Abstract
Purpose: This study addresses the complex risks of implementing prescriptive analytics in vineyard management. It focusses on integrating diverse, previously isolated data resources into operational decisions in irrigation, nutrition and pest management. Aligning with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this integration is crucial for optimising vineyard growth and production, and advancing precision agriculture techniques within the framework of sustainable agriculture. In this context, it introduces a Control Risk Template (CRT) to manage these risks effectively.
Design/methodology/approach: The study uses an exploratory research design and grounded theory methodology to conduct a comprehensive systematic literature review.
Findings/results: The findings demonstrate how the CRT can effectively identify, assess and manage the risks of deploying prescriptive analytics in vineyard management. This approach minimises risks and significantly improves decision-making and operational efficiencies in vineyard management, contributing to the advancement of sustainable agricultural practices.
Practical implications: This research offers valuable insights for vineyard managers and information technology (IT) governance leaders. It provides a robust model for enhancing vineyard management through advanced data-driven decisions. Implementing the CRT facilitates better resource allocation and improved crop health management, fostering a transition towards more sustainable agricultural practices.
Originality/value: This research suggests a comprehensive approach to integrating IT governance with practical agricultural operations, significantly contributing to academic research and industry practices. Moreover, the study delivers essential insights into the effective integration of prescriptive analytics in vineyard management, underscoring the transformative potential of IT governance frameworks in enhancing the sustainability and efficiency of vineyard management.
Keywords: COBIT; Control Risk Template; Fourth Industrial Revolution; IT governance; prescriptive analytics; precision agriculture; risk management; sustainable agriculture; vineyard management.
Introduction
Vineyard management is a critical component of the global agricultural sector, significantly contributing to economies through wine production, tourism, and employment (Anderson & Pinilla, 2018). The global wine industry was valued at approximately $330 billion in 2023 and is projected to grow (Statista, 2024). Countries like France, Italy, and Spain lead in production and exports, underscoring the global importance of efficient vineyard practices (Statista, 2024).
In South Africa, the wine industry is vital to the economy. It contributes about ZAR56.5bn (approximately $3.5bn) to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP); about ZAR31bn from the Western Cape province and 270 363 jobs, both directly and indirectly, in the South African wine industry in 2019 (Wines of South Africa, 2019). The sector not only bolsters economic growth but also fosters rural development, tourism and international trade, making efficient vineyard management a matter of national significance (South African Wine Industry Information & Systems, 2023). Therefore, enhancing vineyard management practices substantially impacts the country’s economic development and job creation.
South Africa’s and global vineyard management has traditionally relied on empirical knowledge and manual observations (Reynolds, 2022). While these methods have laid a solid foundation, they often fail to capture and analyse the complex data required to optimise modern viticulture’s intricate variables such as fluctuating weather patterns, varying soil conditions and plant physiology dynamics (Kamangir et al., 2024). As the agricultural sector moves towards more data-driven methodologies, there is an evident need for a paradigm shift to improve productivity and sustainability, and to manage the risks associated with digital transformation effectively (Bongiovanni & Lowenberg-Deboer, 2004).
Integrating advanced agricultural technologies, specifically through the implementation of prescriptive analytics (PA) in vineyard management, is pivotal in achieving enhanced efficiency and sustainability. Prescriptive analytics has the potential to revolutionise vineyard management by providing precise, actionable insights that enhance decision-making in crucial areas such as irrigation, nutrition and pest management (Petrović et al., 2024). For instance, optimising irrigation schedules based on predictive models can significantly reduce water usage – a critical consideration in water-scarce regions like South Africa (Schultz, 2016). These improvements can reduce waste and cost efficiencies and improve outputs, benefiting the sector’s economic and environmental performance.
Moreover, the adoption of PA aligns with the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to sustainable agriculture (Goal 2), clean water and sanitation (Goal 6) and responsible consumption and production (Goal 12) (United Nations, 2015). By integrating PA, organisations can enhance their sustainability practices from an integrated thinking perspective – considering environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and a multi-capital outlook (Adams, 2017). This approach supports long-term sustainability and aligns with supra-national objectives and government policies to promote sustainable agricultural practices (Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development, 2023). Achieving these goals assists organisations in meeting both national and international sustainability targets, thereby contributing to global efforts against climate change and resource depletion.
Countries with more advanced vineyard management systems such as those in Europe and North America, have demonstrated that integrating PA can significantly improve yield quality, operational efficiency and risk mitigation (Statista, 2024). By drawing parallels between developed and developing countries, this study highlights the potential for South Africa to adopt and adapt these technologies to its local context. This not only bridges the technological gap but also places the research in a global context, showcasing its contribution to the advancement of vineyard management systems worldwide.
However, introducing such advanced technologies brings a host of risks; particularly concerning data integrity, security and privacy, which must be meticulously managed to harness their full potential (Lepenioti et al., 2020). The core challenge in adopting PA within vineyard management is ensuring robust information technology (IT) governance to integrate diverse and complex data streams effectively. With proper risk management strategies and improved control systems, the sector may avoid issues that could negate the benefits of technological advancements.
This research aims to develop a Control Risk Template (CRT) to address these challenges. This tool incorporates the Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology (COBIT) framework to address the inherent risks of implementing PA in vineyard management while maintaining high standards of IT governance (ISACA, 2018). By integrating isolated data sources – such as irrigation, nutrition and pest management – the CRT facilitates a unified template for seamless data flow and comprehensive analysis. This integration is critical for enhancing decision-making processes; ultimately improving grapevine yield and quality by leveraging interconnected data.
The CRT addresses gaps in current vineyard management practices, often lacking comprehensive data governance strategies (INRIA, 2022). By applying this template, organisations can refine decision-making processes, ensure compliance with stringent IT governance standards and achieve cost efficiencies through reduced waste and improved outputs. The CRT provides a unified framework for seamless data flow and comprehensive analysis, enhances operational efficiency and secures data processes. As new technologies enter the agricultural market, the CRT sets a new benchmark for applying IT governance principles in precision agriculture; particularly in developing countries like South Africa.
This study offers valuable insights for vineyard managers and IT governance leaders by providing a structured approach to integrating advanced technologies while managing associated risks. By aligning vineyard management practices with UN SDGs and ESG considerations, the research contributes to long-term sustainability and economic growth. Furthermore, by making a more transparent link between the contributions in developed and developing countries, the study better positions itself as a valid contribution to the global discourse on vineyard management and governance systems; potentially influencing future research and industry practices.
This article proceeds as follows. The next section offers a comprehensive literature review to establish the research gap by critically examining existing studies at the intersection of viticulture and PA. Specifically, it highlights the need for a comprehensive and structured approach to integrating advanced technologies in vineyard management while effectively managing the associated risks through an IT governance framework in the form of a template. The ensuing section explains the methodological approach, including the research design, data collection and analysis techniques. The subsequent section presents the findings before explaining the management implications. The article concludes with limitations, avenues for future research and the conclusion.
Literature review
The need for an integrated template to mitigate implementation risks
Vineyard management is undergoing a significant transformation because of technological advancements, increasing emphasis on sustainability and the need for robust corporate governance (Sánchez-García et al., 2024). The integration of PA presents an opportunity to optimise vineyard operations by providing precise, actionable insights (Petrović et al., 2024). However, implementing such advanced technologies introduces complex IT-related risks such as data integrity, security and privacy issues (Lepenioti et al., 2020).
It is essential to develop a template that ensures appropriate IT governance practices are in place and aligned with corporate governance principles, promoting integrated thinking and achieving sustainability goals while implementing advanced technologies such as PA within vineyard management. This paper will examine existing studies at the intersection of viticulture, corporate governance and sustainability, highlighting the need to define the building blocks in the proceeding section that form the foundation of our CRT.
Before delving into the specific building blocks of the CRT, it is crucial to understand the interplay of corporate governance and the King IV code, integrated thinking from the Integrated Reporting Framework and sustainability based on the SDGs, specifically in the context of vineyard management. These concepts provide the indirect foundational pillars (illustrated in Figure 1) that guide the effective implementation of advanced technologies like PA through the use of the CRT to ensure optimal grapevine growth and production levels while maintaining proper IT governance practices.
 |
FIGURE 1: Foundational pillars of the Control Risk Template. |
|
Corporate governance and the King IV code
Effective corporate governance is crucial in managing the risks associated with implementing advanced technologies (King Committee on Corporate Governance, 2016). The King IV Code emphasises ethical leadership, sustainability and integrated thinking (Institute of Directors in Southern Africa, 2016). Although this article does not analyse each principle of the King IV Code in detail, it indirectly addresses these principles by incorporating the core aspects of corporate governance into vineyard management through the development of the CRT. By aligning the CRT with the overarching principles of the King IV Code, the article ensures that the adoption of PA aligns with ethical considerations and contributes to sustainability objectives.
To illustrate this alignment, Table 1 outlines each principle of the King IV Code and briefly indicates how the CRT addresses or aligns with it in vineyard management.
| TABLE 1: Alignment of King IV principles with the control risk template. |
Visser and De Langen (2006) highlight the importance of governance in the wine industry, demonstrating that solid governance structures can enhance competitiveness and sustainability. Their study of the Chilean wine industry shows how quality governance leads to improved innovation and market positioning. Similarly, Saïsset et al. (2023) examine governance, innovations and sustainability in the French wine industry; finding that governance structures significantly impact adopting sustainable practices and technological innovations.
By aligning with these principles, the CRT ensures that the integration of PA into vineyard management is conducted responsibly, ethically and in a manner that supports sustainable value creation. This alignment mitigates risks associated with technology implementation and enhances the organisation’s corporate governance practices, contributing to improved competitiveness and stakeholder trust.
Integrated thinking as a theoretical foundation in vineyard management
Integrated thinking is a holistic approach that considers the interdependencies between various resources and relationships an organisation relies on to create value over time (International Integrated Reporting Council, 2013). This approach is essential in vineyard management, where implementing PA requires balancing multiple capitals – financial, manufactured, intellectual, human, social, relationship and natural capitals (Herath et al., 2021).
To illustrate how the CRT aligns with integrated thinking, Table 2 provides an overview of how each of the six capitals is considered within the CRT in the context of vineyard management.
| TABLE 2: Alignment of the control risk template with the six capitals of integrated thinking. |
Dimes and De Villiers (2023) identify the hallmarks of integrated thinking, emphasising the orchestration of resources to drive value creation. Applying integrated thinking in vineyard management allows for enhanced decision-making processes, ensuring that technological implementations like PA contribute to long-term sustainability and value creation (Maroun et al., 2023). Moreover, integrated thinking highlights the link to corporate governance as a key pillar; suggesting that appropriate governance structures are necessary to foster an environment where integrated thinking can thrive (Dimes & De Villiers, 2021).
By aligning with the six capitals of integrated thinking, the CRT ensures that the implementation of PA in vineyard management is holistic and contributes to value creation across multiple dimensions. This alignment facilitates better decision-making and strategic planning, ensuring the organisation’s resources are effectively leveraged to achieve long-term sustainability and success.
Sustainability in vineyard management
Sustainability is a critical concern in modern vineyard management. The UN SDGs emphasise the need for sustainable agriculture practices (United Nations, 2015). Integrating PA aligns with UN SDGs related to sustainable agriculture, clean water and sanitation, and responsible consumption and production. Legun and Sautier (2018) examine sustainability programmes in New Zealand winegrowing, highlighting the importance of collaborative efforts and stakeholder engagement in assembling sustainable practices. Their findings suggest that sustainability initiatives can improve environmental performance and social outcomes when integrated into organisational strategies.
To illustrate how the CRT aligns with UN SDGs, Table 3 provides a brief overview.
| TABLE 3: Alignment of the control risk template with United Nations’ sustainable development goals. |
By aligning with these specific UN’s SDGs, the CRT ensures that the adoption of PA in vineyard management enhances operational efficiency and contributes to broader sustainability goals. This alignment demonstrates the CRT’s role in promoting environmentally responsible practices and supporting the global agenda for sustainable development.
Identifying the research gap
Despite recognising the importance of corporate governance, integrated thinking and sustainability, there needs to be a comprehensive and structured approach combining these elements with the implementation of technologies like PA in vineyard management. Existing studies have focussed on individual aspects such as sustainability programmes (Legun & Sautier, 2018; Nazzaro et al., 2022) or governance structures (Spraul & Höfert, 2021; Visser & De Langen, 2006), but have yet to provide an integrated IT governance framework with the use of a template that addresses the risks associated with the implementation of such technologies and still ensuring IT governance (Simonsson & Johnson, 2006), which is being illustrated in Figure 2.
 |
FIGURE 2: Information technology governance gap. |
|
This gap underscores the need for a tool like the CRT, which adopts the COBIT 2019 framework to effectively manage the inherent risks while maintaining high standards of IT governance (ISACA, 2018). We chose the COBIT 2019 framework for its comprehensive and adaptable governance objectives, which are well-suited to the complexities of vineyard management including data integrity, security and the seamless integration of diverse data sources.
By incorporating the COBIT 2019 objectives, the CRT facilitates a unified template for seamless data flow and comprehensive analysis, thereby enhancing decision-making processes and improving grapevine yield and quality through the interconnected data. Developing the CRT involved identifying the relevant COBIT 2019 objectives within the vineyard management context and embedding these objectives into the CRT accordingly (see Table 4 for details).
| TABLE 4: COBIT 2019 Governance and Management Objective(s). |
By integrating these COBIT 2019 objectives into the CRT, we can establish a robust IT governance framework specifically tailored to the unique challenges of vineyard management. However, to effectively operationalise this framework, it is essential to translate these objectives into actionable components that address the industry’s technological and viticultural aspects through the use of our CRT.
This necessitates identifying and defining the four building blocks in the following section that will form the foundation of our CRT’s components, as these building blocks are designed to integrate vineyard management practices with the implementation of advanced technologies like PA, while still adhering to the corporate governance, promoting integrated thinking and achieving the sustainability goals.
The building blocks of the Control Risk Template
To develop the CRT components, first of all, we must define the following building blocks that outline the multifaceted aspects of vineyard management and its operations. Understanding these aspects is essential before implementing PA, as it provides the necessary context and foundation for integration and implementation of this technology within vineyard management.
The building blocks are:
- Grapevine Life Cycle Stages (GLCS).
- Grapevine Anatomy (GA).
- Data Life Cycle Stages (DLCS).
- Prescriptive Analytical IT Architecture Components (PAIAC).
The rationale for defining these specific building blocks is twofold:
- Understanding the operational environment: To develop a detailed understanding of the vineyard’s operational environment elements (GLCS and GA). This understanding is crucial for tailoring PA solutions that are appropriate and effective for each stage of the grapevine’s development and its anatomical features.
- Establishing IT rik management strategy: To establish a robust IT risk management strategy that aligns with this understanding (DLCS and PAIAC elements). By mapping out the data lifecycle and IT architecture components, we can identify and mitigate data integrity, security and system integration risks.
By defining these building blocks, we address the research gap identified earlier – the lack of a comprehensive and structured approach to integrating advanced technologies like PA in vineyard management while managing associated risks through a proper IT governance framework with the use of a template. These building blocks are not merely procedural checkpoints but foundational elements that will ensure the optimal use of PA within vineyard management.
Grapevine life cycle stages
A detailed understanding of the GLCS – bud break, flowering, fruit set, veraison, harvest and dormancy – is essential for tailoring PA effectively within vineyard management (Lorenz et al., 1995). Each stage encapsulates physiological changes and needs, demanding precise and timely management interventions to ensure optimal growth and yield (Barriguinha et al., 2021). Table 5 describes the different GLCS and shows how PA is deployed in the various stages of vineyard management.
| TABLE 5: Grapevine life cycle stages and prescriptive analytics. |
As explained in Table 5, the first building block is to align the GLCS with the deployment of PA. This alignment is crucial for maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of vineyard operations, providing a clear roadmap for integrating advanced analytics into everyday agricultural practices. In doing so, management can enhance decision-making by ensuring a cohesive approach to managing each phase’s unique challenges. To illustrate how the grapevine life cycle stages, Figure 3 provides an overview of each phase of which is being considered later on within the CRT in the context of vineyard management.
In the proceeding section, we will explore the detailed anatomy of the grapevine. By comprehensively understanding each anatomical component, management can effectively implement PA to achieve optimal growth and production levels. A deep knowledge of the structure and function of the grapevine anatomy enables farmers to tailor each intervention precisely, thereby, improving the overall health and productivity of the vine.
Grapevine anatomy
Understanding the GA is imperative for effectively applying PA throughout the various life cycle stages of the grapevine. As outlined in Table 6, key anatomical components – roots, shoots, leaves, flowers, berries, trunk, tendrils and canopy – play crucial roles in the vine’s development and response to environmental conditions (Mullins et al., 1992). By comprehensively defining these components within the CRT, vineyard managers can ensure that interventions are accurately tailored to meet the physiological requirements and challenges at each stage – from bud breakthrough to dormancy, as outlined in Table 6.
| TABLE 6: The grapevine anatomy and prescriptive analytics. |
As explained in Table 6, the second building block is aligning the deployment of PA with the GA. In doing so, management can enhance the decision-making process by simultaneously ensuring a cohesive approach to managing the unique challenges over each life cycle stages and anatomical components with the implementation of PA on their farm. The first two building blocks are essential to ensure that the GLCS and GA are well integrated into the third building block, namely, the DLCS, setting the stage for effectively deploying PA within vineyard management.
To illustrate grapevine anatomy, Figure 4 provides an overview of each anatomical component that will be considered later within the CRT in the context of vineyard management.
Data life cycle stages
Defining the data lifecycle in the context of grapevine management will provide grapevine managers with detailed insights into each growth phase and structural component of the grapevine. These insights will influence the entire data lifecycle process – from collection, storage and pre-processing to analysis, application, decision-making, reporting and retention. A comprehensive understanding will ensure that PA can be precisely implemented to meet the specific needs of the vine at every stage of its life cycle and for each anatomical part. Table 7 describes the DLCS in the context of vineyard management.
| TABLE 7: Data life cycle stage(s) in the context of vineyard management. |
As outlined in Table 7, the third building block involves aligning the DLCS with the GLCS and GA. By achieving this alignment, management can improve the decision-making process through a unified approach to handling the distinct implementation challenges of each stage of the data life cycle. To fully harness the benefits of this strategic alignment, defining the IT architecture components, as elaborated in the proceeding section, is crucial as it forms part of our final building block to develop the CRT and effectively identify, assess, and manage the risks of deploying PA in vineyard management.
To illustrate DLCS, Figure 5 provides an overview of each phase that will be considered later within the CRT in the context of vineyard management.
Prescriptive analytical information technology architecture components
A comprehensive understanding of the grapevine’s life cycle and anatomical structure is essential. However, this knowledge attains its full utility only when integrated with the overarching IT architecture components that underpin the data life cycle. The different PAIACs, namely the data layer, data processing layer, analytical layer, decision layer and presentation layer, require an understanding to enable management with the successful implementation of PA in vineyard management with precision in every DLCS – from data collection to retention – as delineated in Table 8.
| TABLE 8: The Prescriptive Analytical information technology Architecture Components and vineyard management. |
As outlined in Table 8, the final building block involves aligning the PAIAC with the DLCS. This alignment can improve the decision-making process by using a unified approach to handling the distinct implementation challenges of each phase of the GLCS and GA.
To illustrate PAIAC, Figure 6 provides an overview of each layer that will be considered later within the CRT in the context of vineyard management.
 |
FIGURE 6: Prescriptive analytical information technology architecture components. |
|
By defining and understanding the four key building blocks – GLCS, GA, DLCS and PAIAC – we have formed the foundational elements of our CRT, providing a structured framework that integrates vineyard management practices with the implementation of advanced technologies like PA, while aligning it with the corporate governance principles, promoting integrated thinking and achieving the sustainability goals.
However, the research aims to develop a CRT that incorporates the COBIT 2019 objectives to effectively manage IT-related risks with the implementation of such technologies within vineyard management. The next section therefore, will detail the methodology we have employed before proceeding to our findings on how the CRT is developed based on our systematic literature review.
Methodology
This research explores how the COBIT 2019 framework can be integrated into vineyard management to optimise irrigation, nutrition and pest management decision-making. Through developing a CRT, the study bridges the gap between IT governance frameworks and the operational needs of vineyard management; leveraging PA to meet the SDGs related to sustainable agriculture and water management.
The study adopts an exploratory research design. This approach is suitable for creating a comprehensive template that meets the unique requirements of vineyard management and aligns with global IT governance standards. A Grounded Theory (GT) methodology underpins the research, which is ideal for areas lacking pre-established theories (Sutton et al., 2011). This methodology facilitates the development of a theoretical template that supports integrating the COBIT framework within the context of agricultural technology, specifically vineyard management. This systematic and inductive approach is essential to derive insights into effective data-driven methodologies that enhance vineyard productivity and sustainability.
While we considered employing a systematic literature review approach based on one of Grant and Booth’s (2009) comprehensive typology of 14 review types, we found Wolfswinkel et al.’s (2013) structured five-stage literature review process to be more appropriate for our study’s focus on IT governance in vineyard management. This method is particularly suited to information systems research and provides a rigorous framework that includes defining the scope, conducting literature searches, selecting relevant literature, analysing the content and systematically presenting the findings. Each stage is designed to deepen the understanding of how IT governance can be effectively applied in agricultural settings. The different stages of the GT literature review method were executed as follows:
Stage 1: Define
The research domain is within sustainable agriculture, emphasising vineyard management, reflecting the United Nations’ emphasis on SDGs. The primary research trajectory intersects the COBIT Governance and Management Objective(s) with vineyard management practices. Initial probes were based on existing literature concerning the applicability of the COBIT framework in agriculture. Given the prominence of PA in vineyard management, the scope was extended to assimilate insights from this analytical realm.
The research relied on comprehensive database searches in Scopus, EBSCOhost and IEEE. Keywords such as ‘Prescriptive Analytics’, ‘COBIT’, ‘Control Risk Template’, ‘Vineyard Management’, ‘Optimisation’, ‘IT Governance’, and ‘Precision agriculture’ were employed to guide the search. Given the sparse academic literature intersecting IT governance and vineyard management, supplementary searches encompassed platforms that provide vineyard management software solutions.
This stage’s pivotal component was identifying gaps and challenges in contemporary literature related to vineyard management and COBIT. The focus was primarily on vineyard management literature, but a broader perspective was obtained by incorporating insights from the expansive information systems literature, primarily through the IEEE Xplore database. Keywords associated with COBIT Governance and Management Objective(s) like ‘challenges’, ‘gaps’, and ‘implementation’ were integrated to ensure a thorough search.
Stage 2: Search
Having prepared the criteria and selected the appropriate sources and search terms, the searches were performed systematically. The researchers ensured that essential synonyms of search terms were included if identified.
Stage 3: Select
The literature abstracts identified in the search were read to determine if they were relevant to the study’s aim. The search criteria had to be refined in certain instances to find appropriate literature. Those articles that were then found to be in line with the objective of this research were downloaded for analysis.
Stage 4: Analyse
The analytical procedure involved carefully examining vineyard management, striving to pinpoint intersections with the COBIT framework. The aim was to ascertain areas within vineyard operations where governance and management objectives could be seamlessly integrated. Each vineyard management task underwent a systematic breakdown to comprehend inherent challenges and the potential contributions of PA.
The literature was examined to identify specific vineyard management tasks that the COBIT framework could augment. This examination revealed potential integration points, challenges and areas of synergy. The subsequent step involved detailed scrutiny of challenges encountered while integrating the COBIT framework into vineyard management protocols. These challenges were then contextualised within the broader framework of sustainable agriculture to understand their broader implications. One significant area of analysis revolved around the functionality of the CRT. The aim was to discern its potential role in aligning the COBIT framework with the multifaceted realm of vineyard management, especially in irrigation, nutrition and pest management.
Derived from the analytical process, the findings and insights were consolidated, framing the research’s contributions to the broader discourse on sustainable agriculture, vineyard management and IT governance.
Stage 5: Presentation
The last stage of the GT literature review method is to present the findings and insights gained in a structured manner. The analysis and findings are linked and presented according to the research question of this article.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Stellenbosch Research Ethics Committee: Social, Behavioural and Education Research (No. ACC-2023-27838).
Findings
Our comprehensive literature review revealed a significant gap in the existing body of research: there is a lack of a comprehensive and structured approach that integrates corporate governance principles, integrated thinking and sustainability goals with the implementation of advanced technologies like PA within vineyard management. While individual studies have addressed aspects such as sustainability programmes (Legun & Sautier, 2018; Nazzaro et al., 2022) or governance structures (Spraul & Höfert, 2021; Visser & De Langen, 2006), none have provided an integrated IT governance framework – through the use of a template – that addresses the risks associated with implementing of such advanced technologies like PA while ensuring alignment with corporate governance, integrated thinking and sustainability goals.
This gap underscores the need for a template like the CRT, which incorporates the COBIT 2019 framework objectives to manage inherent risks with the implementation of such technologies like PA while maintaining high standards of IT governance practices as existing guidelines for alignment between business and IT are still insufficient (Simonsson & Johnson, 2006). This will ensure the business objectives being aligned with the IT governance processes and objectives as well (Boshoff, 2007).
The gap between business and IT is referred to as the IT gap for purposes of this study (Goosen & Rudman, 2013; Smit, 2009). Both business and IT managers acknowledge the existence of this infamous gap in alignment between their respective sectors (Rudman, 2008), as illustrated in Figure 7, and when the IT gap is eliminated, will result in the alignment (Boshoff, 2007).
 |
FIGURE 7: Model for alignment between business and information technology. |
|
This brought about the creation of the Control Risk Triangle concept based on the identified gap, which illustrates the interconnected relationship between corporate governance, IT governance, sustainability and integrated thinking (see Figure 8). This model can provide effective risk management in vineyard management, particularly with the implementation of PA, which requires a balance between these components with the appropriate IT governance framework in place (Rudman, 2008).
To illustrate the CRT, Table 9 provides an overview of each phase and component of the CRT which derives from our Control Risk Triangle. This template plays a critical role in integrating diverse, previously isolated data resources (i.e. irrigation, nutrition and pest management) into operational decisions in vineyard management. By addressing the IT-related risks with the implementation of advanced technologies like PA, we can ensure optimal grapevine growth and production levels are obtained through the use of such technologies and still maintaining the appropriate IT governance practices before, during and after each implementation phase.
| TABLE 9: Components of the control risk template. |
As illustrated in Table 9, the CRT has the following three phases; namely:
Phase 1: Risks: The initial phase focusses on detecting the inherent risks associated without the mitigating controls in place before or during the implementation of the technology within the existing operations and systems on the farm.
Phase 2: Controls: The controls phase addresses the controls that must be in place to mitigate the implementation risks identified earlier and lower the residual risks accordingly.
Phase 3: Monitoring and evaluation: The final phase is a continuous process that involves regular monitoring and evaluation of the controls implemented on the farm to assess their ongoing effectiveness and efficiency.
Addressing each component within each phase of the CRT template in Table 9 step-by-step will ensure a structured approach to managing the complexities and uncertainties inherent with implementing of advanced technologies like PA within vineyard management. This approach will allow us to mitigate the IT-related risks associated with implementing such technologies and ensure it aligns with corporate governance standards, promotes integrated thinking, achieves the sustainability goals and contributes to the organisation’s strategic objectives (Adam, 2017).
To effectively convey the CRT’s extensive scope in Table 9 regarding each component, we have presented the template in Online Appendix 1. The template is explained in a detailed table covering every component – from initial risk identification to the monitoring and evaluation of control effectiveness. We have also included Figure 9, which provides a comprehensive representation that encapsulates each component of the CRT and offers a holistic view of how each building block we have identified and defined within our literature review integrates within the CRT.
 |
FIGURE 9: Overview of the Control Risk Template. |
|
Through the development of the CRT, we have, therefore, effectively addressed the research gap identified in our comprehensive literature review by developing a template which provides a structured approach which can be followed to ensure proper IT governance practices are in place with the implementation of advanced technologies like PA into vineyard management while managing the associated IT-related risks and controls. Future research can, however, delve deeper into the practical application of the CRT, particularly within vineyard management, to determine how successful the use of the template is.
Limitations and future research
Several limitations inherent to this research necessitate acknowledgement. The primary focus remains on incorporating the COBIT framework within vineyard management, narrowing the scope to specific irrigation, nutrition and pest management through the CRT. The study does not extend to exploring every objective of the COBIT framework in diverse agricultural settings or various facets of vineyard management.
Reliance on pre-existing literature from a selection of databases poses another limitation, potentially omitting the latest advancements, innovations or real-world applications in the convergence of IT governance and vineyard management. Agricultural practices and information technology’s dynamic and swiftly evolving landscapes further accentuate this constraint. Additionally, the study abstains from delving into the operational intricacies or functionalities of individual components of the COBIT framework. Moreover, external environmental variables, industry-specific challenges and other influential factors affecting the implementation and efficacy of integrating the COBIT framework in vineyard management remain unaddressed.
Recognising these limitations, future research presents a spectrum of possibilities. Successive studies might scrutinise the adaptability and efficacy of the COBIT framework in diverse agricultural environments and management requisites. Empirical research is pivotal to authenticate the proposed framework, examining its real-world application, associated challenges and impacts on outcomes in vineyard management.
Investigations into alternative IT governance frameworks and their applicability in agricultural environments may yield insightful comparisons and contribute to a more diversified and adaptable knowledge base. Assessing the interplay between IT governance and external variables, including environmental conditions, market demands and regulatory prerequisites, could deepen the comprehension of the intricate dynamics in integrating advanced technologies within agriculture.
Given the UN’s emphasis on sustainable agriculture, future studies could assess how integrating IT governance frameworks, such as the COBIT framework, aligns with achieving sustainability objectives within the agricultural sector. Exploring the potential benefits, alongside challenges, of such integration could offer balanced viewpoints, fostering the development of agricultural practices that are both effective and sustainable.
Building on this article’s findings, future research could also delve deeper into the practical application of these frameworks, particularly within varied vineyard management contexts. A comparative analysis of traditional and analytics-driven vineyard management approaches could offer insights into tangible benefits and potential pitfalls.
Addressing these limitations and exploring the suggested avenues for future research can contribute to advancing knowledge and practical application of IT governance in agriculture. Such efforts align with broader discourses on sustainability and innovation in agricultural practices, adding significant value to academic and industry realms.
Conclusion
The research focussed on integrating PA into vineyard management through the COBIT framework, emphasising enhancing irrigation, nutrition and pest management decision-making. The CRT serves as a tool to align COBIT’s Governance and Management Objective(s) within vineyard management, emphasising the GLCS, GA, DLCS and PAIAC.
The study prominently addressed the governance of varied data streams in viticulture. The COBIT framework emerged as an instrumental risk management solution, seamlessly integrating these data sources to ensure risk mitigation. Traditional practices in vineyard management, rooted in empirical observations, highlighted the existing gap in the use of data-driven methodologies. The study’s proposed framework fills this gap, suggesting an enhanced integration of PA in vineyard management.
A significant research finding was the lack of data-driven methodologies in current vineyard management practices. The study revealed the potential benefits of the COBIT framework in this context, offering a fresh perspective on conventional decision-making processes by furnishing actionable insights and management implications. By merging academic literature with real-world applications, the study provides insights that can benefit academic and industry stakeholders.
The study is relevant considering the UN’s emphasis on sustainable agriculture. Integrating IT governance principles into vineyard management presents an approach that aligns with global sustainability goals, offering a model that other agricultural sectors might consider adopting.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
W.A.S. and C.L. conceptualised the article. W.A.S. wrote the initial draft and C.L. reviewed and edited the article before submission.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and/or its supplementary materials.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Adamchuk, V.I., Hummel, J.W., Morgan, M.T., & Upadhyaya, S.K. (2004). On-the-go soil sensors for precision agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 44(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2004.03.002
Adams, C.A. (2017). Conceptualising the contemporary corporate value creation process. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(4), 906–931. https://doi.org/10.1108/aaaj-04-2016-2529
Akhter, R., & Sofi, S.A. (2022). Precision agriculture using IoT data analytics and machine learning. Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences, 34(8), 5602–5618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.05.013
Anderson, K & Pinilla, V. (2018). Wine globalization: A new comparative history. Cambridge University Press.
Bansal, S., Parker, C., & Kazaz, B. (2021). Business analytics in agriculture: Emerging practice and research issues. June 5, 2021. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3860913
Barriguinha, A., De Castro Neto, M., & Gil, A. (2021). Vineyard yield estimation, prediction, and forecasting: A systematic literature review. Agronomy, 11(9), 1789. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091789
Barzman, M., Bàrberi, P., Birch, A.N.E., Boonekamp, P., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., Graf, B., Hommel, B., Jensen, J.E., Kiss, J., Kudsk, P., Lamichhane, J.R., Messéan, A., Moonen, A.-C., Ratnadass, A., Ricci, P., Sarah, J.-L., & Sattin, M. (2015). Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(4), 1199–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0327-9
Bendre, M.R., Thool, R.C., & Thool, V.R. (2015). Big data in precision agriculture: Weather forecasting for future farming. In 2015 1st international conference on Next Generation Computing Technologies (NGCT). 04-05 September 2015. IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
Bibri, S.E. (2018). The IoT for smart, sustainable cities of the future: An analytical framework for sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.034
Bongiovanni, R., & Lowenberg-Deboer, J. (2004). Precision agriculture and sustainability. Precision Agriculture, 5(4), 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:prag.0000040806.39604.aa
Boshoff, W. (2007). IT Governance: IT Governance frameworks and their integration. Masters in Accounting (Computer Auditing) presentation. Stellenbosch University.
Coombe, B.G. (1995). Growth stages of the grapevine: Adoption of a system for identifying grapevine growth stages. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 1(2), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.1995.tb00086.x
Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD). (2023). Annual performance plan 2023–2024. DALRRD. Retrieved from https://www.dalrrd.gov.za/images/annual-performance-plans/annual-perfomance-plan-2023-2024.pdf
Dimes, R., & De Villiers, C. (2020). How management control systems enable and constrain integrated thinking. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(4), 851–872. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-05-2020-0880
Dimes, R., & De Villiers, C. (2024). Hallmarks of integrated thinking. The British Accounting Review, 56(1), 101281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2023.101281
Goosen, R., & Rudman, R. (2013). An integrated framework to implement it governance principles at a strategic and operational level for medium-to large-sized South African businesses. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 12(7), 835. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v12i7.7972
Grant, M.J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Herath, R., Senaratne, S., & Gunarathne, N. (2021). Integrated thinking, orchestration of the six capitals and value creation. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(4), 873–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-01-2020-0676
INRIA. (2022). White paper: Agriculture and digital technology. INRIA. Retrieved from https://www.inria.fr/sites/default/files/2022-02/white-paper-agriculture-digital-technology-2022_INRIA_BD.pdf
Institute of Directors in Southern Africa. (2016). King IV report on corporate governance for South Africa 2016. Institute of Directors Southern Africa. Retrieved from https://www.iodsa.co.za/page/king-iv-report
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). (2013). The International <IR> Framework. International Integrated Reporting Council. Retrieved from https://integratedreporting.ifrs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/13-12-08-THE-INTERNATIONAL-IR-FRAMEWORK-2-1.pdf
Intrigliolo, D.S., & Castel, J.R. (2009). Response of grapevine cv. ‘Tempranillo’ to timing and amount of irrigation: Water relations, vine growth, yield and berry and wine composition. Irrigation Science, 28(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-009-0164-1
ISACA. (2018). COBIT 2019 framework, Information Systems Audit and Control Association.
Kamangir, H., Sams, B.S., Dokoozlian, N., Sanchez, L., & Earles, J.M. (2024). Large-scale spatio-temporal yield estimation via deep learning using satellite and management data fusion in vineyards. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 216, 108439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2023.108439
Kamilaris, A., Kartakoullis, A., & Prenafeta-Boldú, F.X. (2017). A review on the practice of big data analysis in agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 143, 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.09.037
Karaman, B., Taskin, S., Simbeye, D.S., Mkiramweni, M.E., & Kurtoglu, A. (2023). Design and development of smart cover system for vineyards. Smart Agricultural Technology, 3, 100064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.100064
Keller, M. (2010). Managing grapevines to optimise fruit development in a challenging environment: A climate change primer for viticulturists. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16, 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2009.00077.x
Koot, M., Mes, M.R.K., & Iacob, M.E. (2021). A systematic literature review of supply chain decision making supported by the Internet of Things and Big Data Analytics. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 154, 107076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.107076
Legun, K., & Sautier, M. (2018). Sustainability programs and deliberative processes: Assembling sustainable winegrowing in New Zealand. Agriculture and Human Values, 35(4), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9879-z
Lepenioti, K., Bousdekis, A., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. (2020). Prescriptive analytics: Literature review and research challenges. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.04.003
Lorenz, D.H., Eichhorn, K.W., Bleiholder, H., Klose, R., Meier, U., & Weber, E. (1995). Growth Stages of the Grapevine: Phenological growth stages of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. vinifera) – Codes and descriptions according to the extended BBCH scale. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 1(2), 100–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.1995.tb00085.x
Maroun, W., Ecim, D., & Cerbone, D. (2022). Refining integrated thinking. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal, 14(7), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/sampj-07-2021-0268
Mullins, M.G., Bouquet, A., & Williams, L.E. (1992). Biology of the grapevine. Cambridge University Press.
Nazzaro, C., Stanco, M., Uliano, A., Lerro, M., & Marotta, G. (2022). Collective smart innovations and corporate governance models in Italian wine cooperatives: The opportunities of the farm-to-fork strategy. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 25(5), 723–736. https://doi.org/10.22434/ifamr2021.0149
Nuske, S., Wilshusen, K., Achar, S., Yoder, L., Narasimhan, S., & Singh, S. (2014). Automated visual yield estimation in vineyards. Journal of Field Robotics, 31(5), 837–860. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21541
Palacios, F., Diago, M.P., Melo-Pinto, P., & Tardaguila, J. (2022). Early yield prediction in different grapevine varieties using computer vision and machine learning. Precision Agriculture, 24(2), 407–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-022-09950-y
Petrović, B., Bumbálek, R., Zoubek, T., Kuneš, R., Smutný, L., & Bartoš, P. (2024). Application of precision agriculture technologies in Central Europe-review. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 15, 101048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101048
Reynolds, A.G. (2022). Viticultural and vineyard management practices and their effects on grape and wine quality. In A.G. Reynolds (Ed.), Managing wine quality (pp. 443–539). Woodhead Publishing.
Rodrigues, G.C. (2022). Precision agriculture: Strategies and technology adoption. Agriculture, 12(9), 1474. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091474
Rudman, R.J. (2008). IT governance: A new era (pp. 12–14). Accountancy SA.
Saïsset, L.A.A., Pavez, I., Temri, L., & Astruc, T. (2023). Characterising governance, innovations and sustainability in the French wine industry: A comparison between cooperatives and investor-owned firms. HAL. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03684971
Sánchez-García, E., Montalvo-Falcón, J.V., Marco-Lajara, B., & Martínez-Falcó, J. (2024). Guiding organizations toward sustainable success: The strategic role of leadership in environmental corporate governance in the wine industry. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 2024, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2925
Santesteban, L.G., & Royo, J.B. (2006). Water status, leaf area and fruit load influence on berry weight and sugar accumulation of cv. ‘Tempranillo’ under semiarid conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 109(1), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2006.03.003
SAWIS (South African Wine Industry Information and Systems). 2023. South African Wine Industry Statistics No. 48. SAWIS. Retrieved from http://www.sawis.co.za
Schultz, H.R. (2016). Global climate change, sustainability, and some challenges for grape and wine production. Journal of Wine Economics, 11(1), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2015.31
Sgroi, F. (2023). Innovation and value creation in agriculture: Results of an experimental analysis of the use of sensors on Sicilian vineyards of chardonnay cultivars. Smart Agricultural Technology, 6, 100339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2023.100339
Simonsson, M., & Johnson, P. (2006). Assessment of IT governance – A prioritization of cobit. In Proceedings of the conference on systems engineering: Paper #151. Retrieved from http://www.ee.kth.se/php/modules/publications/reports/2006/IR-EEICS_2006_007.pdf
Sishodia, R.P., Ray, R.L., & Singh, S.K. (2020). Applications of remote sensing in precision agriculture: A review. Remote Sensing, 12(19), 3136. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193136
Smit, S. (2009). Defining and reducing the IT gap by means of comprehensive alignment. Retrieved from https://scholar.sun.ac.za/bitstream/10019.1/15038/1/smit_defining_2009.pdf
Spraul, K., & Höfert, A. (2021). Governance for sustainability: Patterns of regulation and self-regulation in the German Wine Industry. Sustainability, 13(6), 3140. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063140
Statista. (2023). Global wine industry. Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/topics/7802/global-wine/
Sutton, S.G., Reinking, J., & Arnold, V. (2011). On the use of grounded theory as a basis for research on strategic and emerging technologies in accounting. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 8(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-10207
Tascione, V., Raggi, A., Petti, L., & Manca, G. (2024). Evaluating the environmental impacts of smart vineyards through the Life Cycle Assessment. Science of The Total Environment, 922, 171240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171240
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
Visser, E.-J., & De Langen, P. (2006). The importance and quality of governance in the Chilean wine industry. GeoJournal, 65(3), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-006-0035-8
Wolfswinkel, J.F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C.P.M. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51
Zabawa, L., Kicherer, A., Klingbeil, L., Töpfer, R., Kuhlmann, H., & Roscher, R. (2020). Counting of grapevine berries in images via semantic segmentation using convolutional neural networks. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 164, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2020.04.0
| 
Email this article 
Hide
Show all
