No.
Hypothesis: In an organization with a relationship model
instituted between business areas and the IT area,
Reasons/Consequences
1
managers identify improvements in the quality of IT solutions developed.
The need for greater formalization in internal processes
resulting from the adoption of a model of this kind should lead to the creation
of more detailed and consequently better understood demands (on the part of
business areas), as well as generating improvements in these areas’ internal
processes. One may suppose that some of the consequences of the deployment of a
relationship model of this kind would include an increase in the perception of
the quality of technological solutions developed an improvement in the
organization’s internal processes.
1.a
managers of the business areas identify an increase in the level of
satisfaction of business area expectations on the part of the IT area.
1.b
managers of the IT area identify a greater clarity in the demands passed on
by the business areas to the IT area.
2
managers identify an increase in the level of strategic alignment between
areas.
As one of the objectives of the deployment of a model for
governing the relationship between an organization’s business and IT areas is to
ensure that prioritized demands are the ones most aligned with the firm’s
corporate strategies, one may suppose that managers will perceive an increase in
the level of this alignment.
2.a
managers of business areas know and understand the strategies and needs of the
IT area.
2.b
managers of the IT area know and understand the strategies and needs of the
business areas.
2.c
managers perceive IT as a strategic partner of the business areas and not as a
mere technology provider.
3
levels of IT governance and corporate governance are perceived by managers as
being greater than without the use by the organization of this kind of
model.
As a relationship model of this kind can be understood as an
instrument of IT governance that can have an effect outside the organization,
one may suppose that managerial perceptions in this regard will be
enhanced.
3.a
managers of business areas understand that the organization’s level of
corporate governance are greater and that the risks represented to the
organization by the IT area are known.
3.b
managers of the IT area understand that the organization’s levels of IT
governance are enhanced and that the risks represented to the organization’s
business by the IT area are known.
Table 1 – Research Hypotheses
Section
Objetive
Operationalization
1
To obtain information about the respondent.
Selection of aspects such as number of years at the company and area,
position, participation in relationship model meetings and knowledge of
results.
2
Perform a general evaluation of the adequateness of the situation prior to the
deployment of the model governing the relationship between IT areas and business
areas.
Selection of the reasons given for their evaluation of the situation regarding
the negotiation of IT demands in the organization before the relationship
model.
3
Provide data to evaluate hypotheses related to the analytical category
“Formalism in the Organization’s Internal Processes”.
Each of these sections was composed of 10 items for evaluation.
The latter were evaluated once relating to the period before and once after the
deployment of the model, with the difference between these periods being a
consequence of this deployment. Each of the evaluations was performed using a
Likert type scale of 5 items, in which respondents selected total inadequateness
at one extreme and total adequateness at the other.
4
Provide data to evaluate hypotheses related to the analytical category
“Strategic Alignment between Business Areas and IT”.
5
Provide data to evaluate hypotheses related to the analytical category “Levels
of Governance in the Organization”
6
Perform a general evaluation of the adequateness of the situation after the
deployment of the model governing the relationship between IT areas and business
areas.
Selection of the reasons given for their evaluation of the situation regarding
the negotiation of IT demands in the organization after the relationship
model.
Table 2 – Sections of the Research Tool (Questionnaire)
Area
Position
Quest. Sent
Quest. Replied
Valid Quest.
No.
%
No.
%
Business Area
General Manager
5
1
20.00%
0
0.00%
Executive Manager
105
16
15.24%
8
7.62%
Division Manager
392
76
19.39%
61
15.56%
Team Manager
1
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
Area Total
503
93
18.49%
69
13.72%
IT Area
General Manager
2
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
Executive Manager
10
3
30.00%
3
30.00%
Division Manager
48
18
37.50%
18
37.50%
Team Manager
142
47
33.10%
46
32.39%
Area Total
202
68
33.66%
67
33.17%
Area Total
General Manager
7
1
14.29%
0
0.00%
Executive Manager
115
19
16.52%
11
9.57%
Division Manager
440
94
21.36%
79
17.95%%%%%%
Team Manager
143
47
32.87%
46
3.17%
Overall Total
705
161
22.84%
136
19.29%
Table 3 – Questionnaire Respondents
Reply
No.
%
Reason
No. *
Perc. of/ No.Repl
No reply
5
3.68%
Inadequate
25
77.94%
Because direct negotiation between parties perhaps would not
consider aspects such as the strategic importance of requests.
87
82.08%
Because agility in the implementation of requests may cause system
unavailability.
14
13.21%
Because the lack of formalism may hamper the understanding of the request,
which could cause problems in systems.
74
69.81%
Adequate
25
18.38%
Because the negotiation occurred directly between the business
area and the person responsible for the application in the IT area without
intermediations.
19
76.00%
Because the agility one had to implement requests in the systems offset the
problems resulting from lack of formalism.
17
68.00%
Because the specifications for implementation of requests were simpler, given
that responsible parties in both the business and IT areas had a deep
understanding of the matter.
17
68.00%
Total
136
100.00%
Table 4 – Evaluation of the Situation Before the Relationship Model
Obs.: * More than one reply was permitted
Reply
No.
%
Reason
No *
Perc. of/ No.Repl
No Reply
3
2.21%
Inadequate
71
52.21%
Because it added complexity to the process by obliging business
areas to first of all negotiate with the solution management area.
28
39.44%
Because it permitted new prioritizations on very short notice,
perhaps causing the suspension of activities.
20
28.17%
Because it did not permit the prioritization of demands that were
more aligned with the organization’s strategy, privileging instead the demands
of the business area that manages the solution.
45
63.38%
Because it permits prioritizations outside the negotiating
process, then reducing the transparency of the process.
31
43.66%
Adequate
62
45.59%
Because it stipulates business areas that are responsible for the
prioritization of demands for applications under their responsibility.
51
82.26%
Because it permits the reformulation of prioritizations at
relatively brief intervals, which is fundamental for the dynamism of a firm in
the financial area.
36
58.06%
Because it permits the prioritization of demands that are more
aligned with the company’s strategy, which can be demonstrated by the good
results obtained by the organization.
39
62.90%
Because, in exceptional cases, it allows the negotiation to take
place outside the negotiating agenda in order to make the process more
agile.
34
54.84%
Total
136
100.00%
Table 5 – Evaluation of the Situation After the Relationship Model
Obs.: * More than one reply was permitted
Area
Reply
Before the Model
After the Model
No.
Perc. of/Area
No.
Perc. of/Area
Business Area
No reply
5
7.25%
2
2.90%
Inadequate
40
57.97%
41
59.42%
Adequate
24
34.78%
26
37.68%
Total Business Area
69
100.00%
69
100.00%
IT Area
No reply
0
0.00%
1
1.49%
Inadequate
66
98.51%
30
44.78%
Adequate
1
1.49%
36
53.73%
Total IT Area
67
100.00%
67
100.00%
Area Total
No reply
5
3.68%
3
2.20%
Inadequate
106
77.94%
71
52.21%
Adequate
25
18.38%
62
45.59%
Overall Area Total
136
100.00%
136
100.00%
Table 6 – Averages of the Evaluations of the Situations Before and After the
Model
* P < 0,05
Hypothesis/Factor
Before / After theModel do Modelo
Qty.
Average
Sig. Dif.
Hypothesis 1 – Factor “Internal Processes”
Before
130
2,495
After
130
3,251
*
Hypothesis 1 – Factor “Perception of Quality”
Before
130
3,208
After
130
3,447
*
Hypothesis 2 – Factor “Strategic Prioritization of Demands”
After
128
2,396
After
128
3,162
*
Hypothesis 2 – Factor “IT Area- Business Area Relationship”
Before
128
3,040
After
128
3,099
Hypotheis 3 – Factor “IT Governance”
Before
128
2,129
After
128
3,110
*
Hypothesis 3 – Factor “Perceptions Outside the Organization”
Before
115
2,304
After
115
3,276
*
Hypothesis 1.a
Before
63
3,107
After
63
3,223
Hypothesis 1.b
Before
67
2,186
After
67
3,283
*
Hypothesis 2.a
Before
62
2,782
After
62
3,137
*
Hypothesis 2.b
Before
65
1,961
After
65
3,100
*
Hypothesis 2.c
Before
128
2,896
After
128
3,172
*
Hypothesis 3.a
Before
60
2,539
After
60
3,282
*
Hypothesis 3.b
Before
67
1,798
After
67
3,115
*
Table 7 – Averages of the Evaluations of the Situations Before and After the
Model
* P < 0,05
No.
Hypothesis: In an organization with a relationship
model instituted between business areas and the IT area...
Evaluation
1
managers identify improvements in the quality of IT solutions developed.
Confirmed
1.a
managers of business areas identify an increase in the level of satisfaction
of business area expectations on the part of the IT area.
Rejected
1.b
managers of the IT area identify a greater clarity in the demands passed on by
business areas to the IT area.
Confirmed
2
managers identify an increase in the level of strategic alignment between
areas.
Rejected
2.a
managers of business areas know and understand the needs of the IT area.
Confirmed
2.b
managers of the IT area know and understand the strategies and needs of
business areas.
Confirmed
2.c
managers perceive IT as a strategic partner of the business areas and not as
a mere technology provider.
Confirmed
3
levels of IT governance and corporate governance are perceived by managers to
be greater than without the use by the organization of this kind of
model.
Confirmed
3.a
managers of business areas understand that the organization’s levels of
corporate governance are increased and that the risks to the organization
represented by the IT area are known.
Confirmed
3.b
managers of the IT area understand that the levels of IT governance are
enhanced and that the risks to the organization’s business represented by the
IT area are known.
Confirmed
Table 8 – Results of the Evaluations of the Research Hypotheses
