More details are in my book but please respond if you need some more input.

In almost very case the organization would not support the BI team in defining what and how BI would actually be used to add value to the company.

Let’s look at some basics to understand why you should not just gravitate towards a perceived norm.

• Don’t lose sight of the ultimate goal. Long term you do not want ANY specific DG organization. Think about it – if DG becomes a mind set, and your SDLC or PMO insists on adhering to standards, and you are able to institutionalize accountably for information assets, then why do you need a special organization?  The DG organization with its councils, form and stewards is really a temporary structure. It is transitional.

• Defining accountable and responsible parties for data integrity, quality and compliance is not an exercise in appointing a senior business manager and moving on.  In reality, most of the time we never see a single steward for a subject area.  Usually stewardship and accountability is centered on a leadership team.  Ideally they incorporate the accountability for data compliance into their list of similar and other accountabilities. For example, the responsibility for regulatory compliance, environmental oversight, and financial due diligence are all similar activities to leading DG.

• There will be employees doing new things as DG evolves.  The new structure cannot be too rigid. It cannot be a structure that contradicts the existing culture.

There must be four core activities in the DG structure.  There are a lot of processes that can happen within these, but holding the list at four makes it easy to remember.  But the organization that operates these activities can be virtual, hierarchical, three layers, four layers etc.

1)      Planning and alignment – some part of the DG structure needs to align business direction, IT portfolio, budget, and information asset requirements.

2)      Oversight and measurement – Someone needs to make sure it is working and have authority to make adjustments.

3)      Issue resolution – Some part of the structure must identify lack or compliance or resistance, and manage a process for resolution.

4)      “Hands on” – Some part of the structure must work on policy definition, standards refinement, audit, and also educate and train.

3 and Out – Almost every organization we assist has adopted a three tier framework to deploy IG.  Why?  Because most of the examples out there show three layers.  The reality is the IG framework is not a “one size fits all” artifact. It is an abstraction to show you need some kind of executive layer. You need some kind of lower level for execution, and you need some kind of middle layer. But larger organizations may have 4 or 5 layers, or a matrix. Small organization may only require two layers.

Insistance on a separate executive committee – Sponsorship is a numbers game.  Executives are often asked to sponsor numerous programs. Information governance is just one more program asking for attention. Yet IG groups often insist on a separate executive council.  Why not just ask to get on the agenda of another meeting of the same group.  After all, it’s narrower at the top.  These folks will be meeting for other reasons.

IM and IG are not the same – Very often I see the information management (IM) people getting the responsibility to do governance at the same time they are performing IM tasks.  Remember that governance is by definition an audit –type process.  That means the same people held to standards should not be setting the, IG and IM processes are really two separate but complimentary lists of activities.

The “chicken or egg” ordeal now starts.  Enterprise DG does require business justification. But starting with a limited group only exposes the DG program to limited benefits.  Often they get no explicit interaction with business people.

The DG team can’t deploy until they get business benefits. They can’t get business benefits until they prove value by piggybacking on a project.  Arrrrgh!!

The solution to this dilemma requires both business and DG groups to make adjustments.  Business areas need to suck it in. If they are truly serious about he need for DG, they can spend a few minutes and do some business alignment exercises. The  business also needs to acknowledge that any presence on a governance council or committee mean they need to put their local or siloed business interests aside and adopt a bigger view.

The DG team needs to realize that corporate memory is persistent – and the DG program sounds like many other information fixes.  So the DG team may need to start with a governance council that is limited to only one project or subject area. They also need to educate to an enterprise program, and continually emphasize that enterprise DG is being implemented incrementally, vs. there being data governance implemented only for one area or project.

Apologies for the delay. 2010 and 2011 have been busy as organizations are actually getting serious about managing information as an asset. We have stood up data governance in three organizations this year, and worked on BUSINESS LED business intelligence and MDM efforts as well.

There are still obstacles.  There are the usual barriers of culture and understanding of the EIM value proposition.  There is also a whole new herd of information management gurus who have sat through one project and are self proclaimed experts. Those are always there. 

In general however it has been refreshing to hear CEO and other CxO executive sincerely pledging time and support to EIM and data governance.

Does anyone have any similar experiences or a difference of opinion?