Perspective.
3.3 The Method Metamodel of COBIT
Beside the application area of COBIT we identified
two further reasons to start metamodeling with
COBIT.
First, this framework is well structured in chap-
ters and components, and therefore closed in it-
self and self-contained.
Second, COBIT is comprehensive and covers
(nearly) all tasks and processes an IT organiza-
tion should carry out.
For example, ITIL (OGC 2007) is – like COBIT –
comprehensive, but lacks of structure. On the other
hand, e.g. CMMI (1999) focuses on a specific task
(development), but has a coherent structure.
However, these existing structures primarily
serve the purpose to present the framework consis-
tently and structured. It supports the navigation and
the usage of the framework but may not be mixed up
with a metamodel. A goal of metamodeling the
framework is to extract and present the underlying
logical and semantically rich relationships.
Generally spoken, a metamodel is a model of a
model. That means that initially there might be a
model, which represents the real world or some part
of it. The metamodel is the illustration of this model
on the next higher level of abstraction. Here we use
an abstraction mechanism which extracts the compo-
nents of the underlying model. (This must be distin-
guished from the most common language abstract-
tion, which is used when the abstract syntax of a
modeling language is represented in the metamodel).
We use the well known ER notation to represent
our version of the COBIT metamodel. The analysis
is stepwise and takes place in fragments which are in
the end combined to one model. Initial point of the
partial analysis is the entity type ‘process’ and thus,
it is also the later necessary entity which integrates
the fragments.
3.3.1 Control Objectives, Activities and
Results
In COBIT, the 34 IT processes produce outputs
which vice versa are used as inputs in other process-
ses. Input and output are results. According to this,
the entity type result ‘is-a’ output or input of a pro-
cess. Typical results on instance level are documents
like reports on costs, risks or plans on IT strategy.
Moreover, a process consists of control objec-
tives, which are statements of desired results or pur-
poses to be achieved by implementing control pro-
cedures in a particular process. These control proce-
dures should provide ‘reasonable assurance’, that
business objectives will be achieved.
ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
334
Furthermore, a process includes activities, which
give a detailed description of what is done. These
activities are carried out by specific persons like the
CFO, the CIO, or an architect. Therefore, we link
activities to the concept role (fig. 3).
Result
creates
Process
OutputInput
uses
contains
Control
Objective
Activity
is
assigned
to
Role
isa
Figure 3: Control Objectives, Activities and Results.
3.3.2 Goals and Metrics
Each process of the framework has goals, which can
be divided into business goals, IT goals, process
goals and activity goals. As well these goals are in
relationship with each other.
Goal
is
measured
by
Process GoalIT Goal Activity Goal
Metric
is
supported
by
Process
is
adressed
by
Information
Criteria
Level of Support
isa
Figure 4: Goals and Metrics.
Thus, IT goals activate process goals, which in
turn end up in activity goals (e.g. IT goals define
what the business expects from IT; Process goals
define what the IT process must deliver to support
IT’s objectives etc.). Each goal is measured with the
aid of different metrics.
Furthermore, a process contains information
criteria, which are abstract business goals. The in-
formation criteria proposed by COBIT are effective-
ness, efficiency, confidentiality, availability, com-
pliance and reliability. For every process COBIT
indicates, if these criteria are supported. It is distin-
guished between a primary and a secondary relation-
ship. Goals as well as metrics usually are neither
considered as components in the usual method de-
scriptions. Both are therefore candidates for the ad-
vancement of the metamodel (fig 4).
3.3.3 Maturity Model, IT Resource, Domain
Each process is assigned to one of four domains,
which are arranged according to the life cycle (see
above, fig. 2). Further components of COBIT are a
maturity model, four domains and IT resources.
Each process can be assessed by a maturity model to
determine its level of maturation. This is the starting
point for a continuous improvement of the process
maturity and its controls.
In order to achieve results, a process needs the
entity type IT resource. Implicit components as the
life cycle orientation of COBIT could enter the
metamodel as principles. This component is intro-
duced by Brinkkemper, who mentions the “way of
thinking”. However, a principle can not be dedicated
to a single entity type. Implicit basic principles form
the framework as a whole and thus have to be put in
another level of the metamodel.
Process
Maturity Level
belongs to
Domain
Maturity Model
has
is
determined
by
IT Resource
is used by
Figure 5: Maturity Model, IT-Resource and Domain.
3.3.4 IT Governance Focus Areas
Finally, each process has the attributes process code
and description. The process code is a unique identi-
fier of the process (e.g. PO5, see fig. 2). It consists
of the abbreviation of the domain and a current
number. Furthermore, each process supports a spe-
cific IT governance focus area. These IT governance
focus areas “describe the topics that executive man-
IT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS AS METHODS
335
agement needs to address to govern IT within their
enterprises” (ITGI 2007).
Process
supports
IT Governance
Focus Area
Level of Support
Abbreviation
Description
Figure 6: IT Governance Focus Areas.
For each process there is an indication if it addresses
the focus area. Like above it is distinguished be-
tween a primary and a secondary relationship.
Figure 8 shows the integrated metamodel. The
entity type process is used for the integration of the
partial models presented above.
To conclude, by building the metamodel of COBIT,
a lot of components could be identified, which can
be found in the method metamodel presented in sec-
tion 2 as well.
A method for IT governance also will define
certain actions (processes) which generate specific
results. In order to organize work and to assign re-
sponsibilities, it is necessary to relate roles to proc-
esses or activities.
In contrast to a development method, the as-
signment of roles to results often is of central im-
portance, in order to represent more complex re-
sponsibility structures and decision rights. There-
fore, the relationship ‘assigned to’, which connects
‘Role’ and ‘Result’, should be considered as a fur-
ther, governance related extension.
Important components, which are not covered by
systems development methods, are goals and met-
rics. Both are of central importance in governance
frameworks.
In the following we will present some applica-
tions which demonstrate various benefits of the
method metamodel.
4 APPLICATION AND USAGE OF
THE METAMODEL
Several advantages accrue from representing IT
governance frameworks like COBIT, ITIL or CMMI
as method metamodels. In this section we will dis-
cuss some of the benefits and possible applications.
First, the representation allows the comparison
of different frameworks on an abstract level. Once
the components are extracted, frameworks can be
examined and analyzed. Thus, other frameworks can
be checked for completeness with the aid of the
metamodel. Accordingly, one can deduce that ITIL -
in contrast to COBIT - does not provide metrics and
Result
is created
by
is used by
Process
Maturity Level
belongs to
Domain
Maturity Model
fulfils
is
determined
by
IT-Resource
uses /
needs
supports
IT Governance
Focus Area
Goal
is
measured
by
Process Goal
IT Goal
Activity Goal
Metric
adresses
Information
Criteria
is
contained
in
Control
Objective
Activity
Role
assign
OutputInput
isa
isa
Figure 7: The Method Metamodel of COBIT.
ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
336
other components for assessment to the extent
COBIT does.
Another benefit of the metamodel is the integra-
tion of new or existing processes in the COBIT
framework. This becomes apparent in the following
example: Given the vast extend to which outsourc-
ing is being practiced in today’s IT departments it is
an underrepresented issue in COBIT. With the aid of
the metamodel a ‘Control of the outsourcing’-proc-
ess can be developed under guidance. In order to
develop this process, the metamodel has to be in-
stantiated.
In addition, the integration of the process into
other existing IT processes can for example occur by
linking the results. When inputs flow to the process
and the output is used elsewhere, the new process
becomes an integrated part of the overall IT process
landscape.
One step further, a metamodel could be used to de-
scribe and analyze the linkage of various frame-
works like COBIT, ITIL and CMMI with the aim of
integrating them.
Besides, the metamodel can be the starting point
for the representation of COBIT in an application
system. The components and the logical and seman-
tic relationships are necessary, e.g. for the imple-
mentation in a semantic network. We are currently
developing a framework representation with this
technology which allows the flexible navigation
within the framework structures and the implemen-
tation of various views over the components (see fig.
9).
With a tool like this, we hope to support the im-
plementation of governance frameworks in practice
significantly.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
From our point of view, it is possible and fruitful, to
interpret IT governance frameworks as methods. IT
governance methods can learn from method engi-
neering with respect to the engineering-based and
systematic approach the latter follows.
In the article, we extracted the relevant compo-
nents performing some kind of ‘framework re-engi-
neering’ on COBIT. The resulting metamodel brings
some benefits for comparing and integrating
different frameworks. Furthermore, frameworks can
be checked for completeness against the model. An
interesting application might be the representation of
IT governance frameworks in a tool which was
Figure 8: Representation of COBIT as a Semantic Net.
IT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORKS AS METHODS
337
demonstrated in the previous section.
To give a widespread and holistic support for IT
governance, it is not sufficient to metamodel one
framework like COBIT. Instead, it is necessary to
complement it with the knowledge of other frame-
works and the findings of academic research (Steen-
bergen et al. 2007, Weill, Ross 2004). Therefore, the
mapping of COBIT can only be the first step in the
process of building a wider metamodel covering
more than one framework and, therefore, covering
various tasks and challenges of IT governance.
Another interesting area of development is the
situation specific and/or enterprise specific adoption
and configuration of governance models. We pro-
pose, that the mentioned approach of „situational
method engineering“ might be applicable to them as
well. Because frameworks like COBIT and ITIL are
seldom implemented completely and without
modification, a methodological support for model
adoption and configuration would be useful.
REFERENCES
Avison, D., Jones, J., Powell, P., Wilson, D., 2004.. Using
and Validating the Strategic Alignment Model. In
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13 (3), pp.
223-246.
Booth, Marilyn, E., Philip, G., 2005: Information Systems
Management: Role of planning, alignment and
managerial responsibilities. In Behaviour and
information Technology vol.24 no.5.
Braun, C., Wortmann, F., Hafner, F., Winter, R., 2005.
Method construction - a core approach to
organizational engineering. SAC 2005: pp. 1295-1299.
Brinkkemper, S., Saeki, M., Harmsen, F.,1999. Meta-
modeling based assembly techniques for situational
method engineering. In Information Systems 24
(1999) 3, pp. 209-228.
Brinkkemper, S., 1996. Method engineering: engineering
of information systems development methods and
tools. In Information and Software Technology 38
(1996), pp. 275-280.
Chan, Y. E., Huff, S. L., Barclay, D. W., Copeland, D. G.,
1997. Business Strategy Orientation, Information
Systems Orientation and Strategic Alignment. In
Information Systems Research 8.
CMMI 1999 The Evolution of Process Improvement.
Dezember 1999. Under:http://www.sei.cmu.edu/
newsatsei/features/1999/december/Background.dec99.
htm, at July 4th 2003.
Goeken, M. 2006. Entwicklung von Data-Warehouse-
Systemen. Anforderungsmanagement, Modellierung,
Implementierung. Wiesbaden 2006. [in german]
Heym, M. 1993. Methoden-Engineering - Spezifikation
und Integration von Entwicklungsmethoden für
Informationssysteme. Dissertation, Institut für
Wirtschaftsinformatik, Universität St. Gallen, St.
Gallen. Hallstadt 1993.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., Ram, S., 2004.
Design Science in IS Research. In MIS-Quarterly 28
(2004) 1, pp.. 75-105.
Hofstede, A. H. M. T., Verhoef, T. F. 1997. On the
feasibility of situational method engineering. In
Information Systems 22 (1997) 6-7, pp. 401-422
ITGI 2003, IT Governance Institute. COBIT
Implementation Guide, 2003, o.O.
ITGI 2006, IT Governance Institute. IT Governance
Global Status Report, 2006. Under: www.isaca.org, at
March 3rd of 2007.
ITGI 2007, IT Governance Institute. COBIT 4.1, 2007,
o.O.
Johannsen, W., Goeken, M., 2006. IT-Governance - neue
Aufgaben des IT-Managements, In HMD - Praxis
Wirtschaftsinformatik, 250, 2006,pp. 7-20. [in
german]
Johannsen, W., Goeken, M., 2007. Referenzmodelle für
IT-Governance. dpunkt.verlag, Heidelberg. [in
german]
Karlsson, F., 2002. Meta-Method for Method
Configuration - A Rational Unified Process Case.
Promotion, Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and
Sciences, Thesis 61.
KPMG 2004. Summary of KPMG IS Governance Survey.
KPMG LLP, London, September 2004.
OGC, Office of Government Commerce, 2007. ITIL V3.
Service Strategy, London.
OGC, Office of Government Commerce, 2007. ITIL V3.
Service Design, London.
OGC, Office of Government Commerce, 2007. ITIL V3.
Service Transition, London.
OGC, Office of Government Commerce, 2007. ITIL V3.
Service Operation, London.
OGC, Office of Government Commerce, 2007. ITIL V3.
Continual Service Improvement (CSI), London.
Ralyté, J.; Brinkkemper, S.; Henderson-Sellers, B. (Ed.),
2007. Situational Method Engineering: Fundamentals
and Experiences: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.1
Working Conference, 12-14 September 2007, Geneva,
Switzerland, Heidelberg, 2007.
Reich, B. H., Benbasat, I., 1996. Measuring the linkage
between business and information technology
objectives. In MIS Quarterly, 20, 1, 1996, 55. MIS-
Quarterly 28 (2004) 1, pp. 75-105.
Saeki, M.1994. Software Specification & Design Methods
and Method Engineering. In International Journal of
Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering,
1994. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/490433.html.
Steenbergen, M., Berg, B., Brinkkemper, S., 2007. An
Instrument for the Development of the Enterprise
Architecture Practice. In Proceedings of the ICEIS
2007, Funchal, Portugal, 12-16. June 2007, pp. 14-22.
Weill, P, Ross, J.W.2004. IT Governance. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston 2004.
ICEIS 2008 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
338