|
|
 |
|
Viewing report
|
|
|
|
The Impact of King III (Chapter 5) on IT in South Africa
Ovum, March 2011, Pages: 26
Introduction
The King III report codifies a number of principles for good IT governance, and proposes recommendations to allow companies to comply with these principles. Ovum believes this is an opportunity for CIOs to develop a pertinent agenda for the board, which will create deeper board understanding of IT issues and allow them to take a decisive role in IT leadership and direction.
Features and benefits
- Identifies the key elements of King III (Chapter 5).
- Analyzes the key responses required by both IT and the business for meeting King III obligations.
- Discusses the opportunities that King III presents to CIOs.
- Discusses the risks and roadblocks for CIOs in responding to King III
Highlights
King III is an opportunity for CIOs to launch a wider and more convincing communications program at board level. The opportunity lies in creating an agenda at board level that encompasses leadership, value perceptions, understanding of real risks, and operational efficiencies – both in the business and in IT.
The success of creating a wider agenda for the board concerning IT depends on the communication abilities of the CIO. The CIO should view communication as the lynchpin to his or her success.
Compliance with King III is a journey. Organizations which try to do it all at once will experience problems. Develop a staged approach to compliance – the ‘apply or explain’ stance taken by King III allows organizations to prioritize their compliance, and explain their compliance plan.
Your key questions answered
- What are the seven principles of effective IT governance set out in the King III report (Chapter 5)?
- What are the five key board agenda topics that can help the CIO in both responding to and explaining the King III report?
- How can existing governance frameworks and standards be incorporated into King III compliance?
- How can CIOs ensure that their response to King III is appropriate to their organizational size and not over-engineered?
|
|
|
|
