| dc.contributor.author | Nieto Bernal, Wilson | |
| dc.contributor.author | Guerrero Avendano, Alexander | |
| dc.contributor.author | Carmenza, Luna Amaya | |
| dc.coverage.spatial | Colombia | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-05-05T16:47:17Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-05-05T16:47:17Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2023 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2071-1050 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://repositorioinstitucional.ufpso.edu.co/xmlui/handle/20.500.14167/5272 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Los Sistemas de Gobernanza y Gestión Corporativa se han convertido en herramientas clave para la gestión integral de las organizaciones, que, al ser implementadas, garantizan el éxito corporativo, lo que se puede materializar en la obtención de metas corporativas, objetivos estratégicos, KPIs y KRP. Este artículo es el producto de ejercicios de investigación donde se expone un Sistema de Gobernanza y Gestión Corporativa, respaldado por tres pilares principales: Gestión de Tecnología, Gestión de Innovación y Transformación Digital, los cuales llamaremos GCMS+ a partir de ahora. El trabajo desarrollado se basa en una metodología de investigación longitudinal cuasi-experimental, en la cual se abordan tres fases clave; la primera fase corresponde a la revisión sistemática de la literatura, que permite identificar los componentes clave del sistema GCMS+ propuesto. La segunda fase de la metodología se centró en la modelización del sistema GCMS+, que describe visual y descriptivamente los componentes estructurales, flujos y mecanismos de control. La tercera fase de la metodología se centra en la validación del sistema GCMS+ propuesto a partir de la literatura discutida y contrastando la posición de los autores, lo cual se identifica a través de una discusión conceptual. En este caso, se busca validar los elementos estructurales de GCMS+, las restricciones, la adopción de buenas prácticas, la integración de estándares, la adopción de principios, la integración de impulsores, la taxonomía estratégica, las estructuras organizacionales, el enfoque de gobernanza y gestión, así como metodologías, roles, iniciativas, métricas e indicadores. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | spa | en_US |
| dc.relation | https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13150 | en_US |
| dc.title | Sistema de Gobernanza y Gestión Corporativa Apoyado en la Innovación, la Tecnología y la Transformación Digital como Motor del Cambio | en_US |
| dc.title.translated | Governance and Corporate Management System Supported by Innovation, Technology, and Digital Transformation as a Driver of Change | en_US |
| dc.contributor.cvlac | [0000222097] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.cvlac | [0000036356] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.cvlac | [0000218952] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.googlescholar | [LlFZjngAAAAJ] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.googlescholar | [Zy_0N50AAAAJ] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.orcid | [0000-0003-3615-4629] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.orcid | [0000-0002-1172-2960] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.orcid | [0000-0002-3104-5151] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.researchgate | [Wilson-Bernal-2] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.researchgate | [Alexander-Guerrero-Avendano-2257366704] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.researchgate | [Carmenza-Luna-Amaya-2260077816] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.scopus | [57821847600] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.scopus | [57209133495] | en_US |
| dc.contributor.scopus | [8529251400] | en_US |
| dc.description.abstractenglish | Governance and Corporate Management Systems have become key tools for the comprehensive management of organizations, which, when implemented, guarantee corporate success, which can materialize in obtaining corporate goals, strategic objectives, KPIs, and KRP. This paper is the product of research exercises where a Governance and Corporate Management System is exposed, supported by three main pillars: Technology Management, Innovation Management, and Digital Transformation, which we will call GCMS+ from now on. The work developed is based on a quasi-experimental longitudinal research methodology, in which three key phases are addressed; the first phase corresponds to the systematic review of the literature, which allows the identification of the key components of the proposed GCMS+ system. The second phase of the methodology focused on the modelling of the GCMS+ system, which visually and descriptively describes the structural components, flows, and control mechanisms. The third phase of the methodology focuses on the validation of the GCMS+ system proposed from the discussed literature and contrasting the position of the authors, which is identified through a conceptual discussion. In this case, it seeks to validate the structural elements of GCMS+, the constraints, adoption of good practices, integration of standards, adoption of principles, integration of drivers, strategic taxonomy, organizational structures, governance and management approach, as well as methodologies, roles, initiatives, metrics, and indicators. | en_US |
| dc.subject.proposal | Gestión de tecnología | en_US |
| dc.subject.proposal | Gestión de innovación | en_US |
| dc.subject.proposal | Estrategia | en_US |
| dc.subject.proposal | Transformación digital | en_US |
| dc.subject.proposal | Transformación organizacional | en_US |
| dc.subject.proposal | Gobierno corporativo | en_US |
| dc.subject.proposal | Arquitectura empresarial. | en_US |
| dc.subject.keywords | technology management | en_US |
| dc.subject.keywords | innovation management | en_US |
| dc.subject.keywords | strategy | en_US |
| dc.subject.keywords | Digital transformation | en_US |
| dc.subject.keywords | Organisational transformation | en_US |
| dc.subject.keywords | Corporate government | en_US |
| dc.subject.keywords | Enterprise architecture. | en_US |
| dc.subject.lemb | Governance and Corporate Management System Supported by Innovation, Technology, and Digital Transformation | en_US |
| dc.publisher.faculty | Facultad ciencias administrativas y económicas | en_US |
| dc.type.redcol | http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Almustafa, H., Nguyen, Q., Liu, J., & Dang, V. (2023). The impact of COVID-19 on firm risk and performance in MENA countries: Does national governance quality matter? PLOS ONE, 18(2), e0281148. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0281148 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Bernard, A., & Fischer, A. (2002). New Trends in Rapid Product Development. CIRP Annals, 51(2), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61704-1 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Bertola, P., & Teunissen, J. (2018). Fashion 4.0. Innovating fashion industry through digital transformation. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 22(4), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/RJTA-03-2018-0023/FULL/XML | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Borges, D. (2022). Corporate governance and capital structure in Latin America: empirical evidence. Journal of Capital Markets Studies, 6(2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCMS-03-2022-0010/FULL/PDF | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Brilhuis, E., Pigosso, D., & McAloone, T. (2016). Integrating Product and Technology Development: A Proposed Reference Model for Dual Innovation. Procedia CIRP, 50, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCIR.2016.05.037 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Cardoni, A., Kiseleva, E., & Lombardi, R. (2020). A sustainable governance model to prevent corporate corruption: Integrating anticorruption practices, corporate strategy and business processes. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.2424 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Chao, R., & Lenox, M. (2017). Towards a unified model of innovation and technological change. Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 7(3–4), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/19488289.2018.1424060 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Cheng, M., Li, Z., & Ma, C. (2023). Public governance and corporate innovation: evidence from a quasi-natural event in China. Applied Economics, 55(21), 2413–2437. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2022.2102577;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | De Mori, C., Batalha, M., & Alfranca, O. (2016). A model for measuring technology capability in the agrifood industry companies. British Food Journal, 118(6), 1422–1461. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-10-2015-0386/FULL/XML | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Foster, C., & Green, K. (2000). Greening the innovation process. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(5), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0836(200009/10)9:5<287::AID-BSE256>3.0.CO;2-7 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | García, D., Gálvez, E., & Maldonado, G. (2016). Efecto de la innovación en el crecimiento y el desempeño de las Mipymes de la Alianza del Pacífico. Un estudio empírico. Estudios Gerenciales, 32(141), 326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESTGER.2016.07.003 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Geldes, C., Felzensztein, C., & Palacios, J. (2017). Technological and non-technological innovations, performance and propensity to innovate across industries: The case of an emerging economy. Industrial Marketing Management, 61, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2016.10.010 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Hanpo, H., Xiaoqian, Y., & Hao, Z. (2010). Enterprise technological innovation models and implementation based on internet. Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Business and E-Government, ICEE 2010, 1132–1135. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEE.2010.292 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Hess, T., Matt, C., Benlian, A., & Wiesböck, F. (2016). Options for Formulating a Digital Transformation Strategy. MIS Quarterly Exacutive, 15, 123–139. https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A10%3A10380106/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Aplink%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A115879199&crl=c&link_origin=scholar.google.com | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Koseoglu, O., Keskin, B., & Ozorhon, B. (2019). Challenges and Enablers in BIM-Enabled Digital Transformation in Mega Projects: The Istanbul New Airport Project Case Study. Buildings, 9(5), 115. https://doi.org/10.3390/BUILDINGS9050115 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Leitner, K. (2015). Digital and open innovation: Implications for business models and research strategies of private and public organizations. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 21-22-Octo(32), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/2809563.2809609 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | López, G., Guzmán, G., Pinzón, S., & Ramírez, R. (2016). Colaboración y actividades de innovación en Pymes. Contaduría y Administración, 61(3), 568–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CYA.2015.05.016 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Macedo, M., Cauchick, P., & Casarotto, N. (2015). A CARACTERIZAÇÃO DO DESIGN THINKING COMO UM MODELO DE INOVAÇÃO. INMR - Innovation & Management Reciew, 12(3), 157–182. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.11606/rai.v12i3.101357 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Malik, M., Younus, S., & Sattar, S. (2022). The Impact of Corporate Governance with Mediating Effect of Digital Innovation on Firm Performance. Sustainable Business and Society in Emerging Economies, 4(1), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.26710/sbsee.v4i1.2210 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Maradana, R., Pradhan, R., Dash, S., Zaki, D., Gaurav, K., Jayakumar, M., & Sarangi, A. (2019). Innovation and economic growth in European Economic Area countries: The Granger causality approach. IIMB Management Review, 31(3), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IIMB.2019.03.002 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Nasrallah, N., & El Khoury, R. (2022). Is corporate governance a good predictor of SMEs financial performance? Evidence from developing countries (the case of Lebanon). Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 12(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1874213 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Newman, K. (2000). Organizational Transformation during Institutional Upheaval. The Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 619. https://doi.org/10.2307/259313 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Niehaves, B., Poeppelbuss, J., Plattfaut, R., & Becker, J. (2014). BPM capability development - a matter of contingencies. Business Process Management Journal, 20(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-07-2012-0068/FULL/XML | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Peñaloza, M. (2006). Tecnológia e Innovación factores claves para la competitividad. Actualidad Contable Faces, 10(15), 82–94. | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Qi, Z., & Yunjei, A. (2009). Technological innovation model of SMB in international operation. 2009 2nd International Conference on Future Information Technology and Management Engineering, FITME 2009, 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1109/FITME.2009.119 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Rosca, E., Arnold, M., & Bendul, J. (2017). Business models for sustainable innovation – an empirical analysis of frugal products and services. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, S133–S145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.050 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Savastano, M., Amendola, C., Bellini, F., & D’Ascenzo, F. (2019). Contextual Impacts on Industrial Processes Brought by the Digital Transformation of Manufacturing: A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 11(3), 891. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11030891 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Sebastian, I., Moloney, K., Ross, J., Fonstad, N., Beath, C., & Mocker, M. (2017). How big old companies navigate digital transformation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(3), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429286797-6/BIG-OLD-COMPANIES-NAVIGATE-DIGITAL-TRANSFORMATION-INA-SEBASTIAN-JEANNE-ROSS-CYNTHIA-BEATH-MARTIN-MOCKER-KATE-MOLONEY-NILS-FONSTAD | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Sikdar, A., & Payyazhi, J. (2014). A process model of managing organizational change during business process redesign. Business Process Management Journal, 20(6), 971–978. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2013-0020 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Tohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. (2012). Different Stages of Innovation Process. Procedia Technology, 1, 574–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.02.125 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Uthaman, V., & Vasanthagopal, R. (2017). A comprehensive multidimensional conceptual model to assess the e-Governance service quality at common service centers in India. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Part F1276, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1145/3055219.3055239 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Vladušić, L., & Lalić, N. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship as a function of organizational transformation. Strategic Management, 20(4), 26–33. https://scindeks.ceon.rs/article.aspx?artid=1821-34481504026V | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Wahyuningrum, I., Chegenizadeh, A., Humaira, N., Budihardjo, M., & Nikraz, H. (2023). Corporate Governance Research in Asian Countries: A Bibliometric and Content Analysis (2001–2021). Sustainability, 15(8), 6381. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU15086381 | en_US |
| dc.relation.references | Wu, W., Yu, B., & Wu, C. (2012). How China’s equipment manufacturing firms achieve successful independent innovation: The double helix mode of technological capability and technology management. Chinese Management Studies, 6(1), 160–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506141211213915/FULL/XML | en_US |
| dc.identifier.DOI | https://doi.org/10.3390/su151713150 | en_US |