Jun 2026· Journal of Information and Technology· 0 citations· 44 references
TL;DR
This analysis underscores the need to continuously recalibrate governance as decentralized technologies proliferate, requiring increasingly adaptive EAM strategies to balance innovation, flexibility, and architectural coherence.
Abstract
Enterprise systems governance is undergoing a shift toward decentralization and federation, as platforms and tools increasingly empower business users to create and deploy applications outside professional IT. Low-Code Development Platforms (LCDPs) represent a prominent instance of this trend, enabling rapid application development while simultaneously introducing challenges for Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM). Through a multiple-case analysis of organizations from financial services, healthcare, and manufacturing, we identify three governance challenges organized around what is governed (architectural drift), who is governed (role ambiguity and shifting accountability), and how governance is enacted (tension between formal and informal control), and show that that organizations address these challenges through deliberately composed governance portfolios pairing formal instruments with informal enabling practices. Reasoning abductively across cases, we identify five mechanisms through which these portfolios produce durable EA outcomes: information symmetry, perceived legitimacy, developer capability, enacted decision-right alignment, and secure-by default conditions. Theoretically, we contribute by distinguishing the locus of control (centralized vs decentralized) from the mode of control (formal vs informal), and by offering a mechanism-based explanation of how governance portfolios produce EA outcomes under decentralized development conditions, moving beyond generic prescriptions for “balance” toward a concrete account of why specific governance compositions work. Practically, our analysis underscores the need to continuously recalibrate governance as decentralized technologies proliferate, requiring increasingly adaptive EAM strategies to balance innovation, flexibility, and architectural coherence.
Multinational organizations operating across diverse regulatory regimes face significant challenges in managing compliance obligations that span multiple jurisdictions, industries, and legal frameworks. The fragmented nature of compliance management, characterized by siloed risk assessments, disconnected control mechanisms, and duplicative reporting structures, creates operational inefficiencies, heightened compliance risks, and increased costs. This paper examines the conceptual foundations and practical implementation of cross-industry unified compliance frameworks designed to address these challenges. Building upon Chinenye's (2013) foundational work on transitioning from fragmented compliance to integrated governance, this study explores how multinational organizations can harmonize regulatory controls, security protocols, and risk management processes across disparate operational contexts. Through analysis of international standards (ISO 19600, ISO 31000, COSO ERM), technological enablers (blockchain, automation, GRC platforms), and governance architectures, the paper proposes a comprehensive framework for achieving compliance integration. The framework emphasizes centralized policy development coupled with localized implementation, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and stakeholder engagement across organizational boundaries. Findings indicate that successful unified compliance frameworks require alignment of organizational culture, technology infrastructure, and governance structures while maintaining flexibility to accommodate jurisdiction-specific requirements. The paper concludes with recommendations for practitioners and identifies areas for future research in compliance harmonization and regulatory technology.
Olajumoke Mary Ogundipe· Multiverse Journal· 0 citations
This work explicates the trust and transparency trade-offs of the design choices in implementing a DAO and highlights how poor choices introduce critical vulnerabilities, using real-world examples as case studies.
Vabuk Pahari, B. Chandrasekaran, Johnnatan Messias et al.· 0 citations
This article examines three interconnected dimensions of responsible AI for enterprise modernization: governance infrastructure for accountable AI deployment, algorithmic equity in high-impact decision environments, and the evolving international regulatory landscape shaping enterprise AI governance.
M. Modi· International Journal of Eng...· 0 citations
This article analyzes governance mechanisms specific to distributed software teams, including decision authority distribution, communication structures, and accountability models, and explores how leadership roles function within these governance systems to maintain quality, reliability, and consistency across decentralized teams.
Deniz Ceylan Kurt· International Journal of Res...· 0 citations
The study concludes that enterprises should treat automation and data governance as an integrated strategic agenda rather than as separate technical initiatives and recommends governance-by-design, phased implementation, workforce reskilling, periodic maturity and impact assessments, stronger model and data inventories, and independent assurance for high-risk systems.
Bisola AkejuQ, Ayokunle Olamide Ijagbemi, Shalom Alugwe· International Journal of Mul...· 0 citations
The findings are that companies that implement organized governance systems record dramatic advancement in the quality of data, compliance rates, and the accuracy in analytics, and the need to incorporate governance frameworks in enterprise analytics strategies to promote sustainable data-driven change is highlighted.
Jessica Rachel Brown· International Journal of App...· 0 citations