skip to main content
10.1145/2072069.2072095acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicegovConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards a lean-government using new IT-architectures for compliance monitoring

Published:26 September 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recent turmoil in financial markets has invoked governments to monitor activities and transactions in the private sector more strictly. At the same time, policy makers strive to cut back on government spending by reducing the size of government agencies. These contradicting developments require governments to become leaner, meaning that more (new) tasks can be performed with fewer resources. In order to achieve these goals, we see a transformation from paper-based business-to-government information exchange to IT-enabled compliance architectures. However, the shape of these architectures is not yet clear, as are the challenges that come with a specific architecture design. The objective of this paper is to specify the dimensions of IT-enabled compliance architectures and the challenges that rise when transforming to such architectures. Drawing on dimensions described in literature, this paper compares two new compliance architectures, one in the meat processing industry and one in financial reporting. Findings indicate that compliance architectures require different choices regarding the frequency of reporting, the style of control, the formation of regulation, the type of dependencies, the auditing base and the way the underlying infrastructure accommodates business-to-government information exchange. This paper shows that while the transformation to IT-enabled compliance monitoring helps realize a lean-government, the design of the underlying architectures is subject to several, sector specific conditions, including established laws and regulations.

References

  1. R. Bonazzi, et al., "Compliance Management is Becoming a Major Issue in IS Design," in Information Systems: People, Organizations, Institutions, and Technologies, A. D'Atri and D. Saccà, Eds., ed Berlin: Springer, 2010, pp. 391--398.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. M. Power, "The risk management of nothing," Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 34, pp. 849--855, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. A. Tarantino, Ed., Governance, Risks and Compliance Handbook. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. P. Madden, "SBR Lift off: The initiative to reduce the reporting burden takes off," National Accountant, p. 35, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. National Audit Office, "The Administrative Burdens Reduction Programme," ed. London: The Stationery Office, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. M. Willis, "XBRL and Data Standardization: Transforming the Way CPAs Work," Journal of Accountancy, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Debreceny, et al., XBRL for Interactive Data: Engineering the Information Value Chain. Berlin: Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. N. Bharosa, et al., "Principles for launching Standard Business Reporting: Lessons learned from the Netherlands," presented at the Proceedings of the DgO Conference, Maryland, USA, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Y. H. Tan, et al., Eds., Accelerating Global Supply Chains with IT-Innovation. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Taseska, "Overview of Public Private Partnerships in Australia: Financing, Regulation, Auditing and Proposed Improvements" The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government vol. 14, pp. 79--90, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Alles, et al., "Continuous monitoring of business process controls: A pilot implementation of a continuous auditing system at Siemens," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, vol. 7, pp. 137--161, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. R. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4 ed. SAGE Publications: California, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. M. Lankhorst, Ed., Enterprise Architecture at Work - Modelling, Communication and Analysis. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. W. Ross, "Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: Learning in stages," MISQ Quarterly Executive, vol. 2, pp. 31--43, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. A. Zachman, "A Framework for Information Systems Architecture," IBM Systems Journal, vol. 26, pp. 276--292, 1987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Janssen, "Framing Enterprise Architecture: A metaframework for analyzing architectural efforts in organizations," in Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance, G. Doucet, et al., Eds., ed: Authorhouse, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. TOGAF. (2009). The Open Group Architecture Framework. Version 9, Enterprise Edition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. Janssen, et al., "Uit het Zicht: Beleidsmaatregelen voor het versnellen van het gebruik van ICT-toepassingen voor administratieve lastenverlichting," Technische Universiteit Delft, Delft2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. OCEG, "GRC capability model. Red Book 2.0," http://www.oceg.com. 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Power, Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. Alles, et al., "Putting Continuous Auditing Theory Into Practice: Lessons from Two Pilot Implementations," Journal of Information Systems, vol. 22, pp. 195--214, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. M. A. Vasarhelyi and F. B. Halper, "The Continuous Audit of Online Systems.," Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, vol. 10, pp. 110--125, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Rees, "Self Regulation: an effective alternative to direct regulation by OSHA?," Policy Studies Journal, vol. 16, pp. 602--614, 1988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. I. Ayres and J. Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. Oxford: University Press, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. P. Westerman, "Who is Regulating the Self? Self-Regulation as Outsourced Rule-Making," Legisprudence, vol. 4, pp. 225--241, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. B. Burgemeestre, et al., "Rule-based versus Principle-based Regulatory Compliance," in Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications (JURIX 2009), 2009, pp. 37--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. A. de Bruijn, et al., Process Management. Why Project Management Fails in Complex Decision Making Processes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Janssen, "Insights from the introduction of a supply chain co-ordinator," Business Process Management Journal, vol. 10, pp. 300--310, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. M. A. Wimmer, "Integrated Service Modelling for Online One-stop Government," Electronic Markets, vol. 12, pp. 149--156, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. R. Kalakota and A. B. Whinson, Frontiers of Electronic Commerce: Pearson, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. A. van Veenstra, et al., "Towards an Understanding of E-Government Induced Change -- Drawing on Organization and Structuration Theories," presented at the EGOV, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. S. Sadiq and G. Governatori, "The journey to business process compliance," in Handbook of Research on Business Process Management, J. Cardoso and W. M. P. van der Aalst, Eds., ed: IGI Global, 2009, pp. 426--454.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Towards a lean-government using new IT-architectures for compliance monitoring

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            ICEGOV '11: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
            September 2011
            400 pages
            ISBN:9781450307468
            DOI:10.1145/2072069

            Copyright © 2011 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 26 September 2011

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate350of865submissions,40%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader