Top executives are interested in more transparent and formalized structures, applicable measurements, and clear justification of alignment. Limited or improper information technology governance (ITG) affects the business strategy that will ultimately influence the overall business alignment in local city government agencies (LCGAs). The problem addressed in this study was the lack of information regarding LCGAs IT/business strategic alignment maturity model (SAMM) level and the LCGAs' employment size. The purpose of this survey study was to evaluate 48 LCGA participants in the Southwestern part of the United States and compare their alignment perceptions with their cities' employment size. The theoretical framework for this study was based on ITG and business strategy as measured by the SAMM instrument. An online survey was used for data collection and data results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and an Analysis of Variance. After using the SAMM instrument, the current snapshot maturity level of LCGAs was 2.49 out of a maximum 5.0 level. Results illustrated no significant relationship between LCGAs alignment maturity levels and a city's size. This study empowers positive social change by providing LCGAs 6 incremental steps to improve the overall alignment maturity level in areas of transparent and formalized structures, applicable measurements, and improved alignment measures.

Studien undersöker digitala teman kopplade till digital styrning och strategi inom svenska börsnoterade företag. I studien analyserades årsredovisningar i 40 noterade bolag inom 10 sektorer på Nasdaq Main Market. Frågor som undersöktes skulle besvara om bolagen hade en digital styrning och strategi, hur dessa varierade mellan sektorer och vilka digitaliseringsbegrepp som trendar. Resultaten visar att digitala teman förekom i alla sektorer och 9 av 10sektorer har digitala strategier, vilket visar förekomst av digital styrning & anpassning till digitalisering som betonas av McAfee & Brynjolfsson (2018). Det vanligaste digitala tema som identifierades i studien relaterar till teknologiska framsteg, digital utveckling, innovation, digitala investeringar, digitala förvärv samt digital kompetens. Resultaten stödjer Westerman et al.'s (2014) antaganden om att det måste finnas digital styrning lämpad för att anpassa bolag in i den digitala framtiden. Dock så varierade de digitala strategierna inom olika sektorer. Studien visar en diskrepans gällande formuleringen av digitala strategier, 56% av identifierade nyckelord inom strategisektionen i årsredovisningarna bedömdes ej vara tydliga digitalastrategier. Resultatet visade i stället att nästan dubbelt så många teman som tolkades utgöra digitala strategier förekom i andra sektioner av årsredovisningarna. Studien visar därför att bolag har otydliga digitala strategier, vilket stödjer slutsatsen att det fortfarande saknas en strukturerad modell för hur digital strategi och styrning bör utformas som Schallmo et al. (2017) noterat. Analysen av nyckelord visade att 13% av digitala temanutgjorde digitala risker. Dessa resultat stödjer Wilkin & Chenhall (2019) sslutsatser att digitala risker bör hanteras i bolagsstyrningen. Dessa resultat stödjer även Shaikh & Siponens (2023) iakttagelse att styrelsen och ledningen bör hantera IT-risker. Frekvent förekommande identifierade risker betonar den snabba digitaliseringen i omvärlden och behov av att utöka digital säkerhet.Metoden i denna studie fokuserar på extern rapportering, vilket kan begränsa möjligheten att dra omfattande slutsatser om nivån av digitalisering. Dock är extern rapportering en pålitlig och strukturerad källa till data som ger insikter. Studien erkänner utmaningarna med att hitta beprövade teoretiska ramverk för att studera digitalstyrning som även diskuterats av Navarra & Cornford (2009). / This study examines digital governance and strategy within Swedish listed companies. The study focuses on external reporting and analysing the annual reports of 40 listed companies in 10 sectors on the Nasdaq Main Market. The examined questions aimed to determine whether companies had digital governance and strategy, how these varied across sectors, and which digitalisation concepts were trending. The results show that all sectors somehow refer to digitalisation, and 9 out of 10 sectors have digital strategies, demonstrating governance and adaptation to digitalisation, as McAfee & Brynjolfsson (2018) emphasised. The most common digital theme identified in the study relates to rapid technological advancements, digital development, innovation, digital investments, digital acquisitions, and expertise. The results support Westerman et al.'s (2014) assumptions that digital governance is necessary to adapt companies for the future. However, the digital strategies varied across different sectors. The study reveals a discrepancy regarding the formulation of digital strategies, with 56% of identified keywords in the strategy section of the annual reports not being linked to a transparent digital objective or strategy. Nonetheless, it was discovered that almost twice as many statements associated with digital strategies were found in other sections of the annual reports. This indicates the presence of ambiguous digital strategy, supporting the conclusion that there is still a lack of a structured digital strategy and governance model, as noted by Schallmo et al. (2017). The keywords analysis revealed that the annual reports presented 13% of the identified codes as digital risks. These results align with the conclusions of Wilkin & Chenhall that digital risks should be addressed in governance. These findings also support the observation by Shaikh & Siponen (2023) that boards and management should manage IT risks. The majority of identified risks in the study highlight the importance of digital security. The method in this study focuses on external reporting, which may limit the ability to draw comprehensive conclusions about the level of digitalisation. However, external reporting is a reliable and structured source of data that provides insights. The study acknowledges the challenges in finding theoretical frameworks for studying digital governance, as Navarra & Cornford (2009) discussed