Orig­i­nal source pub­li­ca­tion: Fer­nan­des, I. C., F. de Sá-Soares, A. Tereso and P. Sousa (2023). Gov­er­nance Mod­els for Non-Pro­fil Orga­ni­za­tions: A Lit­er­a­ture Review. Pro­ceed­ings of the Inter­na­tional Con­fer­ence on ENTER­prise Infor­ma­tion Sys­tems—CEN­TERIS 2023, Guimarães (Por­tu­gal).
The final pub­li­ca­tion is avail­able here.

Gov­er­nance Mod­els for Non-Profit Orga­ni­za­tions: A Lit­er­a­ture Review

Inês Cas­tro Fer­nan­des,^a Paulo Sousa,^b Anabela Tereso,^b and Fil­ipe de Sá-Soares^b

^a Mas­ter in Infor­ma­tion Sys­tems, Uni­ver­sity of Minho, Guimarães, Por­tu­gal
^b ALGO­RITMI Research Cen­tre/LASI, Uni­ver­sity of Minho, Guimarães, Por­tu­gal

1. Introduction

The Por­tuguese Pro­ject Man­age­ment Asso­ci­a­tion—APOGEP—cre­ated in 1994, is the Por­tuguese asso­ci­a­tion con­nected with the Inter­na­tional Pro­ject Man­age­ment Asso­ci­a­tion—IPMA. The Asso­ci­a­tion’s activ­ity cov­ers the fol­low­ing areas: i) cer­ti­fi­ca­tion of project man­agers, project man­age­ment con­sul­tants and train­ers; ii) cer­ti­fi­ca­tion of orga­ni­za­tions (under the IPMA Delta model); iii) reg­is­tra­tion of train­ing enti­ties accord­ing to the IPMA-APOGEP model; iv) orga­ni­za­tion and pro­mo­tion of events in project man­age­ment spec­trum; v) sup­port to the cre­ation of a com­mu­nity of project man­agers; and vi) dis­sem­i­na­tion of the main news related to project man­age­ment [COSO 2013]. The Por­tuguese Pro­ject Man­age­ment Obser­va­tory (PPMO) was cre­ated in 2020. It is a non-profit orga­ni­za­tion (NPO) cre­ated as a “satel­lite” of APOGEP’s “ecosys­tem”. In 2023, the APOGEP Board of Direc­tors decided to strengthen the gov­er­nance model of the PPMO which led to this research being car­ried out, with the aim of obtain­ing a gov­er­nance model suit­able to the needs of the PPMO. The aim of this study is there­fore to under­stand the impact of gov­er­nance on NPOs and to iden­tify the appro­pri­ate tools for devel­op­ing suc­cess­ful gov­er­nance mod­els.

Good cor­po­rate gov­er­nance should form the bedrock of effec­tive inter­nal con­trol as it directly con­trib­utes to enhanc­ing orga­ni­za­tional per­for­mance once the orga­ni­za­tion’s estab­lished struc­tures have been eval­u­ated [Bîrcă 2018]. Cor­po­rate gov­er­nance within a busi­ness can be ben­e­fi­cial in var­i­ous areas, includ­ing account­abil­ity, eco­nomic and strate­gic effi­ciency, and stake­holder man­age­ment [Broni and Velentzas 2012].

The imple­men­ta­tion of a Gov­er­nance Model (GM) poses cer­tain dif­fi­cul­ties because it is often applied in a highly orga­nized com­pany, requir­ing orga­ni­za­tional adjust­ments [Chho­tray and Stoker 2009]. How­ever, when talk­ing about NPOs, Kaplan [2001] notes that achiev­ing align­ment and focus tends to be dif­fi­cult. Due to rea­sons such as lack of resources or over-sim­pli­fi­ca­tion of the orga­ni­za­tion, sev­eral obsta­cles may arise when devel­op­ing or imple­ment­ing a GM in NPOs.

The lit­er­a­ture review method­ol­ogy was employed in this research to assess, exam­ine, and com­pre­hend the prac­tices, resources, pre­req­ui­sites, and chal­lenges involved in devel­op­ing GM for NPOs.

The arti­cle is struc­tured as fol­lows. The over­all empir­i­cal research process is described by out­lin­ing the research set­ting and the method­ol­ogy in sec­tion 2. Sec­tion 3 presents a lit­er­a­ture review that focuses on con­cepts that might assist an NPO, such as the PPMO, to artic­u­late its deci­sion lay­ers in a design that pro­motes the effec­tive inte­gra­tion between its gov­er­nance sys­tem and its man­age­ment struc­ture. In Sec­tion 4, the results are dis­cussed. The last sec­tion draws con­clu­sions from the find­ings and sug­gests avenues for future research.

2. Research Methodology

To con­struct the lit­er­a­ture review for this study, an exten­sive search was done to find gov­er­nance-related ideas. Although recent lit­er­a­ture was pre­ferred for con­cepts that had under­gone sig­nif­i­cant changes since their incep­tion, stud­ies were cho­sen based on their rel­e­vance to the top­ics addressed rather than their pub­li­ca­tion date. The search was done using aca­d­e­mic search data­bases, as pre­sented in Table 1, and based on the key­words: “Gov­er­nance Def­i­n­i­tion”; “Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance Def­i­n­i­tion”; “Gov­er­nance For Inter­nal Con­trol”; “Good Gov­er­nance Ben­e­fits”; “Gov­er­nance Model”; “Gov­er­nance Model Ben­e­fits”; “Bal­anced Score­card For Gov­er­nance”; “Key Per­for­mance Indi­ca­tors”; “Key Risk Indi­ca­tors”; “Enter­prise Archi­tec­tures”; “Enter­prise Archi­tec­ture Def­i­n­i­tion”; “Infor­ma­tion Archi­tec­ture”; “Process Archi­tec­ture”.

Table 1: Sum­mary of the Lit­er­a­ture Search “Pro­to­col”

Ini­tially, the search resulted in 3967 arti­cles, out of which the repeated ones were removed, leav­ing 3929. The titles and abstracts of these arti­cles were reviewed to elim­i­nate the less rel­e­vant ones for the research, ulti­mately leav­ing only 48 which were then read in their entirety. When ana­lyzed by title, the arti­cles per­ceived irrel­e­vant appeared to beun­re­lated to the desired theme of Gov­er­nance, address­ing other forms of gov­er­nance not suit­able for non-profit orga­ni­za­tions, or fail­ing to pro­vide an explain­ing approach to the other con­cepts required for the research. The stud­ies served as the foun­da­tion for a work/con­cept matrix. A sec­ond round of searches was con­ducted uti­liz­ing addi­tional key­words and expres­sions such as “Bad Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance”, “Zach­man Enter­prise Archi­tec­ture” and “Enter­prise Process Archi­tec­ture”. After this step, the matrix showed that sev­eral per­ti­nent issues had not been ade­quately cov­ered and resulted in the gath­er­ing of a fur­ther three arti­cles, result­ing in a total of 51 arti­cles.

The over­all aim was to pro­vide an updated and sound sci­en­tific basis for sup­port­ing the design, imple­men­ta­tion and con­tin­u­ous improve­ment of the GM of the PPMO. Hence, the research ques­tion that guided this study was “Which tools can be used to develop Gov­er­nance Mod­els for NPOs?”

3. Literature Review

3.1 Governance and Governance Models

Author­ity, account­abil­ity, and respon­si­bil­ity are all bal­anced through gov­er­nance, which reg­u­lates and directs an orga­ni­za­tion [McGrath and Whitty 2015]. To pro­vide lead­er­ship and ensure account­abil­ity, effec­tive gov­er­nance requires open­ness, pre­dictabil­ity, and involve­ment [Gill 2006].

Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance (CG) refers to the steer­ing, over­sight, and respon­si­bil­ity of a com­pany [Kur­ni­as­anti and Mus­d­ho­lifah 2018]. It encom­passes direct­ing and con­trol­ling tasks to guar­an­tee that investors real­ize their expected returns, the legit­i­mate inter­ests of stake­hold­ers are con­sid­ered, and eth­i­cal con­duct and account­abil­ity are pro­moted [Adnan and Ahmed 2019; Dănescu et al. 2015; ISACA 2018].

Good gov­er­nance fos­ters effec­tive resource uti­liza­tion and risk opti­miza­tion, clar­i­fies rights and respon­si­bil­i­ties, ensures ben­e­fits assess­ment and real­iza­tion, and estab­lishes long-term strate­gic goals, all of which pos­i­tively impact an orga­ni­za­tion’s per­for­mance [Bîrcă 2018; Broni and Velentzas 2012; ISACA 2018]. Also, effec­tive gov­er­nance gives man­age­ment a frame­work for account­abil­ity that can enhance orga­ni­za­tional action [Gill 2006].

Gov­er­nance mod­els are cur­rently a promi­nent and widely acknowl­edged topic within the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity. After a search in the Sco­pus data­base, with “Gov­er­nance Model” in the Title, Abstract or Key­words, the term appeared for the first time in 1980 (two doc­u­ments) and slowly increased until 2000 (24 doc­u­ments). From 2000 until 2022 the increase was expo­nen­tial, with 407 doc­u­ments found in 2022. Nowa­days, sus­tain­abil­ity is an influ­en­tial expres­sion that started to be included in orga­ni­za­tions’ gov­er­nance mod­els. Engert, Rauter & Baum­gart­ner [Engert et al. 2016, p. 2834] pro­pose to inte­grate sus­tain­abil­ity in the busi­ness and define cor­po­rate sus­tain­abil­ity as “con­sid­er­ing an orga­ni­za­tion’s needs, while pro­tect­ing, sus­tain­ing and enhanc­ing the human and nat­ural resources that will be needed in the future”.

3.2 Enterprise Architecture, Information Architecture and Process Architecture

The orga­ni­za­tion’s activ­i­ties, struc­ture, or pro­ce­dures may change as a result of the imple­men­ta­tion of a new GM [Chho­tray and Stoker 2009]. There­fore, it is cru­cial to address the Enter­prise Archi­tec­ture (EA), which also strives to lead suc­cess­ful change, to facil­i­tate the adop­tion of the GM in NPOs [The Open Group 2022]. EA is a rep­re­sen­ta­tion that busi­nesses may use to effi­ciently man­age change and match their busi­ness goals with their busi­ness processes. EA allows man­agers to view the orga­ni­za­tion as a whole by gath­er­ing and stor­ing related data in a sin­gle repos­i­tory [Silva Rodrigues and Ama­ral 2010]. It directs the cre­ation of an orga­ni­za­tion’s oper­a­tional plat­form, which con­sists of the busi­ness pro­ce­dures, peo­ple, equip­ment and Infor­ma­tion Tech­nol­ogy (IT) that sup­port orga­ni­za­tional func­tions [Cor­reia Fre­itas Silva 2014].

Plan­ning, design­ing, and man­ag­ing busi­ness infor­ma­tion is made eas­ier by the Infor­ma­tion Archi­tec­ture (IA) rep­re­sen­ta­tion for man­agers and busi­ness data admin­is­tra­tors [Rood 1994]. IA, as defended by Jafari et al. [2009], can be cre­ated using either top-down or bot­tom-up approaches. Finally, when cre­at­ing an IA, the per­spec­tives of the owner, designer, and builder should be con­sid­ered [Zach­man 1987].

There are two ways to look at Process Archi­tec­ture (PA): as a col­lec­tion of processes or as a sin­gle process [Eppinger and Brown­ing 2012; Koliadis et al. 2008]. Researchers use the terms Busi­ness Process Archi­tec­ture or Enter­prise Process Archi­tec­ture to dis­tin­guish these two view­points [De Bruin and Rose­man 2006; Koliadis et al. 2008].

3.3 Balanced Scorecard and Key Performance Indicators

The Bal­anced Score­card (BSC), as pointed out by Kaplan and Nor­ton [1992], is a tool used to assess and enhance the per­for­mance of busi­nesses. Four per­spec­tives make up the BSC: i) Finan­cial - relates to eco­nomic per­for­mance and via­bil­ity; ii) Cos­tumer per­spec­tive - helps to iden­tify the cur­rent and future mar­ket seg­ments and cus­tomers and to assess the per­for­mance regard­ing aspects as time, qual­ity, ser­vice, and cost of offer­ings; iii) Inter­nal busi­ness process per­spec­tive - refers to the effi­ciency and qual­ity in the processes; and, iv) Inno­va­tion and learn­ing per­spec­tive - con­cerns inno­va­tion and improve­ment pos­si­bil­i­ties regard­ing infra­struc­ture, tech­nol­ogy, cul­ture, and human cap­i­tal train­ing [Kaplan 2001]. The BSC, as defended by Kaplan and Nor­ton [1992], elim­i­nates infor­ma­tion over­load and con­cen­trates exec­u­tives on a small num­ber of cru­cial met­rics, by reduc­ing the num­ber of mea­sures employed. The neces­sity to estab­lish a BSC in NPOs stems from the goal of bal­anc­ing the orga­ni­za­tion’s assess­ments beyond finan­cial suc­cess [Zim­mer­man 2004]. Some years later, Figge et al. [2002] intro­duced another per­spec­tive to be employed in NPOs, the non-mar­ket per­spec­tive. The authors also rec­om­mend the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of sus­tain­able hotspots within the busi­ness model through the uti­liza­tion of a mate­ri­al­ity matrix. This tool helps to pri­or­i­tize the rel­e­vant aspects that are impor­tant for both the orga­ni­za­tion and its stake­hold­ers.

Schol­ars have pre­vi­ously high­lighted the par­al­lels between the busi­ness model and the bal­anced score­card, stress­ing their “com­ple­men­tary roles in ensur­ing the achieve­ment of strate­gic aims through day-to-day busi­ness oper­a­tions” [Lüdeke-Fre­und and Dem­bek 2017, p. 189–190]. Lüdeke-Fre­und et al. [2017] aligned the two con­cepts to develop the SUST-BMA frame­work, specif­i­cally designed for con­struct­ing a Sus­tain­able Busi­ness Model (SBM). This frame­work eval­u­ates the over­all sus­tain­abil­ity per­for­mance, encom­pass­ing eco­nomic, social, and envi­ron­men­tal ben­e­fits (see Fig­ure 1).

Fig­ure 1: Sus­tain­abil­ity Busi­ness Model Frame­work
Adapted from Lüdeke-Fre­und et al. [2017]

The Busi­ness Model (BM) rep­re­sents the way an orga­ni­za­tion cre­ates value through activ­i­ties and resources (the HOW). On the other hand, the Sus­tain­abil­ity BSC syn­the­sizes the orga­ni­za­tion’s goals and assesses their achieve­ment (the WHAT). At the junc­tion, one ques­tion comes up: are the per­formed activ­i­ties of the BM in line with the orga­ni­za­tion’s strate­gic goals?

KPIs are cru­cial mea­sure­ments for deter­min­ing how suc­cess­fully a busi­ness achieves its strate­gic goals [War­ren 2011]. KPIs must be sim­ple to com­pre­hend, align with the goals of all stake­hold­ers, and come from inside the busi­ness to be effec­tive [War­ren 2011]. Effec­tive KPIs have seven qual­i­ties, accord­ing to Jan­ick­ova and Zizlavsky [2019], they are non-finan­cial and per­for­mance-related, con­tin­u­ally mon­i­tored, easy to grasp, team-based, have a major influ­ence on the com­pany, and pro­mote the right actions.

4. Results and Discussion

The lit­er­a­ture review cul­mi­nates in the pre­sen­ta­tion of a work/con­cept matrix, pre­sented in Table 2. This matrix serves to map the key con­cepts iden­ti­fied in the lit­er­a­ture, which are cru­cial to be incor­po­rated dur­ing the design of the PPMO gov­er­nance model.

On one hand, gov­er­nance should func­tion as a set of “rules of the game” to mit­i­gate poten­tial neg­a­tive effects aris­ing from inad­e­quate man­age­ment pro­ce­dures, safe­guard­ing the inter­ests of all par­ties involved, and achiev­ing a har­mo­nious bal­ance between stake­hold­ers [Broni and Velentzas 2012; Dănescu et al. 2015].

On the other hand, set­backs may arise due to chal­lenges, such as con­flicts of inter­est and lack of trust. As high­lighted by Chho­tray and Stoker [Chho­tray and Stoker 2009], this is pre­cisely why orga­ni­za­tions require a hier­ar­chy. It serves the pur­pose of estab­lish­ing and main­tain­ing rules, while simul­ta­ne­ously pro­mot­ing indi­vid­u­al­ity and col­lab­o­ra­tion [Chho­tray and Stoker 2009]. In addi­tion to this, gov­er­nance strate­gies should fos­ter coop­er­a­tion among deci­sion-mak­ers and facil­i­tate effec­tive deci­sion-mak­ing processes grounded in moral prin­ci­ples and real-time infor­ma­tion [Deighan and Aitken 2021]. Given the com­plex­ity involved, effec­tive gov­er­nance requires a spe­cific array of tools [Chho­tray and Stoker 2009].

Table 2: Works and Con­cepts
Leg­end: [A] Gov­er­nance; [B] GM; [C] Archi­tec­tures (EA, IA, PA); [D] KPI; [E] PDCA; [F] BSC

In GM, power dynam­ics, deci­sion-mak­ing processes, and norms inside an orga­ni­za­tion must all be out­lined. A good GM makes man­age­ment and respon­si­bil­i­ties trans­par­ent and clear, enhances process coor­di­na­tion, and boosts gov­er­nance effec­tive­ness [Chho­tray and Stoker 2009; Deloitte 2013].

Gill [2006] pro­poses sev­eral con­cepts and meth­ods for estab­lish­ing a suc­cess­ful GM. These include ele­ments, such as strong lead­er­ship, trans­par­ent delin­eation of roles and rela­tion­ships, con­sid­er­a­tion of stake­holder expec­ta­tions, fos­ter­ing team­work, con­duct­ing reg­u­lar reviews, and cul­ti­vat­ing a high level of trust and con­sen­sus-build­ing. The GM should encom­pass the struc­ture and func­tions of the board, a code of con­duct, man­age­r­ial posi­tions, and long-term goals, all of which should be spec­i­fied and artic­u­lated.

The ben­e­fits of EA in effec­tively man­ag­ing com­plex busi­ness and tech­no­log­i­cal envi­ron­ments are evi­dent. EA excels in han­dling intri­cate sys­tems by break­ing them down into their con­stituent parts and con­nec­tions, enabling future design mod­i­fi­ca­tions [Zach­man 2003]. As a fun­da­men­tal tool for com­mu­ni­ca­tion and deci­sion-mak­ing, EA offers a clear and thor­ough under­stand­ing of an orga­ni­za­tion’s struc­ture and inter­re­la­tion­ships [Ples­sius et al. 2014; The Open Group 2022].

The Open Group [2018] presents the Archi­tec­ture Devel­op­ment Method (ADM) as a com­pre­hen­sive approach. The ADM com­prises sev­eral key com­po­nents, includ­ing the Archi­tec­ture Vision, Busi­ness Archi­tec­ture, Infor­ma­tion Sys­tems Archi­tec­ture, Tech­nol­ogy Archi­tec­ture, Oppor­tu­ni­ties and Solu­tions, Migra­tion Plan­ning, Gov­er­nance Imple­men­ta­tion, and Change Man­age­ment Archi­tec­ture. Alter­na­tively, Zach­man [2003] and Jafari et al. [2009] offer a frame­work for EA devel­op­ment that includes views, abstrac­tions, and guide­lines [Jafari et al. 2009; Zach­man 2003].

The uti­liza­tion of PA is essen­tial for both EA and the man­age­ment of numer­ous processes [Poels et al. 2020]. PA serves the pur­pose of effec­tively man­ag­ing processes as strate­gic assets for oper­a­tional suc­cess and effi­ciency within busi­nesses, par­tic­u­larly when inte­grated as part of EA [Poels et al. 2020].

The impor­tance of KPIs in cor­po­rate per­for­mance can be sum­ma­rized by their focus on crit­i­cal per­for­mance attrib­utes and their abil­ity to help orga­ni­za­tions estab­lish mea­sur­able objec­tives and eval­u­ate their achieve­ment [van de Ven et al. 2022]. KPIs are cru­cial for assess­ing how the extent to which a com­pany is effec­tively pro­gress­ing towards its strate­gic goals [Domínguez et al. 2019; Jan­ick­ova and Zizlavsky 2019; War­ren 2011].

Once estab­lished, a GM should be mon­i­tored and reviewed. The PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle might prove use­ful to ensure con­tin­u­ous improve­ment of gov­er­nance sys­tems.

The BSC pro­vides a full pic­ture of how the busi­ness aligns with the strat­egy. It estab­lishes con­nec­tions between the goals of the four per­spec­tives, whereby improve­ments in process per­for­mance result in suc­cess­ful out­comes for cus­tomers and share­hold­ers [Kaplan and Nor­ton 2004].

Within NPOs, train­ing pro­grams play a cru­cial role in enhanc­ing the skills of employ­ees and vol­un­teers, ulti­mately lead­ing to improved ser­vice deliv­ery and increased sat­is­fac­tion among stake­hold­ers [Kong 2010].

Fig­ure 2 pro­vides an overview of the pro­posed design for the PPMO Gov­er­nance Model in con­junc­tion with the PPMO Man­age­ment Struc­ture, which con­sists of two lev­els: the gov­er­nance level and the man­age­ment level,encom­pass­ing four lay­ers. These lay­ers are as fol­lows: i) Layer 1—Gov­er­nance Sys­tem; ii) Layer 2—Man­age­ment Sys­tem; iii) Layer 3—Port­fo­lio Sys­tem and Pro­gramme Sys­tem; iv) Layer 4—Pro­ject Man­age­ment Sys­tem. Each layer depicts the roles or func­tions respon­si­ble for oper­at­ing the cor­re­spond­ing sys­tem.

Fig­ure 2: Overview of the PPMO Gov­er­nance Model and Man­age­ment Struc­ture

5. Conclusions

The suc­cess of a gov­er­nance model depends on care­ful con­sid­er­a­tion given to its design and imple­men­ta­tion. To mit­i­gate the poten­tial neg­a­tive impacts of inad­e­quate gov­er­nance and pro­tect the inter­ests of all stake­hold­ers, it is rec­om­mended that gov­er­nance func­tions as a set of “rules of the game” [Dănescu et al. 2015]. Orga­ni­za­tions should have a clear under­stand­ing of dif­fer­ent gov­er­nance strate­gies and rel­e­vant con­sid­er­a­tions to estab­lish an effec­tive gov­er­nance sys­tem [Gill 2002]. More­over, spe­cific tools and tac­tics that fos­ter coop­er­a­tion among deci­sion-mak­ers, and enable effi­cient deci­sion-mak­ing processes based on moral prin­ci­ples and real-time infor­ma­tion, are essen­tial for effec­tive gov­er­nance [Chho­tray and Stoker 2009; Deighan and Aitken 2021]. A suc­cess­ful gov­er­nance model enhances process coor­di­na­tion, clar­i­fies man­age­ment and respon­si­bil­ity, and increases trans­parency [Chho­tray and Stoker 2009; Deloitte 2013].

Ulti­mately, the design and imple­men­ta­tion of an effec­tive gov­er­nance model, such as the one pro­posed for the PPMO, can yield sig­nif­i­cant ben­e­fits for orga­ni­za­tions, includ­ing enhanced deci­sion-mak­ing processes, trans­parency and account­abil­ity, and col­lab­o­ra­tion and mutual under­stand­ing between stake­hold­ers.

It is impor­tant to acknowl­edge the lim­i­ta­tions of the cur­rent study. Firstly, the obser­va­tion of the con­cept matrix high­lighted a lack of research on the prin­ci­ples and pro­ce­dures for cre­at­ing a gov­er­nance model, indi­cat­ing the need for fur­ther study in this area. Although a vari­ety of rel­e­vant tools have been iden­ti­fied to that end, we need to grasp an effi­cient way to com­bine them, make a trial ver­sion, imple­ment de trial ver­sion on the PPMO, make the nec­es­sary adap­ta­tions, and col­lect the lessons learned in order to form a basis for the devel­op­ment of gov­er­nance sys­tems in NPOs.

Future work will focus on: i) design­ing the GM; ii) imple­ment­ing the GM; iii) pilot­ing the gov­er­nance sys­tem; and iv) improv­ing the gov­er­nance sys­tem and model.

Acknowledgements

This work has been sup­ported by FCT—Fun­dação para a Ciên­cia e Tec­nolo­gia within the R&D Units Pro­ject Scope: UIDB/00319/2020.

References

• AIDS Com­mit­tee of Ottawa (2013). Dif­fer­ent Types of Gov­er­nance Mod­els. [Online]. Avail­able: http://aco-cso.ca/wp-con­tent/uploads/2013/05/BOD_Type­sOf­Gov­er­nance­Mod­els.pdf

  Adnan, A. and N. Ahmed (2019).The Trans­for­ma­tion of the Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance Model: A Lit­er­a­ture Review. Coper­ni­can Jour­nal of Finance & Account­ing 8(3), 7–47. DOI: 10.12775/CJFA.2019.011.

  Alwadain, A. (2020). Enter­prise Archi­tec­ture: A Busi­ness Value Real­iza­tion Model. Sus­tain­abil­ity. DOI: 10.3390/su12208485.

  Broni, G. and J. Velentzas (2012). Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance, Con­trol and Indi­vid­u­al­ism as a Def­i­n­i­tion of Busi­ness Suc­cess. The Idea of a ‘Post - Heroic’ Lead­er­ship. Pro­ce­dia Eco­nom­ics and Finance 1, 61–70. DOI: 10.1016/s2212-5671(12)00009-3.

  Bîrcă, A. (2018). Studiu Empiric Asupra Relați­ilor Din­tre Guver­nanța Cor­po­ra­tivă Și Con­trolul Intern. Akademos 3, 61–66.

  De Bruin, T. and M. Rose­mann (2006). Towards Under­stand­ing Strate­gic Align­ment of Busi­ness Process Man­age­ment. 17^th Aus­tralasian Con­fer­ence on Infor­ma­tion Sys­tems. [Online]. Avail­able: http://aisel.ais­net.org/acis2006

  Caraiman, A.-C. (2020). Respon­si­bil­ity for Inter­nal Con­trol in Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance. Ovid­ius Uni­ver­sity Annals, Eco­nomic Sci­ences XX(2), 612–619. [Online]. Avail­able: https://stec.univ-ovid­ius.ro/html/anale/RO/wp-con­tent/uploads/2021/03/Sec­tion 4/6.pdf

  Chho­tray, V. and G. Stoker (2009). Gov­er­nance: From The­ory to Prac­tice. In Gov­er­nance The­ory and Prac­tice. Lon­don: Pal­grave Macmil­lan, 214–247. DOI: 10.1057/9780230583344_10.

  Cor­reia Fre­itas Silva, J. D. (2014). Instru­mento para a Avali­ação de Arquite­turas Empre­sari­ais baseadas em TOGAF 9.1. Uni­ver­si­dade do Minho.

  COSO (2012), Frame­work and Appen­dices. COSO Inter­nal Con­trol-Inte­grated Frame­work. [Online]. Avail­able: www.ic.coso.org

  COSO (2013). Exec­u­tive sum­mary. New York, 1–20. Accessed: Nov. 13, 2022. [Online]. Avail­able: http://www.coso.org/doc­u­ments/990025P_Exec­u­tive_Sum­mary_final_may20_e.pdf

  Dănescu,T., M. Prozan, and R. D. Prozan (2015). Per­spec­tives Regard­ing Account­ing—Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance—Inter­nal Con­trol. Pro­ce­dia Eco­nom­ics and Finance 32, 588–594. DOI: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01436-7.

  Deighan, M. and F. Aitken (2021). Plu­ral­ity of gov­er­nance—the trans­parency of def­i­n­i­tions. Jour­nal of the Royal Col­lege of Physi­cians of Edin­burgh 51(20), 123–124. DOI: 10.4997/JRCPE.2021.204.

  Deloitte (2013). Devel­op­ing an effec­tive gov­er­nance oper­at­ing model: A guide for finan­cial ser­vices boards and man­age­ment teams. Deloitte Devel­op­ment LLC, 16. [Online]. Avail­able: http://www.deloitte.com

  Domínguez, E., B. Pérez, Á. L. Rubio and M. A. Zap­ata (2019). A tax­on­omy for key per­for­mance indi­ca­tors man­age­ment. Com­puter Stan­dards & Inter­faces 64, 24–40. DOI: 10.1016/J.CSI.2018.12.001.

  Engert, S., R. Rauter, and R. J. Baum­gart­ner (2016). Explor­ing the inte­gra­tion of cor­po­rate sus­tain­abil­ity into strate­gic man­age­ment: A lit­er­a­ture review. Jour­nal of Cleaner Pro­duc­tion 112, 2833–2850. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031.

  Eppinger, S. D. and T. R. Brown­ing (2012). Process Archi­tec­ture DSM Mod­els. In Design Struc­ture Matrix Meth­ods and Appli­ca­tions, 129–152. DOI: 10.7551/mit­press/8896.003.0008.

  Farn­ham, K. (2022). No TiBoard Gov­er­nance Mod­els: 5 Exam­ples of the Most Promi­nent Frame­work­s­tle. https://www.dili­gent.com/insights/board-gov­er­nance/exam­ples-board-gov­er­nance-mod­els/

  Figge, F., T. Hahn, S. Schal­tegger and M. Wag­ner (2002). The sus­tain­abil­ity bal­anced score­card—link­ing sus­tain­abil­ity man­age­ment to busi­ness strat­egy. Busis­ness Strat­egy Envi­ron­ment 11(5), 269–284.

  Gill, M. D. (2002). Build­ing Effec­tive Approaches to Gov­er­nance. Non­profit Quar­terly. [Online]. Avail­able: https://non­prof­itquar­terly.org/build­ing-effec­tive-approaches-to-gov­er­nance-mod­els

  Gill, M. D. (2006). Gov­ern­ing for results: a direc­tor’s guide to good gov­er­nance. Vic­to­ria, B.C.: Traf­ford. [Online]. Avail­able: https://archive.org/details/gov­ern­ing­for­resu00meld/page/n3/mode/2up

  Gina, O., R. Adeghe and O.-E. Osaretin Kings­ley (2014). Inter­nal Con­trol As A Poten­tial Instru­ment For Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance. IOSR Jour­nal of Eco­nom­ics and Finance 2(6), 66–70. DOI: 10.9790/5933-0266670.

  ISACA (2018). COBIT 2019 Frame­work: Intro­duc­tion and Method­ol­ogy. ISACA.

  Jafari, M., P. Akha­van, and E. Noura­nipour (2009). Devel­op­ing an archi­tec­ture model for enter­prise knowl­edge: An empir­i­cal study based on the Zach­man frame­work in Iran. Man­age­ment Deci­sion 47(5), 730–759. DOI: 10.1108/00251740910960097.

  Jagu­siak-Kocik, M. (2017). PDCA cycle as a part of con­tin­u­ous improve­ment in the pro­duc­tion com­pany - A case study. Pro­duc­tion Engi­neer­ing Archives 14(14), 19–22. DOI: 10.30657/pea.2017.14.05.

  Jan­ick­ova, N. and O. Zizlavsky (2019). Key Per­for­mance Indi­ca­tors and the Bal­anced Score­card Approach in Small and Medium-Sized Enter­prises: A Lit­er­a­ture Review. In Per­spec­tives of Busi­ness and Entre­pre­neur­ship Devel­op­ment in Dig­i­tal Trans­for­ma­tion of Cor­po­rate Busi­ness, Brno, 55–64.

  Kaplan, R. S. (2001). Strate­gic Per­for­mance Mea­sure­ment and Man­age­ment in Non­profit Orga­ni­za­tions. Non­profit Man­age­ment Lead­er­ship 11(3), 353–370. [Online]. Avail­able: http://onlineli­brary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.11308/abstract

  Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Nor­ton (1992). The Bal­anced Score­card-Mea­sures That Drive Per­for­mance. Har­vard Busi­ness Review, 71–79.

  Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Nor­ton (2004). Strat­egy Maps: Con­vert­ing Intan­gi­ble Assets into Tan­gi­ble Out­comes. Boston: Har­vard Busi­ness School Press.

  Koliadis, G., A. K. Ghose and S. Pad­man­ab­huni (2008). Towards an enter­prise busi­ness process archi­tec­ture stan­dard. Pro­ceed­ings - 2008 IEEE Con­gress on Ser­vices, SER­VICES 2008, 239–246. DOI: 10.1109/SER­VICES-1.2008.60.

  Kong, E. (2010). Ana­lyz­ing BSC and IC’s use­ful­ness in non­profit orga­ni­za­tions. Jour­nal of Intel­lec­tual Cap­i­tal 11(3), 284–304. DOI: 10.1108/14691931011064554.

  Kur­ni­as­anti, A. and M. Mus­d­ho­lifah (2018). Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance. Oxford Ency­clo­pe­dia of Busi­ness and Man­age­ment, 84–97.

• La Rocca, M., F. Fasano and G. M. Napoli (2019). Ali­talia air­line: A busi­ness case of bad cor­po­rate gov­er­nance. Cor­po­rate Own­er­ship and Con­trol 17(10), 264–277. DOI: 10.22495/cocv17i1siart9.

  Lüdeke-Fre­und, F. and K. Dem­bek (2017). Sus­tain­able busi­ness model research and prac­tice: Emerg­ing field or pass­ing fancy?. Jour­nal of Cleaner Pro­duc­tion 168, 1668–1678.

  McGrath, S. K. and S. J. Whitty (2015). Redefin­ing gov­er­nance: from con­fu­sion to cer­tainty and clar­ity. Inter­na­tional Jour­nal of Man­ag­ing Pro­jects in Busi­ness 8(4), 755–787. DOI: 10.1108/IJMPB-10-2014-0071.

  Moen, R. and C. Nor­man (2023). Evo­lu­tion of the PDCA Cycle. Accessed: Apr. 30, 2023. [Online]. Avail­able: https://www.anforq.org/activ­i­ties/con­gresses/index.html

  PA Process Team (2020). The Four Mod­els of Gov­er­nance. https://processpa.com/Exec­u­tive­Mat­ters/the-four-mod­els-of-gov­er­nance

  Ples­sius, H., vav M. Steen­ber­gen and S. Ray­mond. Slot (2014). Per­ceived Ben­e­fits from Enter­prise Archi­tec­ture. MCIS 2014 Pro­ceed­ings. Accessed: Dec. 12, 2022. [Online]. Avail­able: http://aisel.ais­net.org/mcis2014/23

  Poels, G., F. Gar­cía, F. Ruiz and M. Piat­tini (2020). Archi­tect­ing busi­ness process maps. Com­puter Sci­ence and Infor­ma­tion Sys­tems 17(1), 117–139. DOI: 10.2298/CSIS181118018P.

  Rood, M. A. (1994). Enter­prise archi­tec­ture: def­i­n­i­tion, con­tent, and util­ity. 3^rd IEEE Work­shop on Enabling Tech­nolo­gies: Infra­struc­ture for Col­lab­o­ra­tive Enter­prises, 106–111. DOI: 10.1109/ENABL.1994.330494.

  Sankaran, K. and S. Iyer (2010). Gov­er­nance tools for board mem­bers. Adapt­ing strat­egy maps and bal­anced score­cards for direc­to­r­ial action. Ver­slo ir teisės aktu­al­i­jos 6(1), 141–158. DOI: 10.5200/1822-9530.2011.08.

  Silva Rodrigues, L. and L. Ama­ral (2010). Mul­ti­di­men­sional value of Enter­prise Archi­tec­tures. IADIS Inter­na­tional Con­fer­ence Infor­ma­tion Sys­tems 2010, 409–413.

  Tbaishat, D. (2018). Process archi­tec­ture devel­op­ment using Riva and ARIS: com­par­a­tive study. Busi­ness Process Man­age­ment Jour­nal 24(3), 837–858. DOI: 10.1108/BPMJ-04-2016-0086.

  The Open Group (2018). The TOGAF® Stan­dard Ver­sion 9.2. https://pubs.open­group.org/archi­tec­ture/togaf9-doc/arch/

  The Open Group (2022). A Prac­ti­tion­ers’ Approach to Devel­op­ing Enter­prise Archi­tec­ture Fol­low­ing the TOGAF ® ADM. In TOGAF®Series Guide. [Online]. Avail­able: www.open­group.org/legal/licens­ing.

  Trindade Vasques Vieira, E. and J. C. de Fre­itas (2015). Con­se­quences of Inter­nal Con­trol and COSO for Audit­ing and Cor­po­rate Gov­er­nance—An Exploratory Research. Revista Cinetí­fica Her­mes 14, 156–175.

  van de Ven,R. M., P. Lara Machado, A. Athana­sopoulou, B. Aysol­maz and O. Turetken (2022). Key Per­for­mance Indi­ca­tors for Busi­ness Mod­els: A Review of Lit­er­a­ture. ECIS 2022 Research Papers. [Online]. Avail­able: https://aisel.ais­net.org/ecis2022_rp/126

  War­ren, J. (2011). Key Per­for­mance Indi­ca­tors (KPI) - Def­i­n­i­tion and Action.

  Zach­man, J. A. (1987). Frame­work for infor­ma­tion sys­tems archi­tec­ture. IBM Sys­tems Jour­nal 28(3), 454–470. DOI: 10.1147/sj.382.0454.

  Zach­man, J. A. (2003). The Zach­man Frame­work for Enter­prise Archi­tec­ture: Primer for Enter­prise Engi­neer­ing and Man­u­fac­tur­ing. Zach­man Inter­na­tional. [Online]. Avail­able: http://www.zach­man­in­ter­na­tional.com

  Zim­mer­man, J. (2004). Using a Bal­anced Score­card in a Non­profit Orga­ni­za­tion. Non­profit World 27(3), 1–4. [Online]. Avail­able: www.snpo.org/mcm­bcrs.