Data Strategy and Governance Assignment | Online Assignment

We are to pick a specific topic in the area of data governance & strategy. Then write a professional research study similar to the attached document

Information Governance in the Banking Industry
Fernando de Abreu Faria Antonio Carlos Gastaud Maçada Kuldeep Kumar
Universidade Federal do Rio Universidade Federal do Rio City University of
Grande do Sul (UFRGS) Grande do Sul (UFRGS) Hong Kong (CityU)
fernando.afaria@outlook.com acgmacada@ea.ufrgs.br kuldeep.x.kumar@gmail.com
Abstract
As a consequence of explosive growth in the amount of
information generated, stored, accessed, and used by
organizations, the concept of Information Governance
(IG) is becoming important in the information systems
management profession. The paper focuses on
information governance in the banking industry. It
involves a study of thirteen banks in three countries, all
with highly developed financial systems: Brazil, Hong
Kong (SAR of China) and the United States. In
addition to reporting on the perceived need for IG in
today’s banks, the study proposes and verifies the
possibilities of an information governance framework
(IGF) with banking industry executives.
1. Introduction
The rapid evolution of information technology (IT)
and its application to business is causing major
changes in organizations. Information is being created
and is multiplying with an amazing speed, due to the
facilities offered by IT tools. The amount of
information available in the world has grown
rapidly. In 2005, mankind created 150 exabytes (an
exabyte is a billion gigabytes) of data, and in 2010 the
number was estimated to be 1,200 exabytes [52].
People in organizations are beginning to realize that
they are overloaded with information.
Over a decade ago Tom Davenport [11] observed:
“Our fascination with technology has made us forget
the main purpose of the information: to inform”. It
seems clear that the field of IT is still being dominated
by the ‘T’ (Technology). Cortada [10] states that the
annual expenditure on IT, globally, is nearly of four
trillion dollars. About half of it goes explicitly to the
digital infrastructure of organizations. In a world
controlled by a sense of objectivity and technological
artifacts, it is common to find the misconception that
information is a product of technology. The
information, in essence, is the result of subjective
interpretation of objective facts [8]. At the same time, Internet and other technological
innovations have increased the speed with which
business operations are conducted. For instance,
according to statistics from Internet World Stats [25]
the number of users on internet grew from 361 million
people in December 2000 to 2.267 billion in December
2011. The business world is moving at a much faster
pace. Consequently, the managers and their teams are
increasingly under pressure to meet tighter deadlines
and make decisions faster. Because of this, they need
reliable information that needs to be delivered to them
with greater speed. The technology has been the focus
of information management initiatives for some time,
but companies are starting to realize that the full value
of information depends in large part on the policies and
procedures that govern and control their use, access,
analysis, retention and protection.
This research focuses on an emerging concept in
the field of governance, Information Governance (IG).
This emergence of information governance is a
response to the inadequacy of IT governance with
respect to the increasing importance of information in
modern organizations [29]. This paper presents the
preliminary results of a research conducted in a highly
dynamic and information intensive industry, that is,
banking. Soares [46], observes that information
governance is critical to banks as banks are becoming
more customer-centric across retail, corporate, and
institutional banking. To make the study broader and
applicable to a global set of banking practices, banks in
Brazil, Hong Kong and the United States was studied.
Banking industry has undergone major
transformations in recent times. Report from The
Banker [53] magazine stated that the credit crisis of
2008 provoked a wave of litigation and forced banks
to reveal large amounts of information. This report
stated that “banks must begin to put its (their) house in
order and rethink their processes for managing
information”. According to The Economist [51], the
ability of a corporation to handle information depends
2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
1530-1605/12 $26.00 © 2012 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2013.270
4434

on a variety of factors, including executives involved
and a business culture that supports collective
ownership of information.
Besides showing the relevance of information
governance for banks, our research also proposes an
information governance framework (IGF). An IGF
constitutes a set of factors, all of them directly or
indirectly linked to information. This IGF was built
after a long search in the literature which allowed the
identification of some theoretical elements which
guided the authors to the selection of the factors. The
validity of the research model was reviwed by two IT
scholars and for bank executive-practitioners..
Its development of IGF started with the
identification of the two subjects of study: information
and governance. Information as a firm resource was
conceptualized usin Resource Based View (RBV)
theory while use of Dynamic Capabilities theory was
used to reflect the dynamism of the banking industry.
Agency theory was used for conceptualizing
governance.
Initial findings indicated that in the beginning of
the big data era, there was a lack in the governance of
information in most banking organizations. This
finding led to the main research question: What factors
should be considered by banks in an information
governance framework? A second related question was
“how an Information Governance Framework (IGF)
can help implement an IG program in banks”.
2. Prior literature on information
governance
This section begins by recognizing the differences
between data, information and knowledge [58]. Data is
a set of symbols representing perceptions or empirical
row material. Information is a set of symbols
representing empirical knowledge, it incorporates
assignment of meanings. Knowledge is a set of
symbols representing thoughts (objectivist view) or
results of a human cognitive process, which involves
perception, learning, association and reasoning
(subjectivist view).
In the IT field is very common the use of data and
information as synonyms. Some authors use the term
data governance instead of information governance.
However, in this work we adopt the term information
governance. It is consistant with the conceptual
difference between data and information as shown in
the definitions presented above.
The emergence of information governance (IG) as a
new concept in the field is recognized by Van
Grembergen and Haes [56]. In their book they present
the Maes’s [32] model of alignment between business
and IT (a further evolution of the model of Henderson
and Ventkaraman was published in 1993). In the
Maes´s model, a 3 X 3 matrix, the central vertical axis
represents information/communication. According to
these authors, the split of the IT domain results from
the observation that most information and
communication process are IT independent. That is
why they distinguish between concepts of IT
governance and information governance. Indeed,
information governance addresses the increasing
importance of information in this beginning of the big
data era, thus fulfilling a space not well completed by
IT governance.
Weill and Ross [57], conceptualize IT governance
as the decision rights and accountability framework for
encouraging desirable behaviors in the use of IT. Based
on this broader definition it can be argued in a first
look that information governance is included in the IT
governance domain. Before answering let’s take a look
on information governance.
According to Kooper et al. [30], the concept of
information governance was introduced by Donaldson
and Walker [14] as a framework to support the
work at the National Health Society on security
and confidentiality arrangements to be applied at
multiple levels in electronic information
services. In our literature review we found some
definitions to information governance. Two of them
are presented here as follows. Soares [46] states
“information governance is the formulation of policy to
optimize, secure, and leverage information as an
enterprise asset by aligning the objectives of multiple
functions”. Kooper et al. [30] argue that information
governance “involves establishing an environment of
opportunities, rules and decision making rights for the
valuation, creation, collection, analysis, distribution,
storage, use and control of information”.
There are two important aspects to note about IG.
First, Information governance includes data
governance. The reason to use “information” instead of
“data” is because the former is wider and involves
structured and unstructured data which means the use
of files and databases, but also emails, video, all kinds
of electronic documents and paper documents [46

used to derive the information approach. The three
theories belong to economic approach to organizational
theories. They provide complementary elements that
were selected to help in the creation of an Information
Governance Framework for banks.
Figure 1. Theoretical model
The use of Agency theory in studies of
governance is common in organizational studies [2],
[15], [47], and provides a useful way to explain the
relationships between principal and agent. Key
elements of Agency theory: control, monitoring, risk,
rules, alignment and structure were used to describe
governance subject [13], [15], [17], [42], [47]. These
theoretical elements related to governance aspects were
used to identify the IGF factors as will be shown in the
following discussion. However, these factors they are
not sufficient to assemble a comprehensive framework
of information governance, as the framework also
needs to deal with elements related to information.
Complementing the governance perspective from
Agency theory, the theory of Resource-Based View of
the Firm (RBV) addresses firm’s competitive
advantage and explains how to achieve and maintain it
over time [4-5], [50]. The theory also shows that the
differences of performance among firms are due to
differences between their resources and capabilities,
that have value and are able to generate income
and cannot be easily copied [4-5], [20]. Information
is an intangible resource of great value for banks. It
allows the development of internal capabilities that
can be used to absorb and leverage their gains from the
utilization of resources. The following theoretical
elements from RBV were used to identify additional
factors for the IGF: heterogeneous resources,
information as an asset (resource), performance,
quality, information systems (IS) and value [4-5], [15],
[20], [26], [33], [45].
Dynamic Capabilities theory is considered an
extension of RBV [49], [50], but distinguished in how
competitive advantage is derived from these resources.
For RBV, competitive advantage arises from the
possession of resources that are valuable, rare, not
imitable and difficult to replace. In the theory of
Dynamic Capabilities, the advantage arises not
only from the possession of resources, but also in the
capability to reconfigure them in an environment of
rapid changes.
Therefore, completing the theoretical framework,
Dynamic Capabilities adds the concepts of flexibility,
adaptability, integration and reconfiguration. These
caracteristics are especially significant for an
Information Governance Framework for the banking
industry. Banks operate in a very competitive
environment which is constantly subject to rapid
changes. Consequently banks need to invest large
sums of money in IT in order to sense and respond to
these rapid fluctuations. Thus, the Dynamic
Capabilities theory was used to complement the list of
theoretical elements with: rapid change, skills, context,
learning, knowledge and capabilities [21], [27], [31],
[38], [41], [48], [50].
The proposed information governance framework
(IGF) consists of dimensions and factors. Dimensions
are the first level of the framework and they are a
grouping of a set of interconnected factors. Factors are
the second level of the framework and they identify the
issues that should be addressed by a company to
implement an IG strategy. Factors are implemented by
policies, practices and actions.
The first step in assembling the IGF was identifying
and defining the dimensions of the framework. After a
literature search including the recent definitions of IG,
we decided to use the ideas presented by Hohman [22]
and Samuelson [43] in developing our first level
dimensions of the framework. Hohman proposes three
dimensions for an IG program: process, people and
tools, while Samuelson identifies a information
governance framework with four dimensions: people,
policy, technology and risk management. As risk
management can be integrated in the other three
dimensions (that is, people, processes, and technology,
all carry certain risks, and can at the same time be used
to manage or mitigate those risks), we chose a
framework with three dimensions: people, policies and
technology.
The second step in developing the IGF involved the
use of theoretical elements (concepts) extracted from
the three theories presented earlier. Using those
elements a new search was done in the literature trying
to identify the IG factors in the banking industry that
could be related to theoretical elements selected, and
44368

linking them with the dimensions proposed in the
framework.
Starting from those eighteen theoretical elements,
control, monitoring, risk, rules, alignment, structure,
heterogeneous resources, information as an asset,
performance, quality, systems, value, rapid change,
skills, learning, knowledge, capabilities and context,
we identified the following twenty factors for the IGF:
accountability, security, monitoring, compliance,
retention, accessibility, ethics, privacy,
communication, sharing, transparency, formal
structure, consumerization, standardization, mobility,
quality, systems, value, culture and context. All these
factors were associated by researchers to one of the
three dimensions as shown on Table 1, and proceeding
this way the IGF was formatted.
Table 1. Theories, factors and dimensions
Some theoretical elements represent directly the
factor as can be seen in the cases of monitoring,
structure, quality, systems, value and context. Others
were determined by the researchers following the
findings in the search, as for example, in the
assignment of factors compliance and retention to the
element risk.
4. The research model and the hypotheses
Prior discussion answered the proposed research
question “What factors should be considered by banks
in an information governance framework?” The
research model derived from this analysis is
summarized in Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Research model
This research model represents the proposed
information governance framework (IGF) and
consists of three dimensions and twenty factors. The
first dimension, People, includes factors such as
context, culture and ethics. The second dimension,
policies, represents the central part of the model, and
has the following factors: accessibility, accountability,
communication, compliance, formal structure,
monitoring, privacy, quality, retention, security,
sharing, standardization, transparency and value. The
third and final dimension is technology that
is composed of three factors: consumerization,
mobility and systems. Table 2 presents all IGF
dimensions and factors with a brief description of
them.
Table 2. IGF dimensions and factors description
Based upon these dimensions and factors, three
researchable hypotheses were formulated:
1. Hypothesis 1: Information Governance (IG) is
nowadays a great value subject for banks. It’s the
first and basic step of the research. To discover if
IG is a relevant subject for banks is basic for the
study, it is a pre-condition to the other questions
proposed for the work. It is also mandatory to
discover why IG subject is important for banks,
what they can expect from it, and mainly why they
should put money on it;
44379

this issue inside a bank.
5. Methodology
The method used was multiple case studies [57]
and the protocol was replicated all cases [40]. The unit
of analysis is the financial institution where the
executive interviewed works. In addition to interviews,
data were collected from documents on institution
websites, from documents delivered or showed by the
interviewees to the researcher and additionally from
articles in trade magazine publications. The research
was conducted with the support of computer assisted
qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS), NVivo
version 9, from QSR Software.
5.1 Research context
The research considered three sets of banks in three
different countries: Brazil, the United States and China,
(or more specifically, in Hong Kong, a Special
Administrative Region (SAR) of People´s Republic of
China). Sixteen interviews with high executives of
thirteen different banks in three countries were
conducted. The strategy provides a broader vision of
IG current practices in banks. The executives in the
study include global CIO´s, IT directors, managing
directors. For confidentiality reasons their names banks
are not given and will be referred using the acronyms
BRA for banks in Brazil, USA for banks in the United
States and HKG for banks in Hong Kong, always
followed by a sequential number.
The choice of the three countries was done because
their importance in local, regional, or global markets.
Brazil, one of the BRICS countries, is an important
center in Latin America. Hong Kong is a major
financial center in Asia and is also, at the same time is
highly integrated with banks in the United Kingdom
and Europe. Finally United States is the preeeminent
global power, and its banking system is included in the
study for its presence and influence in the international
markets. Three big Europeans banks are included in the
selected sample, and it is important to highlight that
among the thirteen banks there are four included in the
list of the ten bigger banks in the world published by
The Banker in 2011.
5.2 Interviews and documents
The script for the interviews is based on the
proposed IGF, and was previously tested with the
accomplishment of four pilot interviews with bankers
in Brazil. After going through improvements and
simplifications the final model was presented to two
scholars, one in Brazil and one in the USA. Only after
these validation phases, the script was applied in
executive interviews. The instrument is a semistructured
questionnaire composed basically by
questions about each IGF factor. Some additional
questions concerned to topics like dynamism of the
banking industry or related to the relevance of IG
subject complete the script.
The interviews were carried out between October
2011 and March 2012 in the cities of Brasília, São
Paulo (via Skype), New York, Fort Lauderdale and
Hong Kong. All interviews were recorded with the
express consent of the interviewees, and their contents
transcribed and analyzed by authors using
NVivo. Table 3 shows the list of interviewed
executives and some additional data of the conducted
interviews.
The executive’s names were coded due to
confidentiality commitment. Sixteen high executives of
banks were interviewed, five in Brazil, five in Hong
Kong and six in the United States. All interviewees are
male and occupy high positions in their organizations.
The languages used were Portuguese and English. The
transcriptions from English interviews were checked
by a second reviewer. All transcriptions were done in
their original languages.
Table 3. The list of executives interviewed
443408

Table 4. The list of case studies
Each bank had at least two basic methods adopted
in the research, interview with high executive and
analysis of documents captured in the organization
website. In some banks the researcher received internal
documents (by request), and for others, articles in
journals and trade magazines were selected. The
column “collecting data methods” in the previous table
provides a list by bank of used methods. The
triangulation processes were carried out using these
data.
6. Results
The presentation of the results follows the order of
the hypotheses and the main research question.
6.1. IG and its relevance for banks
An IT bank executive in Hong Kong made an
interesting observation, “If banks recognize
information as “the asset”, the absence of information
policies or information governance shows that
something is wrong”. There seems to be a paradox here
because while almost all banks recognize information
as “the asset”, the vast majority still does not have
specific policies and processes that directly address the
subject.
When asked whether they believe that information
governance is an important issue for banks, the bank
executives from the three countries offered different
and interesting answers. One Brazilian executive
stated, “Yes. At the moment, within the IT area, we are
creating a specific structure to deal with information
management and information governance. That
initiative is linked to an auditing project”. Another
Brazilian executive was more emphatic, “I´d say that
what was once desirable will become essential. Those
who do not have good IG will be out the market. And I
also think at some point in the future, it will be a
criteria for obtaining a license to operate or not”.
An important bank executive in Hong Kong
provided a very comprehensive answer “Yes. Without
proper governance, one can use information for
improper activities which may damage a firm’s
reputation, revenue, credibility, and may be subject to
regulatory and legal litigations”. In a similar way,
another Chinese executive said “Yes. With better use
of information a bank can be more efficient, reduce
risks and improve services. All these combined will
lead to higher returns for shareholders and create
greater employee engagement”.
A particularly interesting response was given by an
executive in the United States, “Yes. My central thesis
is information governance increasingly important,
massively important in the mega data world. If we
don’t get these policies right we’ll have unnecessary
duplication, unnecessary linkage, unnecessary
complexity”. From an experienced executive the
answer was “Yes, because, fundamentally, our product
is information. We provide liquidity, we provide risk
transference, we provide ideas, and we provide
services as well, I guess, but underlying all of that is
information”.
All the answers were positive, and it highlighted
how sensitive the subject of information in banks is
nowadays. Many of them are currently engaged in
attempts, for example, to achieve KYC, which means
‘know your customer’. This is only additional evidence
of what is clear from all the interviewed executives,
banking is basically information. As if to confirm this,
when asked the same question regarding the
importance of information governance for banks, the
senior advisor of the China Banking Regulatory
Commission (CBRC) answered “Reliable information
is the real asset for banks. It helps bankers to make
good decisions. Reliable information comes from
governance”.
6.2. Implementing IG in banks through an IGF
The second hypothesis in this paper is related to
implementing IG in banks through an

culture. An interesting comment came from an
executive in Brazil who suggested, rather than
eliminating some factors, grouping them together,
considering the extended scope of the IGF. There were
also some references to the difficulties involved in
implementing such an IG framework in banks, most of
are concerned with the need to prioritize the results.
Others pointed out that IG is included in IT
governance.
A particularly noteworthy finding is that amongst
the banks included in the study, one, in the United
States, is currently implementing an IG program. Its
framework was presented to the researcher during the
interview. They found that they can save time and also
a lot of money by implementing such a program. It is
interesting to note that in this case the project was
assigned to the global CIO. The project’s objectives are
to reduce costs and mitigate legal risks.
Lastly, it is interesting to note that while the
majority of the studied banks have some policies or
practices that address the factors contained in the
proposed IGF, information is not usually their focal
point. Moreover, in general, such policies and practices
tend to be disconnected from each other.
7. Discussion
The comments made by the bank executive during
interviews on different continents, such as
“Information is one of our key assets in the firm”, or
“With better use of bank information we can be more
efficient, reduce risks and improve services”, or “The
bank is nothing but information”, or even “Our product
is information”, could certainly lead one to conclude
that information is priority. However, in the real world
this does not seem to be the case. Cortada [10] argues
that corporations rarely have a comprehensive
approach to the management of its most used and most
important asset: information. The initial findings of
this study among banks indicate that he is absolutely
right.
Some of the executives interviewed in this study
agreed that there is a tendency for the ‘T’ (Technology)
in ‘IT’ to predominate in the IT field. In the recent
years, organizations of all sizes have become
fascinated by the resources created by information
technology. This is easy to understand when one looks
at the global figures for IT. According to Gartner,
global spending on IT in 2012 will reach US$3.8
trillion [24], a large part of which will be used to
acquire new products and infrastructures.
In 2003, Nicholas Carr published “IT doesn’t
matter” which caused huge stir in the IT industry.
Indeed, mainly since the advent of internet, the
evolution in software production, the spread of
networks and the rise of the consumerization
phenomena, there is a common perception that
technology is available everywhere. The differential
lies with information use. That is a clear sign of what is
happening in the business world today which is very
well explained in the work of Cortada [10], who argues
that information is being elevated to its former
prominence, a privileged position that was overtaken
for a while by the glamour of IT. In other words, the
“I” matters. That does not mean the “T” is not
important, on the contrary it is vital to support the
information processes inside organizations.
The results show that, in general, banks have
already begun to implement some of the listed IGF
factors in some way, although predominantly in
unstructured forms that do not directly address
information. That is a paradox because, while they all
recognize information as the key “asset” in banking,
the vast majority still has not introduced specific and
integrated IG policies and processes.
The proposed IGF is composed of factors
originating from the elements contained in the three
basic theories used in this study, Agency, RBV and
Dynamic Capabilities. Regarding the latter, the
interviewed executives were unanimous about the
dynamism of the banking industry, which indicates that
adopting this theory was the right choice. The main
research objective was to identify what factors should
be included in an IGF for banks.
The IGF validation process was carried out among
sixteen top executives from thirteen different banks in
three different countries, none of whom said the IGF
was invalid or not applicable. Some still see IG as part
of IT governance and here there is a point of
discordance. When dealing with all the aspects of
information, using IT governance frameworks is
inappropriate because they contain a clear technology
bias. Furthermore, things are changing and in many of
the participating banks the present researcher was able
to identify an awareness of an uncomfortable situation
and the need to move towards IG.
Another important aspect is the exponential growth
in the amount of information both inside and outside

answer the basic question proposed by Kooper et al.
[30] “What information do we need, how do we make
use of it and who is responsible for it?”
Another interesting result is related to the factors
consumerization and mobility. Some banks in the
United States see the consumerization phenomena as
an opportunity, they know it’s not an easy decision,
mainly for security reasons, but it is inevitable. In the
words of an experienced American executive “In my
life, I’ve learned not only to listen to what people say
but also to watch what people do, but mainly watch
where they are putting their money. So that’s a place to
spend a lot of money, on this whole notion of mobility
and consumerization”.
8. Conclusion
First, information governance is an emergent
concept in the IS/IT field and at the same time is an
increasingly important subject in the banking industry.
The comments made by top bank executives emphasize
this. Among the reasons given for this importance are
the benefits provided such as reduced costs, reduced
exposure to legal risk and improved performance.
Second, developing and implementing an
Information Governance Framework (IGF) is accepted
as natural course of action, though there is no one-sizefits-
all solution. Third, the IGF is composed of
multiple dimensions and factors to give flexibility and
balance to the model.
Finally we conclude that IGF for banks would
include the following factors: accessibility,
accountability, communication, compliance,
consumerization, context, culture, ethics, formal
structure, mobility, monitoring, privacy, quality,
retention, security, sharing, standardization, systems,
transparency and value.
Which factors contained in the IGF presented
herein will be considered of importance by an
organization and which will not, will depend on that
organization’s particular level of maturity, its own
characteristics and its decisions regarding the desired
improvements.
Lastly, this study proposes a new concept for
Information Governance. Information governance is
seen as the establishment of policies, through formal
structures that define rules, procedures and decisionmaking
rights regarding information management, in
order to mitigate regulatory and operational risk,
reduce costs and optimize the performance of the
organization.
9. References
[1] ABBI, “Função de Compliance”, Retrieved Sep 14,
2011, from http://www.abbi.com.br/download/
funcaodecompliance_09.pdf, 2009.
[2] Anderson, D.W., Melanson, S. J. and Maly, J., “The
Evolution of Corporate Governance: power redistribution
brings boards to life”, Corporate Governance, 15(5), 2007.
[3] Bailey, S., “Measuring the impact of records management
Data and discussion from the UK higher education sector”,
Records Management Journal, 21(1), 2011, pp. 46-68.
[4] Barney, J. B., “Strategic factor markets: Expectations,
luck, and business strategy”, Management Science, 32(10),
1986, pp. 1231-1241.
[5] Barney, J. B., “Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage”, Journal of Management,17(1), 1991,pp. 99-120.
[6] Basole, R., “Enterprise mobility: Researching a new
paradigm”, Information Knowledge Systems Management, 7,
2008, pp. 1-7.
[7] Becher, D., and Frye, M., “Does regulation substitute or
complement governance?”, Journal of Banking & Finance,
35, 2011, pp. 736-751.
[8] Beijer, P., “Meaningfulness in Information Governance:
A new literacy is required”, Primavera Working Paper, May
2009.
[9] Clevenger, N., “How the iPad will change IT forever”,
Retrieved Sep 14, 2011, from http://www.infoworld.com/t/itmanagement/
how-the-ipad-will-change-it-forever-166948,
August 2011.
[10] Cortada, J. W., Information and the Modern
Corporation, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2011.
[11] Davenport, T. H., Ecologia da Informação: por que só a
tecnologia não basta para o sucesso na era da informação (2a
ed.). Futura, São Paulo, 1998.
[12] Davenport, T. and Prusak, L., Working knowledge: How
organizations manage what they know, Harvard University
Press, Boston, 1998.
[13] Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., and Donaldson, L.,
“Toward a stewardship theory of management”, Academy of
Management Review, 22(1), 1997, pp. 20-47.
[14] Donaldson, A. and Walker, P., “Information
governance: a view from the NHS”, International Journal of
Medical Informatics, 73, 2004, pp. 281-284.
[15] Eisenhardt, K. M., “Agency theory: An assessment and
review”, Academy of Management Review, 14, 1989, pp.
57-74.
[16] Eppler, M., Managing information quality (2nd ed.),
Springer, Berlin, 2006.
[17] Fama, E. F. and Jensen, M. C., “Separation of ownership
and control”, Journal of Law and Economics, 26 (2), 1983,
pp. 301-325.
[18] Grant, R. M., “Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of
the Firm”, Strategic Management Journal, 17, 1996, pp. 109-