Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorNieto Bernal, Wilson
dc.contributor.authorGuerrero Avendano, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorCarmenza, Luna Amaya
dc.coverage.spatialColombiaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-05T16:47:17Z
dc.date.available2025-05-05T16:47:17Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.issn2071-1050en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorioinstitucional.ufpso.edu.co/xmlui/handle/20.500.14167/5272
dc.description.abstractLos 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.isospaen_US
dc.relationhttps://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/17/13150en_US
dc.titleSistema de Gobernanza y Gestión Corporativa Apoyado en la Innovación, la Tecnología y la Transformación Digital como Motor del Cambioen_US
dc.title.translatedGovernance and Corporate Management System Supported by Innovation, Technology, and Digital Transformation as a Driver of Changeen_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.abstractenglishGovernance 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.proposalGestión de tecnologíaen_US
dc.subject.proposalGestión de innovaciónen_US
dc.subject.proposalEstrategiaen_US
dc.subject.proposalTransformación digitalen_US
dc.subject.proposalTransformación organizacionalen_US
dc.subject.proposalGobierno corporativoen_US
dc.subject.proposalArquitectura empresarial.en_US
dc.subject.keywordstechnology managementen_US
dc.subject.keywordsinnovation managementen_US
dc.subject.keywordsstrategyen_US
dc.subject.keywordsDigital transformationen_US
dc.subject.keywordsOrganisational transformationen_US
dc.subject.keywordsCorporate governmenten_US
dc.subject.keywordsEnterprise architecture.en_US
dc.subject.lembGovernance and Corporate Management System Supported by Innovation, Technology, and Digital Transformationen_US
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad ciencias administrativas y económicasen_US
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTen_US
dc.relation.referencesAlmustafa, 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.0281148en_US
dc.relation.referencesBernard, A., & Fischer, A. (2002). New Trends in Rapid Product Development. CIRP Annals, 51(2), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61704-1en_US
dc.relation.referencesBertola, 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/XMLen_US
dc.relation.referencesBocken, 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.2013.11.039en_US
dc.relation.referencesBorges, 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/PDFen_US
dc.relation.referencesBrilhuis, 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.2016.05.037en_US
dc.relation.referencesCardoni, 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.2424en_US
dc.relation.referencesChao, 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/10.1080/19488289.2018.1424060en_US
dc.relation.referencesCheng, 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:PUBLICATIONen_US
dc.relation.referencesDe 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/XMLen_US
dc.relation.referencesFoster, 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;2-7en_US
dc.relation.referencesGarcía, 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.2016.07.003en_US
dc.relation.referencesGeldes, 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.2016.10.010en_US
dc.relation.referencesHanpo, 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.2010.292en_US
dc.relation.referencesHess, 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.comen_US
dc.relation.referencesKoseoglu, 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/BUILDINGS9050115en_US
dc.relation.referencesLeitner, 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/10.1145/2809563.2809609en_US
dc.relation.referencesLópez, 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.2015.05.016en_US
dc.relation.referencesMacedo, 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.v12i3.101357en_US
dc.relation.referencesMalik, 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.v4i1.2210en_US
dc.relation.referencesMaradana, 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.2019.03.002en_US
dc.relation.referencesNasrallah, 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/10.1080/20430795.2021.1874213en_US
dc.relation.referencesNewman, K. (2000). Organizational Transformation during Institutional Upheaval. The Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 619. https://doi.org/10.2307/259313en_US
dc.relation.referencesNiehaves, 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/XMLen_US
dc.relation.referencesPeñaloza, M. (2006). Tecnológia e Innovación factores claves para la competitividad. Actualidad Contable Faces, 10(15), 82–94.en_US
dc.relation.referencesQi, 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.2009.119en_US
dc.relation.referencesRosca, 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.2016.02.050en_US
dc.relation.referencesSavastano, 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/SU11030891en_US
dc.relation.referencesSebastian, 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-FONSTADen_US
dc.relation.referencesSikdar, 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-02-2013-0020en_US
dc.relation.referencesTohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. (2012). Different Stages of Innovation Process. Procedia Technology, 1, 574–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.02.125en_US
dc.relation.referencesUthaman, 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/10.1145/3055219.3055239en_US
dc.relation.referencesVladušić, 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=1821-34481504026Ven_US
dc.relation.referencesWahyuningrum, 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/SU15086381en_US
dc.relation.referencesWu, 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/XMLen_US
dc.identifier.DOIhttps://doi.org/10.3390/su151713150en_US


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem