Mind-of-the-Product
At the Heart of GRC Knowledge Integration
Eleanor Doyle
1
and Damien McGovern
2
1
Institute for Business Development and Competitiveness, School of Economics,University College Cork,
Western Road, Cork, Ireland
2
Compliance and Risks, Unit 9 Eastgate Avenue, Eastgate Business Park Little Island, Cork, Ireland.
Keywords: Compliance, Knowledge-integration, Innovation, Mind-of-the-Product.
Abstract: The organisational capacities to absorb, adapt and reconfigure resources in response to market challenges,
regulatory reform and complex stakeholders and their expectations is necessary to achieve the strategic
growth businesses need. Through the Mind-of-the Product (MotP) concept we outline how the variety of
targets demanding business attention can cohere to support innovation grounded in compliance-centred
processes. The MotP is developed as a foundational leadership concept for integrating organisational
knowing, innovation and knowledge management.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Mind-of-the-Product (MotP) is developed as a
foundational concept for organisational knowledge
management. It has particular resonance for large
multi-product, multi-market organisations. It arises
as the outcome of current trends and developments
in enterprise information technologies and systems
that capture and store organisational knowledge
capability in the form of the self-referential product
i.e. the Product that knows itself.
The power of the concept in practical terms is
provided in an application within the GRC
(Governance, Risk and Compliance) realm,
notwithstanding its broader potential. Its place
within the strategic growth context of business is
outlined in Section 2. The Compliance context is the
focus of Section 3 where Compliance is defined to
include both legal (involuntary) and supra-legal
(voluntary) requirements across a spectrum from
laws, statutory requirements, regulations, to
businesses’ voluntary codes, guidelines and strategic
goals. Elements of the integrating and integrative
MotP concept are elaborated in Section 4 in terms of
its organisational information technology (IT)
implications. Innovation-related considerations in
Section 5 emphasize implications for transforming
how ideas are generated, and selected for
organisational diffusion. Conclusions are provided
in Section 6.
2 INTEGRATION/GROWTH:
A TWO-SIDED COIN
If a recent KPMG Report (2011) is representative,
less than 10% of businesses demonstrate full
integration of their GRC activities and business
strategy. The implication is that many growth
opportunities remain unseen. Untapped potential in
organisational interstices - those gaps between
functional silos and areas of responsibility - offer
scope for greater integration to drive organisational
transformation. There is much yet to be understood
about the mechanisms through which integration and
performance are related (Turkulainen, and Ketokivi,
2012). Where integration is achieved, it would be
evident in improved capacity to transfer, process,
interpret and exploit information across functional
sub-units – flows of information would be
frictionless (Barki and Pinsonneault, 2005).
Knowledge integration across business functions
is the basis of modern competitive advantage where
previously it resided in access to physical resources,
and efficiency. The strategic growth-orientation of a
business is the governing force for such integration.
2.1 Strategic Growth
Strategic growth includes several elements and is
oriented to both long-term business sustainability
and innovative enterprises as evidenced by high-
306
Doyle E. and McGovern D..
Mind-of-the-Product - At the Heart of GRC Knowledge Integration.
DOI: 10.5220/0005138303060312
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2014), pages 306-312
ISBN: 978-989-758-050-5
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
wage, high-value-adding companies producing
innovative products and/or services.
Innovation and how it is managed by business is
a central aspect of strategic growth. In order for
sustainability to become a strategic business
imperative it must be identified and promoted as a
route to competitive advantage (Nidumolu et al.
2009; Porter and van der Linde 1995).
For some organisations this implies a substantial
cognitive shift to re-frame sustainability as a
business opportunity rather than a risk, where
practices such as ‘green’ procurement and
production, product safety, longevity, end-of-life
management, corporate social responsibility,
financial transparency, and ethics are treated as
value-adding attributes
.
Growth ordinarily describes increases in sales,
output or profit but its second meaning is most
relevant here. This relates to improvement in quality
as a result of a process of development or
progressive change i.e. qualitative change in how an
organisation functions (Penrose, 1959). Growth is
strategic when quality is viewed as conformity to all
requirements (Crosby, 1979) including those relating
to innovation and sustainability.
Treating all requirements in a singular way is an
act facilitating sound execution of the leadership
function. Thus, knowledge management IT tools
across business functions are the interconnected
building blocks of quality.
2.2 Capacity for Integration:
Compliance and Innovation
GRC’s central contribution is rarely, if ever, defined
in terms of sustainable or strategic growth. It tends
to be defined around ensuring commitments –
mandatory or voluntary – are fulfilled to avoid
expensive breaches, business disruption or worse.
GRC’s potential as an energising source of growth is
notably absent from the GRC space, representing a
substantial and underexploited opportunity.
A McKinsey survey (2012) found that half of
organizations segregate their innovation portfolio
among distinct innovation functions and so
independent silos characterise the functions. This
implies numerous innovation models are employed
across business units with little, if any, integration
across projects. A lack of consistent governance,
(where action has an active eye to all evolving
requirements, regulatory and voluntary) among
innovation activities is identified as contributing to
poor performance tracking and bounded decision-
making across siloed innovation structures. To
achieve sustainable innovative performance a
business needs strong corporate governance to
influence decisions, allocate resources and exert
organizational control for cohesion of purpose.
Belloc (2011) identifies corporate governance as
a key determinant of innovation capabilities and a
key reason why companies operating in the same
market space achieve varying levels of innovation
success. The role of governance in innovation is to
bring cohesion between human and physical
resources based on a structured relationship between
corporate ownership, corporate finance, and labour,
in order to derive benefit from investment decisions.
Organisational capacities to adapt and
reconfigure resources in response to market
challenges, regulatory reform and complex
stakeholder influences and expectations is necessary
to achieve strategic growth. Integrating the functions
of Governance, Risk and Compliance (GRC) and
Innovation in the context of leadership offers a
comprehensive drive for strategic growth attending
to quality, and including the innovation and
sustainability imperatives of business.
3 GROWTH-ORIENTED GRC
GRC activities refer to organizations’ focus on
identifying and assessing risks of all kinds, and
particularly monitoring compliance with regulatory
requirements. Monitoring, reducing risk and meeting
compliance requirements are obviously key
activities in all areas of decision-making and the
GRC function has become a focal point for these
tasks (OCEG, 2012; Ponemon Institute, 2011).
Within many companies opinions diverge as
to whether risk management should be opportunity
(upside) or risk (downside) focused. A survey by
KPMG revealed 66% of respondents considered
their “board is unable to leverage risk information it
receives to improve strategy” and risk management
is often focused on a more operational level (KPMG,
2011:13). From his work with GRC professionals
one GRC expert asserts that risk management is
about influencing decision-making and achieving
objectives through the provision of high-quality
information (Marks, 2012).
While risk management can potentially drive
performance, many companies are not yet
prioritising GRC as an engine for sustainable growth
which can open up new opportunities for innovation
and enhanced decision-making. The implication is
that opportunities are lost when GRC’s full value-
adding potential is not recognised. Businesses’
Mind-of-the-Product-AttheHeartofGRCKnowledgeIntegration
307
perspective on GRC needs to balance both the up-
side and down-side of risk management.
Compliance-Innovation offers such an opportunity-
oriented perspective.
3.1 Compliance-Innovation
Compliance-Innovation (C-I) refers to an integrated
organization-wide approach to innovation processes
and GRC activities (Doyle, McGovern and
McCarthy, 2014). It requires elevating GRC from its
traditional tactical-level focus to a leadership tool
where opportunity recognition, innovation, and
business sustainability are at the heart of all strategic
thinking (Hansen and Birkinshaw, 2007; Zahra and
George, 2002).
Successful compliance leads to conformance to
both legal (involuntary) and supra-legal (voluntary)
requirements covering a spectrum from laws,
statutory requirements, regulations, to businesses’
voluntary codes, guidelines and strategic goals
(Doyle, 2007; Tarantino, 2008). Such a definition is
purposefully broad encompassing and integrating the
strictly legal connotation.
Successful innovation leads to the commercial
exploitation of new or existing knowledge (Freeman,
1997) or new combinations of knowledge
(Schumpeter, 1934). In essence, innovation involves
taking either a new or pre-existing idea from its
conceptual state and orienting it towards satisfying
consumer need before finally offering a new product
or service to a market. Organisational innovation
occurs when new methods are implemented for
distributing responsibilities and decision making
among employees for the division of work within
and between firm activities (and organisational
units), as well as new concepts for the structuring of
activities (OECD, 2005). C-I represents such an
organisational innovation
An example would be the integration of
Customer Relationship Management, Product
Lifecycle Management and Compliance Knowledge
Management systems (CKMS), with an eye to the
moving target of sales drivers across various markets
right from the product concept phase.
4 MIND-OF-THE-PRODUCT
Given advances in technological capabilities and
applications to enterprises and their IT
infrastructures we identify a concept of ‘I-Product’
or Mind-of-the-Product which has resonance in
contemporary market places. It offers a mirror to
‘landscape’ metaphors for the business environment
through the parallel of an organisational ‘mindscape’
within which products and services are envisioned,
designed, developed and delivered.
MotP is a powerful conceptualisation at product-
by-product levels of what a truly integrated
organisational knowledge platform entails. Through
information in the platform each product (or
product-in-development) knows itself sufficiently to
identify the most important features that matter for
its current and potential domains (including
geography, supply chain, marketing attributes, etc.).
MotP is the conceptual interface between traditional
business perspectives where value was created based
on company assets and resources and the modern
value-added perspective where the customer is
central (see Figure 1). The key interrogations of the
business addressed through MotP relates to
processes that integrate the material aspects of the
business – its assets, products etc. – with the
identifiers and sources of value i.e. the customers,
integrating information on requirements and timing.
Figure 1: Mind-of-the Product: Integrating Concept.
The contemporary view is that business starts
from the customer, with value flowing to the
business (Norman, 2001). The information
revolution permits and supports not only separate
production and customer relationship competences
but can integrate them further into new
organisational value-creating systems.
Technology offers opportunities in mobilizing
resources for novel economically feasible options
targeting customers whose preferred attributes in
their purchase could include longevity, warranty,
carbon-footprint, corporate citizenship initiatives,
brand, not to mention cost. The MotP-centred
platform highlights attributes corresponding to each
product, possessing specialist knowledge on both
product attributes and consumer preferences to
better understand and deliver valuable customer
experience and loyalty.
Assets
Products
Resources
Output
Markets
MIND-OF-
THE-
PRODUC
Customer-
Base(s)
Relationships
WHAT? WHY? WHO?
HOW? WHEN?
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
308
4.1 MotP Knowledge Platform Features
To achieve strategic growth, strategic thinkers must
be identified and supported to consider the entire
business environment which includes both internal
and external contexts (Barney, 1991). Effective
strategy formulation and implementation requires a
holistic and consistent view of the internal
organization (including C-I processes) and the
external environment of marketplace, regulation,
competitor positioning etc.. A contextual knowledge
base for decision-making processes and action plans
supports developing shared meanings of current
circumstances (OCEG, 2012a).
Business domains across sales, marketing, legal,
environment, design, CSR, and quality (as the
appropriate umbrella function) can assimilate and
transform contextual knowledge for C-I purposes.
These purposes guide and support the organization’s
innovation processes and the delivery of high quality
products and/or services i.e. focusing on delivering a
positive customer experience.
Dealing with separate knowledge bases in an
effective and integrated manner is obviously
challenging. In its raw state knowledge is often
unstructured and, in many cases - especially when it
encompasses potential for innovation - knowledge is
tacit and difficult to share (Leonard and Sensiper,
1998). Regulations are not crafted to be machine
readable, are in this way unstructured, and are
generally produced without the regulatory
processing needs of their business ‘consumers’ in
mind. IT is currently not leveraged to bridge the gap
between production and consumption of either
regulations or standards.
An effective platform for managing compliance
knowledge, a Compliance Knowledge Management
System (CKMS), managing all requirements,
including the meaning of all terms found therein,
allows managers to connect internal and external
contextual imperatives by integrating all refined data
in a central repository. The platform is, therefore, the
beating heart of shared understanding and
innovation thinking.
4.2 From Dumb to Smart Documents
A long term commitment to move from dumb
documents to smart data is essential. Ease of use,
worker role and responsibility oriented user-
experience, inbuilt learning, training and incen-
tivisation must nurture expertise and knowledge
sharing not only to serve immediate workbench and
workflow processes, but also deeper innovation
goals and strategic growth commitments.
This requires corresponding commitment to
innovative IT design, systems integration, and
interface excellence where knowledge is captured,
structured, situated, passed on, and serves to support
and incentivise workers and catalyse and fertilise
innovation. In the context of Figure 1, the
Knowledge focus is around how to generate, share
and store knowledge so that knowing is facilitated
rather than an emphasis on static information.
4.3 Semantic Annotation and Meaning
Refinement through semantic annotation offers
opportunities for the enrichment of ‘dumb’
documents using ontology-based systems (Kiryakov
et al., 2004). These provide search, interpretation
and aggregation functionality for unstructured data
by reading and marking-up text with attributed
semantic meanings (Uren et al., 2005). Paper-based
documents may be transformed into virtual text files
that understand their own content and can process
data without the need for human interaction or
analysis. These principles can be applied to any
business domain once a shared ontology (i.e.
standards, syntax, and meaning of concepts) is
defined to allow machine processing. Semantic
annotation technology (i.e. semantic tagging) can
automatically interpret dumb documents to index
and build relationships between the words of its
collective content.
For example, the appearance of “Cadmium” in a
regulatory document could automatically be linked
to the predefined and described concepts of
“Hazardous Substance”, “Product A”, “Department
X”, “Region 5” etc., reducing complexity, clarifying
and making widely visible the impact of the
regulation across the business. Each concept may be
automatically mapped to related content, as
designated by identified relevant holders of
responsibility, allowing more meaningful query
results. Metadata such as date, author and regulation
deadline can be recorded. Any list of definitions
which could be enhanced to include key non-defined
terms can then be sorted to allow grouping and,
therefore, faster and deeper understanding of
regulatory or internal guidelines, standard operating
procedure documents and other documents
containing requirements of any kind.
5 INTEGRATION, INNOVATION
AND VALUE
The organisational Innovation Value Chain (Hansen
Mind-of-the-Product-AttheHeartofGRCKnowledgeIntegration
309
and Birkinshaw, 2007) identifies three distinct
phases of innovation as, idea generation, conversion
and diffusion and a set of six knowledge-related
activities of internal sourcing, cross-unit sourcing,
external sourcing, selection, development, and
company-wide spread of the ideas.
Knowledge integration, an example of a
combinative capability (Kogut and Zander, 1992) is
the unstated imperative for an organisation to
innovate. The integrating capacity of CKMSs
characterizes the demands on the contemporary
Knowledge Worker who is required to make
conceptual as well as instrumental use of data. Maltz
et al. (2001) explain that instrumental use relates to
solving a specific problem whereas conceptual use
requires using data in a way that changes thinking
processes - without necessarily leading to relatively
immediate concrete action. As a result, rebalancing
use of Compliance information towards the
conceptual facilitates and supports its potential for
strategic purposes to emerge.
5.1 Idea Generation
To support idea generation the CKMS permits
integration of several data sources allowing cross-
functional teams to share and collaborate (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001). Supporting knowledge recording
and sharing prevents valuable knowledge from
leaking from the company e.g. when information
capture operates at an individual not corporate level
(e.g. industry association feeds to an individual’s
laptop rather than a corporate repository), or when a
knowledge worker leaves the company (Osterloh
and Frey, 2000). Current and later generations can
benefit if comprehensive knowledge is preserved on
decision processes, lessons learned and cumulative
experience of the GRC and innovation domains
(Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). The processes
underscoring knowledge work and what it entails
must be made visible. Along with greater breadth of
available information, clarity on roles and
responsibilities for action is required.
5.2 Idea Conversion
C-I helps funding assessments and idea conversion
by providing decision-makers with actionable
information to evaluate the viability of ideas in light
of commercialisation and sustainability goals,
visible in the CKMS. Dashboards would provide
information for assessing business cases according
to their associated compliance requirements, risks,
costs and value-adding potential while supporting
prioritisation of investments based on the
overarching governance strategy. This structured
approach to business case analysis supports the fit
between investments and strategic objectives as well
as transparency (Ross and Beath, 2002; Ward,
Daniel, and Peppard, 2008). GRC and innovation
data could be centrally monitored in real-time to
facilitate conformance to all strategic imperatives. In
cases where innovation portfolio projects were cut
idea generators can more clearly understand the
rationale from CKMS data and criteria employed.
5.3 Idea Diffusion
A central CKMS repository would house common
organisational-wide requirements and goals and help
ensure all stakeholders are on the same page through
its dynamic knowledge-sharing facilitation, unlike
the siloed partial knowledge-sharing mediums
offered by desktop tools (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
Idea diffusion is needed to win support from
stakeholders i.e. business units, subsidiaries etc. C-I
helps generate momentum behind ideas. Clarity on
potential benefits and risks can build a strong value
proposition for an innovation project and can foster
buy-in across the firm. Importantly, social
functionality through content tagging, forums, and
secure messaging supports diffusion of approved
ideas and breaks down silos to facilitate sharing and
consensus building (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990).
Organisational buy-in is key to spread and monetise
new ideas across channels, customer groups and
geographically dispersed locations. Integration of
regulatory requirements at early stages can support
effective decision making.
To the extent that a CKMS supports Government
Affairs teams to influence the evolution of laws and
standards, surveillance and enforcement, it can
create opportunities and maximise market influence.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Compliance-Innovation is a prime example of the
combinative processes needed to create and maintain
the type of business environments required for
effective and productive knowledge workers where
integration is required and facilitated through a
knowledge platform. The Mind-of-the-Product
offers a cross-cutting concept for linking all
necessary processes from the business landscape
through customer requirements, current and
imagined. Such links offer sources of ideas for value
creation developed by businesses and tested in the
market.
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
310
The Mind-of-the-Product is a provocative concept
generated from integrating knowledge for managing
and innovating. To put it into practice is demanding
technologically but increasingly possible. It is not
strictly organisation-centric since it requires
substantial information from external sources,
crucially an answer to the basic question ‘who wants
to buy me? and the underlying sources of value for
which customers are willing to pay. It also demands
information and system-integration internal to
organisations so that, for example, systems for
managing Customer Relationships and Product Life-
Cycle Management speak to each other. MotP has
the potential to facilitate the visible integration of
information to track conformity levels and impacts
enabling strategic growth and directly supporting
those delivering on leadership functions.
The product that knows itself is the
‘embodiment’ of integrated knowledge. A key
purpose of MotP lies in allowing organisations’ to
drill into current (and future) sources of consumer
value embodied in that knowledge. The
virtualisation arising from separating the material
product from its embodied knowledge generates
possibilities for re-combining some of the
knowledge in new and innovative products. Early
visibility on the fit of a product with future
production, regulation, and consumer trends
challenges an organisation’s means for generating
value.
While technology is one limiting factor in novel
resource mobilization and value creation, the role of
imagination is also central. In Compliance terms,
applying MotP implicates coordinating and
integrating organizational routines in new ways.
Substantial changes in habits may be required to
refocus leadership attention on balancing the pursuit
of business opportunities with the management of
risk so central to many compliance domain experts.
In terms of consumers, businesses are limited in
their ability to inform on whether, or the extent to
which, they conform to product attributes that
consumers demand. MotP addresses this information
asymmetry offering transparency on e.g. supply
chain partners, local community impacts, animal
welfare, treatment of employees (own and partners)
etc.. Whatever feature consumers identify as related
to sustainability can be accounted for within MotP
so consumers can identify those producers that
supply ‘sustainable’ products.
It is entirely conceivable that hand-held mobile
devices could be used to scan a product’s codebar
communicating product attribute information,
exploiting MotP. ‘Buyer power’ would take on a
qualitatively different meaning with implications far
beyond price into the myriad non-price attributes
that consumers target in their purchasing – enabling
comprehensive consumer choice.
Central to the interests of Boards is the need to
attend to three fast-moving business targets i.e. (i)
new regulations (policy, law, standards) (ii) product
evolution (new and improved) and (iii) evolving
intra-organisational strategic and operational
imperatives. Suitably developed platforms have the
potential to serve as a critical system supporting
organizations in commercially exploiting
knowledge, through a central repository of data
appropriately structured for needs and which is
accessible to any business actor with conferred
permission.
By developing a central CKMS incorporating
GRC and Innovation activities, and building on
MotP, it follows that a company’s knowledge
workers are better facilitated to acquire, assimilate,
transform and exploit knowledge for commercial
gain. The scale of the impact cannot be predicted
although we contend the potential is substantial.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M., Leidner, D.E., 2001. Review: Knowledge
Management and Knowledge Management Systems:
Conceptual Foundation and Research Issues. MIS
Quarterly 25(1) 107–3.
Belloc, F., 2011. Corporate Governance and Innovation: A
Survey. Journal of Economic Surveys 26(5) 835–64.
Barki, H., Pinsonneault, A., 2005. A model of
organizational integration, implementation effort, and
performance. Organization Science 16(2), 165-79.
Barney, J.B., 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained
Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management
17(1) 99–120.
Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive
Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and
Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1)
128–52.
Crosby, P.B., 1979. Quality is Free: the Art of Making
Quality Certain, McGrawHill New York.
Doyle, E., McGovern, D., McCarthy, S. (2014)
Compliance–innovation: Integrating Quality and
Compliance Knowledge and Practice, Total Quality
Management, forthcoming. doi.org/10.1080/14783363.
2014.914641.
Doyle, E., 2007. Compliance Obstacles to Competitiveness.
Corporate Governance 7(5) 612–22.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Martin, J.A., 2000. Dynamic
capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management
Journal 21(10-11) 1105–21.
Freeman, C., 1997. The Economics of Industrial
Innovation, The MIT Press. Boston, 3
rd
edition.
Mind-of-the-Product-AttheHeartofGRCKnowledgeIntegration
311
Hansen, M. T., and Birkinshaw, J., 2007. The Innovation
Value Chain. Harvard Business Review 85(6) 121–30.
Kogut, B., and Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the Firm,
Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of
Technology. Organization Science 3(3) 383-97.
Kiryakov, A., Popov, B., Terziev, I., Manov, D.,
Ognyanoff, D., 2004. Semantic Annotation, Indexing,
and Retrieval. Web Semantics: Science, Services and
Agents on the World Wide Web 2(1), 49–79.
KPMG. 2011. The Convergence Evolution – Global
Survey into the Integration of Governance, Risk and
Compliance.
Leonard, D., and Sensiper, S., 1998. The Role of Tacit
Knowledge in Group Innovation. California Manage-
ment Review 40(3) 112-25.
Maltz, E., Souder, W.E., Kumar, A., 2001. Influencing
RandD/Marketing Integration and the Use of Market
Information by RandD Managers: Intended and
Unintended Effects of Managerial Actions. Journal of
Business Research 52, 69–82.
Marks, N., 2012. Risk Management is Not Just About the
Downside, 20th November, available at: www.theiia.
org/blogs/marks/index.cfm/post/Risk%20Management
%20is%20NOT%20Just%20About%20the%20Downs
ide?goback=.gde_95089_member_18799187.
Accessed May 2013.
McKinsey and Company. 2012. McKinsey Global Survey
Results - Making innovation structures work.
Norman, R., 2001. Reframing Business: When the Map
Changes the Landscape, Wiley. Chichester.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R., 2009.
Why Sustainability is Now the key Driver of
Innovation. Harvard Business Review 87(9), 56–64.
OCEG. 2012. GRC Maturity Survey.
OCEG. 2012a. OCEG Red Book TM GRC Capability
Model version 2.1.
OECD, 2005. The Measurement of Scientific and
Technological Activities: Guidelines for Collecting
and Interpreting Innovation Data: Oslo Manual, Third
Edition prepared by the Working Party of National
Experts on Scientific and Technology Indicators,
Paris.
Osterloh, M., and Frey, B. 2000. Motivation, Knowledge
Transfer and Organisational Forms. INFORMS 11(5)
538–50.
Ponemon Institute, 2011. The Role of Governance, Risk
Management and Compliance in Organizations –
Study of GRC practitioners. Sponsored by RSA, The
Security Division of EMC, May.
Penrose, E.T., 1995 (1959). The Theory of the Growth of
the Firm. Oxford University Press. Oxford, 3
rd
edition.
Porter, M. E., van der Linde, C., 1995. Toward a New
Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness
Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(4)
97–118.
Ross, J. W., Beath, C.M., 2002. Beyond the Business
Case: New Approaches to IT Investment, MIT Sloan
Management Review 43(2) 51-9.
Schumpeter, J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development.
Harvard University Press. Cambridge, U.S.
Tarantino, A., 2008. Governance, Risk, and Compliance
Handbook: Technology, Finance, Environmental, and
International Guidance and Best Practices, Wiley.
Chichester.
Turkulainen, V., Ketokivi, M., 2012. Cross-Functional
Integration and Performance: What are the Real
Benefits? International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 32(4) 447 – 67.
Uren, V., Hall, W., Keynes, M., 2006. Semantic
Annotation for Knowledge Management:
Requirements and a Survey of the State of the Art.
Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the
World Wide Web 4(1) 14–28.
Ward, J., Daniel, E., Peppard, J., 2008. Building Better
Business Cases for IT Investments, MIS Quarterly
7(1) 67–78.
Zahra, S., George, G., 2002. Absorptive Capacity: A
Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension.
Academy of Management Review 27(2) 185–203.
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
312
