Test 1

NAVIGATING THE DATA GOVERNANCE LANDSCAPE:
ANALYSIS OF A 2013 SURVEY ON HOW TO

START A GOVERNANCE PROGRAM
by Robert S. Seiner and Charles Roe

CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary 2
2. Report Methodology and Demographics 3
3. Introduction – The Definition and Benefits of Data Governance 6
4. Defining the Need for Data Governance Policy 9
5. Approaches to Data Governance 12
6. The People Involved in Data Governance 14
7. Gaining (and Keeping) Support for Data Governance 22
8. Measuring the Results of Data Governance 31
9. What is Your Current State of Data Governance? Activities and Processes 35
10. Tools and Technology 40
11. Emerging Technologies 43
12. Conclusion – Why Data Governance Succeeds 46
About the Authors 47
Sponsor Page 48
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report analyzes many challenges faced when beginning a new Data Governance program, and
outlines many crucial elements in successfully executing such a program.
“Data Governance” is a term fraught with nuance, misunderstanding, myriad opinions, and fear. It is
often enough to keep Data Stewards and senior executives awake late into the night.
The modern enterprise needs reliable and sustainable control over its technological systems, business
processes, and data assets. Such control is tantamount to competitive success in an ever-changing
marketplace driven by the exponential growth of data, mobile computing, social networking, the need for
real-time analytics and reporting mechanisms, and increasing regulatory compliance requirements. Data
Governance can enhance and buttress (or resuscitate, if needed) the strategic and tactical business drivers
every enterprise needs for market success.
This report details several findings from a 2013 DATAVERISTY™ survey on Data Governance. Among
these findings:
• Management support is the most important component in starting a program.
• Lack of ownership or leadership is the most challenging issue during a

program’s early stages.
• The building of a business glossary is a key element that’s not in place in

many organizations.
• People primarily applied Data Governance policy to further education,

knowledge, and understanding of Data Governance.
• More than half of the surveyed organizations identified business analytics as

the most important emerging technology they need in starting their program.
• Half of all respondents said producing and validating data-oriented measures

and metrics were what they needed most during the early stages of Data
Governance implementation.
• Almost one third of organizations have not identified data owners or Data
Stewards for their programs.
©2013 DATAVERSITY Education, LLC. All rights reserved. 2

2. REPORT METHODOLOGY AND DEMOGRAPHICS
The foundation of this report was a DATAVERSITY online survey conducted in January and February of
2013. The report was sent out to many of DATAVERSITY’s associates in the data management industry.
The survey was seen as a necessary step in creating this report. Instead of just proclaiming the steps
needed in starting a Data Governance program, our readers could see the steps coupled with real-world
statistics and comments from people involved in such endeavors.
Data Governance doesn’t require you to reinvent anything, only to focus on what is most important to
you. This report will help clarify what is important to others, what lessons they have learned, and what
has been most successful.
The survey included 21 questions, in six sections:
• About you and your organization (four questions)
• The current state of Data Governance (three questions)
• The current state of Data Governance personnel (three questions)
• Starting a Data Governance program (five questions)
• Data Governance tools and technologies (three questions)
• Data Governance support (three questions)
A total of 221 participants completed the survey. An average of 174 participants responded to each question,
as some questions were not relevant or answerable by all participants. Seven open-ended questions asked
for more developed answers, while five questions also included an open-ended “other” choice, so the
respondent could add extra details if the provided answers did not allow enough elucidation.
The first essential question (outside of general demographics such as name and address) asked about job
function. The largest groups of respondents work in the Data Governance profession, with other significant
numbers in architecture, analytics, and management. Among the 208 respondents who answered this
question, the top three answers were [Figure 1]:
• Information/Data Governance: 56.7% (118)
• Data and/or Information Architecture: 42.3% (88)
• Business Intelligence and/or Analytics: 17.3% (36)

What is your Job Function?
Software or System Vendor
IT Management
Marketing and/or market research
Corporate research and/or library
Documents and/or records management
Information/Data Governance
Business intelligence and/or analytics
Data and/or information architecture
Application Development
Content and/or digital asset management
Finance management and/or reporting
Executive Management
Other (please specify)
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Figure 1. 208 respondents.
The second demographics question asked about the industry in which the respondent currently works.
The answers ranged from biotechnology (1.4%) to education (7.0%), energy (3.3%), retail (3.7%),
technology (5.6%) and government (6.5%). Of the 215 respondents who answered this question, the top
four industries were [Figure 2]:
• Insurance: 15.8% (34)
• Healthcare: 14.4% (31)
• Consulting: 10.2% (22)
• Finance: 8.4% (18)

What industry are you in?
Utilities
Transportation
Telecommunications
Technology
Shipping
Retail
Recreation
Other
Not for Profit
Media
Manufacturing
Machinery
Insurance
Hospitality
Healthcare
Government
Food & Beverage
Finance
Environmental
Entertainment
Engineering
Energy
Electronics
Education
Consulting
Construction
Communications
Chemicals
Biotechnology
Banking
Apparel
Agriculture
0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0%
The final demographics question dealt with company size. The answers were across-the-board, from fewer
than 10 employees to over 50,000. The highest percentage of respondents work in companies of more than
1,000, but companies less than 1,000 employees still make up 23.2% of the survey respondents. Of the 216
respondents answered this question, the top three choices were [Figure 3]:
• Over 50,000: 21.3% (46)
• 10,000 – 50,000: 20.8% (45)
• 1,000 – 5,000: 19% (41)

Number of employees in your company
Less than 10, 4.6%
10 – 100, 5.6%
Over 50,000, 21.3%
100 – 1,000, 13.0%
10,000 – 50,000,
20.8% 1,000 – 5,000,
19.0%
5,000 – 10,000,
15.7%
3. INTRODUCTION – THE DEFINITION AND BENEFITS OF

DATA GOVERNANCE
There is common misperception in many organizations that Data Governance is something new, or over
and above an organization’s existing work culture. The truth, according to the authors of this paper, is
that you potentially already practice Data Governance, in some fashion, with varying degrees of success.
All organizations (or better yet the employees of those organizations) practice governance activities as
part of their job as they oversee risk management, implement information security, assess and improve
Data Quality, run reports, analyze data, and share data, day in and day out. Data Governance is not some
esoteric concept – or at least it shouldn’t be.
If Data Governance is already happening in your organization, then you don’t need to build it from the
ground up. The challenge is to formalize activities, not to invoke new discipline; this is an easier message
to sell than the contrary.

The size of your organization doesn’t matter. If your data is not being governed in a formalized, accountable
manner, your organization will be at risk and its decision-making capabilities will suffer. Data Governance
enables your organization to alleviate the adverse effects that incomplete, inaccurate, uncontrolled,
unmanaged, or unknown data has on the competitive relevance and decision-making ability of everyone
in the enterprise.
SO WHAT IS DATA GOVERNANCE?
There are several definitions of the term Data Governance. For that reason, it is important that we start
with this term when we talk about starting a Data Governance program.
Here are a few of those definitions:
• “Data Governance is the exercise of authority and control (planning,

monitoring, and enforcement) over the management of data assets.” (DAMA
International)
• “Data Governance is a quality control discipline for adding new rigor

and discipline to the process of managing, using, improving and protecting
organizational information.” (IBM Data Governance Council)
• “Data Governance is a system of decision rights and accountabilities for

information-related processes, executed according to agreed-upon models
which describe who can take what actions with what information, and when,
under what circumstances, using what methods.” (Data Governance Institute)
• “Data Governance is the formal orchestration of people, processes, and

technology to enable an organization to leverage data as an enterprise
asset.” (MDM Institute)
• “Data Governance is the execution and enforcement of authority over the

management of data assets and the performance of data functions.” (Robert
S. Seiner)
All of those definitions use strong language like authority, discipline, accountabilities, formal orchestration,
execution, and enforcement to make a point – Data Governance is not a project with a beginning, middle,
and end. Data Governance is a program to improve and maintain a high level of management of data as
an asset.
This paper is not evangelizing the need for organizations to undertake massive, enterprise-wide Data
Governance initiatives that take years to institute, requiring enormous resources and vast sums of money.
Though it is true that such programs exist and have seen varying levels of success, more often success
is built upon a granular approach that seeks change from the inside out, one step at a time, until Data
Governance becomes part of the landscape.

WHAT CAN DATA GOVERNANCE DO FOR YOU?
The question that should be asked is what you want Data Governance to do for you. The application of
formalized Data Governance to a specific data problem (or many problems) in your organization can help
mitigate problems in a specific and measurable manner; but exactly what that means to your organization
is entirely individualized and subjective. Some prevalent goals and accomplishments of Data Governance
(though the list is essentially endless) include:
• Increase the value of your existing data
• Provide better training of employees when dealing with data assets
• Enhance existing processes and build additional processes that work better
• Decrease costs of managing data
• Standardize data policies, standards, procedures, and systems
• Resolve existing data-related problems
• Improve transparency
• Ensure better compliance, security, and privacy
• Get everyone on the same page
• Increase revenue
• Enable better tracking mechanisms for the delivery and supervision of

data-related activities
• Allow people to work more efficiently
• Reduce organizational tensions due to data issues
Data Governance requires responsibility from everyone involved at all levels of an organization. It takes
a concerted effort to reach success with governance, but the real issue is staying the course once the
initial fervor has subsided. Everyone wants to maximize value, increase ROI, enhance productivity, attain
more consistent metrics, implement and continue more efficient processes, ensure better regulatory
compliance, and anything else that will help them do their jobs better. Yet, to guarantee positive results,
cultural transformation is necessary at all levels, and that takes time and effort. Data Governance can
provide the blueprint, but the enterprise must do the construction.

4. DEFINING THE NEED FOR DATA GOVERNANCE
POLICY
Some successful Data Governance programs require the implementation of organizational policies. The
essential point of any Data Governance policy creation is that it is not meant to define or construct new
processes that are added en masse to the existing organizational structure. Rather, Data Governance policy
seeks to enforce the policies already in place within the organization. Granted, if no governance policies
are currently employed, then they must be created anew; but most organizations have some existing data
asset or function accountabilities prior to the initiation of a new Data Governance program. Some of the
many elements a data-related policy may already cover are:
• Data security, privacy, and usage
• Monitoring standards
• Decision rights
• Data sharing (both inside and outside of organization)
• Data retention and expiration
• Data Quality
• Data integration
• Data cleansing
• Development activities
• Roles and responsibilities
• BI and reporting activities
• Compliance and regulatory
Such policies are dependent on the needs of the organization. Policies are meant to set out principles that
the organization has to follow. The four primary principles in Data Governance policies are:
• Data must be managed as an asset
• Formal accountability must be in place for the data

• Data must be compliant and follow
regulatory controls
BOB’S INSIGHT
• Data Quality must be defined and
Bob does not believe that every
managed consistently across the data
lifecycle organization needs a Data Governance
policy. The need for the policy really
Certainly, if the primary stakeholders decide they are going depends on how your organization
to make sweeping policy changes that affect the entire uses policies. If you can get your
organization, completely redefining how data-related executive or strategic authority to sign
interactions are executed, and restructuring all (or even off on a Data Governance policy,
most) of the data standards, strategies, and objectives using the principles in this paper, then
of the organization, there is going to be pushback. A that policy becomes the backbone of
differentiation needs to be made between data policies every activity in the Data Governance
and Data Governance policies though. Data Governance program. And now they have signed
policy should not completely transform the entire their name to this policy, meaning it is
landscape; it should only make sure the right people know not optional.
the right steps to take, through formalizing the procedures
and standards already in place. The methodology already It is very important to differentiate
exists; Data Governance just needs to be more successfully between data policies and Data
applied to it. Governance policies. Several
organizations have considered using
SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS Bob’s Bill of Rights for Data Governance
Now that Data Governance has been introduced, and as a way of letting people know what
we understand what Data Governance can do for an Data Governance is about:
organization and where policy lies within that discussion,
it is time to get into the actual statistics of the survey. • Getting the right person
• … At the right time
The survey dealt with the issue of Data Governance
policy and needs with one question. It asked respondents • … To do the right thing
about the role Data Governance policy played in the • … Given the right information
early stages of implementing their particular program. • … With the right decision
The respondents were allowed to check all answers that making
applied to their organization. The top two responses were • … Leads to the right result
[Figure 4]:
• … Most often.
• Policies will further education,
knowledge and understanding of Data
Governance: 47.3% (71)

• Policies will further guidelines, principles and measure dimensions
of Data Governance: 45.3% (68)

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The fact that over one third of the respondents said Data Governance policy was not a factor in early
implementation says something. While respondents could select “all that apply”, it was the fourth question
that stands out from the other three, since it specifically states that Data Governance policies were not a
factor. Two thirds of the respondents use policies to accomplish such tasks as assisting in selling acceptance
of governance and furthering education and/or guidelines. So there is no single clear choice that states
what the majority of organizations are using Data Governance policy for, but instead many different
possibilities.
The many data-related policies mentioned in the introduction to this section are employed by numerous
organizations to help formalize behavior around their data; but many organizations do not call those
data-related policies actual Data Governance policies. Organizations often have policies for regulatory
compliance, data operations, security, decision rights, and others. But even if those data-related topics
are not labeled under the specific rubric of Data Governance policy, it doesn’t mean those organizations
haven’t formalized accountability of their data assets and functions.
So while Data Governance policies remain grey and unanswered areas in some 35% of the survey
respondents, the survey did demonstrate that those who are employing them (64.7%), and have named
them as such, are using them in education, knowledge, understanding, selling acceptance, and furthering
guidelines and principles, among others.
5. APPROACHES TO DATA GOVERNANCE

There are as many approaches to Data Governance as there are organizations practicing Data Governance.
The numerous approaches have names such as:
• Non-Invasive
• Agile/Lean
• Iterative
• Business-Driven
• Principles-Based
• Rules-Based
• Centralized
• Federated
• Value-Driven
• Top Down

• Bottom Up
• Middle Out
• Command & Control
These terms can also be applied to other methodologies and practices as well, and many organizations
use them for other programs. The approach your organization decides to follow, whether it is one stated
above, one based on a model or framework, or one you devise in-house, doesn’t matter – do what makes
sense and works for your organization through proper research and expert consultation.
The survey asked one question about the approach used by the respondents, whose results help to
highlight one of the central issues discussed throughout this report: senior management and support.
The highest percentage (46.5%) said they followed a Top Down approach where senior management
supported, sponsored, and understood the program. Such percentages are not meant to claim that a Top
Down approach is the best for all solutions; certainly some require a more Bottom Up or Middle Out. But
yet again we find the need (and value) of senior management support. [Figure 5]:

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
This report examined the approach our respondents are taking to Data Governance in terms of three
categories: Top Down, Middle Out, and Bottom Up. Those are the three primary perspectives that most
organizations use, though they often vary within an entire program from project to project. At least half
the organizations stated that Top Down was their selected or preferred approach, while the other half
were split between Bottom Up and Middle Out. This demonstrates that, while working within the scope
of senior management support is clearly important, many organizations are trying varying approaches,
and perhaps several within a single organization. People are trying anything that might work.
6. THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN DATA GOVERNANCE

In the authors’ opinions, the essential elements to any Data Governance program need to focus on
the behaviors of the people and methods used to manipulate that data. Therefore, systematizing and
operationalizing the accountability structures of those interactions becomes paramount to the success of
your solution. This involves formalized roles and responsibilities. In general terms, the principal players
that need to be defined are:
• Executive Level: Leadership
• Strategic Level: Enterprise-wide
• Tactical Level: Across business lines
• Operational Level: Business line specific
Each of these four levels is typically essential to the successful application of any Data Governance solution,
no matter the size.
EXECUTIVE AND STRATEGIC LEVEL
The Data Governance Council (DGC) is often defined and identified early on in the process. The primary
duties of DGCs vary from project to project, but their essential duties include:
• Set the strategic directions for the customer Data Governance program.
• Endorse/approve and enforce the customer organization Data Governance

definitions, guidelines, and procedures.
• Endorse/approve data domain based tactical and operational Data

Steward(s).
• Resolve data issues escalated to them at a strategic level when they cannot be
resolved by the Data Stewards and subject matter experts.

• Push Data Governance into their
business areas by actively
supporting improved Data BOB’S INSIGHT
Governance practices.
The subject matter expert’s role varies
• Meet monthly to oversee Data across organizations. Sometimes the SME
Governance program status. has the authority to make the decision
regarding a subject matter of data for the
• Communicates to executives about entire organization. Sometimes they don’t.
the program on a regular basis. The non-invasive approach suggests that you
do not emphatically empower the subject
The DGC should be formed with members of both matter expert to be the authority if they are
IT and business units, as both are necessary for
not already viewed that way. However,
developing, administering, and sustaining Data
the SME becomes an active participant in
Governance through all levels of the organization.
the critical data activities pertaining to their
THE TACTICAL LEVEL – SUBJECT MATTER domain of data.
EXPERTS (SMES)
Side note… The council mentioned earlier is
Organizations tend to have departmental experts typically that ultimate authority for decisions
who understand the various data assets in their that the subject matter expert cannot make.
particular area better than anyone else. There may
be one or many of them in one department who have
spent years in their particular job, and thus have the
highest level of knowledge in regards to the data
used in their particular area of the organization. The
recognition of these SMEs in all departments is of
vital importance to the successful implementation of
Data Governance.
SURVEY RESULTS AND STATISTICS
The survey asked respondents to answer a specific
question relating to the recognition of SMEs in
various departments and how many were known to
exist [Figure 6 and 7]:


The numbers demonstrate that, in most instances, the respondents’ organizations have recognized various
SMEs for their Data Governance programs. The highest numbers from Figure 6 are:
• Information Technology: 82.7% (134)
• Finance: 73.9% (116)
• Marketing: 49.3% (75)
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Though most people don’t want to admit it, such numbers are not surprising: often Data Governance is
instituted due to a need recognized from within IT or finance because of reporting and/or compliance.
Even though some experts claim Data Governance cannot be successful if started within IT, the truth is
that there are many data SMEs and system SMEs in IT; their knowledge should not be discounted. There
are often many IT SMEs who can answer vital questions better about the data of an organization, due to

their experience; they need to be consulted. As demonstrated in the survey, organizations understand
this, as Information Technology SMEs also received the highest numbers acknowledged in Figure 7,
with 33.9% of respondents saying that more than 11 IT SMEs had been recognized, while the highest
percentage for marketing was at 2 SMEs (38.1%), and finance 5-10 SMEs (30.3%).
Although changing from a siloed approach to managing data is a very difficult hurdle for many
organizations, identifying SMEs for that data is not nearly as difficult. Clearly, organizations have already
identified some areas where SMEs are crucial (IT and finance), and further identification should be a
priority, though most organizations are just getting started at such a task. The next step is to find more
of them from other areas of the organization, so the collective knowledge of everyone can be utilized to
successfully advance the Data Governance program. An essential question moving forward with SMEs
must be: are these SMEs decision makers or do decisions have to be escalated to the strategic or executive
levels?
THE OPERATIONAL LEVEL – DATA STEWARDS
Data Governance includes the transformation of organizational culture around formalizing the
interactions with data assets and functions, and the behaviors of people around those functions. Data
Stewardship allows that transformation to move forward. Yet, Data Stewardship is probably one of the
most debated topics in the Data Governance discussion forum and at data-management conferences
worldwide. Therefore, for the purposes of this report we define a Data Steward as:
• Anyone who interacts with data assets and data functions, because they
have a need to be held formally accountable for how they define, use, and
produce data.
That’s rather broad. Other definitions of Data Stewards and Data Stewardship include:
• “Data Stewardship is the formal accountability for business responsibilities

ensuring effective control and use of data assets.” (DAMA International)
• “Data Stewardship is the set of activities that ensure data-related work is

performed according to policies and practices as established through
governance.” (Data Governance Institute)
• “The Data Steward is responsible for tracking and improving data across the
company supply chain and ensuring the trustworthiness of enterprise data.”
(SAP)
• “Data Stewardship is the formalized accountability for the management of

data and data-related resources.” (Robert S. Seiner)
Successful programs ensure that almost everyone in an organization understands the importance of their
interactions with the data assets and functions. Technically, everyone may be a Data Steward; but many
organizations prefer to recognize some individuals who are designated as specific Data Stewards, to aid
in the implementation and sustainability of Data Governance operations for their subject matter of data.

While some people think it’s possible to do a job
search and hire some “trained” Data Stewards
from outside the organization, this is not the way it
BOB’S INSIGHT
typically works. The best Data Stewards come from
within and are trained by the organization so that This is a very important role of the Data
they know precisely what they are expected to do Governance program, even though it does
and why. There are most likely Data Stewards from not require the formalization of the role per
each department or division, since Data Stewardship se. Bob is a firm believer that practically
is typically not an IT function; Data Governance is everybody in the organization uses,
both an IT activity and a business activity. A Data produces, and/or defines data. Therefore,
Steward who manages Metadata assets should not every one of those people should be held
also be the Data Steward who manages analytics and accountable for how they use, produce,
reporting assets, unless the organization requires and/or define data. Educating and
one person to govern both activities due to staffing “on-boarding” these people as to what they
or resource needs – such designations are entirely are accountable for is an important part of
dependent on the given organization. a Data Governance program.
In reality, some Data Stewards may not even know The Data Governance program must
they have such a role, unless it is described to them. identify or recognize who these people
They are data experts in a particular data asset due to are and record that these stewards exist
their job requirements. They do need to know what in specific parts of the organization. This
the formalized responsibilities are for their given
information about the people and their
data assets, they need to execute the standards and
relationship to the data is Metadata that
policies of data usage properly. Their training needs
must be managed as another important
to focus on what it means to be accountable for the
part of a Data Governance program.
data they work with. Some organizations will decide
to implement an official Data Stewardship program,
recognizing Data Stewards (just as they recognized
SMEs), who are then accountable for certain data
functions and assets. It’s up to the organization what
approach to Data Stewardship to take and what will
work best given its culture.
The survey approached the issue of stewardship
by asking respondents how their organizations
identified such individuals. It gave six different
choices for the answer and also had an open-ended
question that asked “what was your primary
method of naming Data Stewards? Why? How
Many.” The leading answers (they could check
all that applied) to the question were [Figure 8]:

• Data Stewards have been “assigned” for specific data sets: 37.4% (64)
• Data owners have been “identified” and are being utilized for specific data
sets: 33.3% (40)
• We do not have data owners or Data Stewards identified: 29.8% (51)

Data Stewardship can be a complicated and contentious issue when getting started. The survey results
highlight such complexity when the statistics are viewed with the open-ended questions as well. Most
Data Governance practitioners agree that having some sort of Data Stewardship program in place is
paramount for the sustainability of any Data Governance program, but they question how Data Stewards
are recognized and utilized. Several methods of naming Data Stewards were recorded (from open-ended
questions) in this survey:

• “SMEs informally recognized, with primary factors being corporate (business
and IT) political alignment, ‘the only person who can keep the system
running’, or other variation thereof”
• “Conducted research across business for specific pieces of information; then

built consensus among that group of people to create a representative body
of stewards. Also, our organization has an Information Stewardship Council to
work in conjunction with the stewards”
• “Not all data domains have an assigned/identified owner or Data Steward.

Typically, Data Stewards are assigned based on domain knowledge, not
necessarily because of governance experience. We are trying to formalize
data custodian roles. The definition and implementation of “owner” is not
consistent across the organization.”
• “We have identified the primary data trustees across a variety of data
domains. These are also the members of the Data Governance Council. In two
domains, we identified (through recommendation from the trustees and/
or the trustees’ staff in that domain) the Data Steward managers who hold
some empowerment about decisions made against their domain. They, in turn,
have identified stewards who they hold a matrix relationship with.”
• “Looked for business people with understanding of the importance of data

to their organization. Initially focused on people who knew the data, but
these people did not have enough business knowledge to set organizational
direction regarding Data Quality issues”
• “Governance tends to be reactive, not active. Owners engaged as

necessary. Data SMEs exist for data sets, but not given specific stewardship
responsibilities”
• “We identify a data owner as the person or line of business who is most
impacted by the Data Quality of a particular data element”
• “Data Stewards are user/SMEs”
• “Data Stewards are nominated by business unit”
• “Establishment of the Data Stewards Advisory Group (DSAG) as a forum to

address/resolve data issues across the organization, with representation
across the lines of business. Participation 20-30 members”
• “Our policy specifies that managing directors designate Data Stewards

and they are accountable to the executive committee that sponsors the Data
Governance program and are the data owners”

• “We named senior existing known subject matter experts as Data Stewards.
Not all data subject areas have Stewards assigned yet, but we are working on it”
• “The Council was asked to pick stewards from their respective areas”
• “Business data owners are set geographically based on operating assets”
• “Executive VP Sponsors naming a data trustee (owner) for a given data

domain. The Trustee identifies a data governor’s team (typically who consist
of key functional area VPs, directors, or senior managers) for the domain.
Data Stewards (typically managers, team leads, and SMEs) are then identified
by the data governor’s team.”
• “Senior management identified ‘chief stewards’ and they identify data

owners (operational stewards). We have a dozen chief stewards and seven
domain stewards. Operational stewards are chosen ad hoc by the chief Data
Stewards to resolve issues”
• “Where the responsibilities of the job were impacted, those individuals

became stewards of the data. This became more formalized when we
implemented a workflow system and named users to roles”
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The survey indicates that there are still many organizations that have not recognized Data Stewards –
almost one third. But, there seems to be an even split when asked how organizations identify versus
recognize stewards. This would appear to indicate that how organizations name stewards is predicated on
the approach to the program they are taking. It comes down to not having stewards, or assigning versus
recognizing stewards.
7. GAINING (AND KEEPING) SUPPORT FOR DATA

GOVERNANCE
The ability to start a Data Governance program often hinges upon convincing C-level executives of
the efficacy of such a program. It shouldn’t only focus on executives though; more people need to be
convinced. Sometimes an executive brings the idea of Data Governance to their staff, but it is still the staff
that must execute the governance program. Certainly, an executive can decree, “we are now practicing
Data Governance and this is what everyone must do!” But such an approach is not often effective. The
organization needs to make sure everyone knows that Data Governance is not optional. Whether it’s a
C-level executive or someone else bringing the idea to the organization doesn’t really matter; support at
all levels is essential to success.

The survey asked four different questions that BOB’S INSIGHT
approached the issue of gaining support in various
guises: Bob believes management will respond
exactly the way you expect them to react
• “Rank the importance of these to the core messages you deliver to them
(6) components for starting your regarding gaining their support for a Data
Data Governance
Governance program.
program.” [Figure 9]
If you attempt to start your program by
• “What are the most challenging selling that Data Governance is a very
issues you faced (will face)
difficult, complex, expensive, involved,
when starting your Data
and distracting then you can expect Data
Governance program?” [Figure 10]
Governance will be received that way
• “Regarding senior management, and that will be what senior management
what level of understanding do they believes.
have?” [Figure11]
If you sell Data Governance as
• “Are (were) there competing something you are already doing, but
internal governance-related doing very informally, inefficiently, and
priorities going on in your often ineffectively, and that you can do
organization when you are starting governance better by putting formality
your Data Governance program?” around the way actions are presently being
[Figure 12] taken around data, that will be what senior
management believes.
Taken as a group, they provide a clearer picture of
which support challenges affect the early initiation
of a Data Governance solution, no matter the size.
The first question [Figure 9] asked for a ranking of
six essential key elements necessary when starting
a program. In overwhelming fashion, the choice of
“management’s support” came in first place (63.6%),
the “designation of resources” came in second
(40.6%), and “business case for Data Governance”
came in third (26.1%).

The following question [Figure 10] adds to the previous one by asking about the biggest challenges faced
(or will face for those just beginning) when starting a Data Governance solution. It also included an extra
open-ended comment section to allow respondents to further clarify their answers. Once again, support
and resources rank as the top choices, with “lack of ownership” in first place at 28.9%, “lack of allocated
resources” at 28.2%, and “failure to provide funding” in third at 16.2%:

The open-ended answers were aligned with the five choices as well, with the main focus on buy-in,
resources, and decision-making. The question asked them to “please specify the most challenging issue
you faced when starting your Data Governance program:”
• “Being recognized as a business priority rather than just an IT priority”
• “Certainly resistance from the company”
• “Failure to determine what outcomes will be expected and provided”
• “Push-back from some lines of business when their business-as-usual is

significantly at odds with the enterprise mandates”
• “Management failure to recognize the need for a Data Governance program

even after being presented with a viable business case”
• “Lack of executive level understanding/support”

• “Too many efforts, not enough coordination”
• “Too many competing, approved initiatives”
Figure 11 (see below) demonstrates that improving the understanding of governance still remains one
of the more complicated components in getting a solution started. The results are split between the six
choices. The top three answers are:
• They know that Data Governance is important and that other organizations
are doing it: 28.1% (45)
• They understand, support, and sponsor the activities of the Data Governance
program: 23.1% (37)
• They are uncertain as to the value of Data Governance for their organization:
22.5% (36)

Notably, the two lowest answers provide even more clarity:
• They understand the value of Data Governance, but they are afraid to pull the
trigger: 4.4% (7)
• They understand, and are playing an active role in, the Data Governance
program: 6.9% (11)
The question addressed in Figure 11 also had an open-ended component that asked respondents to “please
describe the steps you are taking or have taken in working to get senior management on board with your
DG project/initiative and the success you have had thus far.” A total of 47 respondents answered the
question. A few of the answers are:
• “Regular leadership meetings to inform, educate and seek decisions around

our Data Governance activities”
• “We haven’t approached senior management with any concrete steps. We

are still investigating.”
• “They got on board once the regulatory environment required it”
• “Regular communication through status reports, metrics, and business value

from Data Quality”
• “Pitching the assertion that a DG initiative will help the business understand its
own usage of data and how this usage could be improved so that it brings
about better business outcomes. A few senior managers got the message;
others not yet. They are now awaiting a more specific proposal from the team
that had pitched the principles first. The challenge is to align the DG initiative
with the wider goals and timeline of a major systems reengineering multi-year
project”
• “Senior management fully supports Data Governance but doesn’t want to be

the governing body. I am working with a more middle management layer as
my governing body of the program.”
• “We are in the process of trying to determine the best way to engage them”
• “Through repeated presentations and use case examples we were able to get
senior management to buy in. We are hitting a wall with implementation,
as there are other projects/initiatives that are deemed more important, so
implementation is very slow moving”
• “Senior management came to the realization on its own of the need for Data
Governance.”

• “The established and operational Data Stewards Advisory Group (DSAG)
maintains communication links with senior management”
• “Senior management is oblivious to the need for a formalized Data

Governance initiative”
• “We have a Steering Committee comprised of key senior leaders. We do not

have wide-spread senior leader understanding, but we have a strong core.”
• “We identified things that have gone wrong or could go wrong without Data
Governance. Fines, for example.”
• “Have created a Data Governance board at a mid-management level that

spans the organization’s business activity. Have channeled a dedicated data
management team to implement Data Governance activity and use
the identified gains from targeted implementations to inform the executive of
the possible gains.”
The issue of competing organizational priorities is the final part of the equation when attempting to garner
support for your Data Governance solution. You might have an innovative, cost effective, straightforward
Data Governance program, but if the organization already has other institutional concerns, your efforts
may fall on deaf ears and/or you may not get the results expected. In Figure 12 the issue of competing
priorities is shown, and 96 out of the 162 respondents (59.3%) said yes, there were other priorities:

The 30.9% of respondents who said that there were no other competing priorities are the lucky ones.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Getting buy-in from senior management definitely remains a concern for getting a Data Governance
solution off the ground and into planning stages. Yet the data management world of today is much different
than that of 10 or 15 years ago. Senior management, in many organizations, are now the originators of
Data Governance programs, rather than the exterminators. Such a statement doesn’t claim that pushback,
lack of ownership, or refusal to give funding are not central issues that need to be resolved from a
senior management support role, such issues are obviously still of crucial importance, the survey results
demonstrate this. Yet, it is not wholly the fault of senior management when a Data Governance program
doesn’t work.

Senior management has become much more
knowledgeable about Data Governance over the
BOB’S INSIGHT
past few years. Regulatory compliance, inadequate
decision-making data, inaccurate reporting mechanisms, As an example, most organizations
the rising costs of bad data, and a host of other issues have have people who are responsible
brought governance to the forefront of discussions in many for information security; the general
board rooms. Yet, the results still show a fundamental population of the organization is
split between management who understand governance, accountable for following information
management who are uncertain of governance, and security procedures. Perhaps this
management who take an active role in governance. function includes the classification of
It is evident from the survey that a solution cannot data as being confidential, sensitive,
move forward without senior management’s support. or public, with each class requiring
But there also needs to be support from everyone else different levels of handling. We
as well. Resources need to be given to participate in should tell senior management that
governance activities; but those activities may be things Data Governance will be involved in
the staff is already involved in. There are likely different formalizing the handling requirements
types of “noise” taking place with data in the organization and assuring that the population
due to different improvement programs. Some people knows and follows the specific rules.
may be working on business-process reengineering, or Otherwise, the organization will be at
Agile data development, or glossary implementation, risk each and every day.
or any number of programs; these need to be brought
together as complementary programs, rather than diverse
disciplines with little or no crossover. Data Governance is
not all-new activities; some are activities that people are
already involved in. That message needs to be sold to the
organization at all levels.
Compounded with the issue of gaining support is a lack
of leadership for the program. Such a lack causes an
inadequate amount of allocated resources and a failure to
fund solutions to problems identified by Data Governance.
If the project is never given appropriate focus and
support, then Data Governance is shelved and continues
to only be discussed only as a “possible” solution for the
organization’s data problems, but not a “real” solution.

8. MEASURING THE RESULTS OF DATA GOVERNANCE
The survey asked respondents to clarify what steps they took when defining and implementing their Data
Governance program [Figure 13]. They could select from four options. They could select more than one
option. The answers were quite close (only a few percentage points apart), demonstrating that all the steps
listed may be of crucial importance:
• Defining business need/use cases: 49.7% (75)
• Focus on Metadata (glossaries and dictionaries): 48.3% (73)
• Policy, roles, and processes: 43.7% (66)
• Define best practices: 41.1% (62)

Each choice represents a needed step in the entire
implementation process, the first being to define
BOB’S INSIGHT
your needs. This is the foundation on which you can
build the blueprint. A Data Governance initiative Bob believes there are several ways to
cannot move forward without a plan. The blueprint measure the value of a Data Governance
allows you to refine your business needs, design the program, and that these include short-term
program, create the policies/roles/processes, define and longer-term measurements.
best practices, present a plan to the most important
stakeholders, and map out a viable direction. The Short-term measurements are often focused
process of defining your specific solution allows you on accepting Data Governance into the
to concentrate on already-known organizational organization. These measures include
goals, to align your solution with what is happening things like how many people have been
within the organization as a whole. Such a stratagem “on-boarded,” how many data issues have
will give further credence to your program when been collected and worked, the time to
you seek executive support. The essential steps used resolve problems, and the effectiveness of
in defining your solution are to: decision-making.
• Create the blueprint The longer-term measures often focus on

the financial aspects of solving problems,
• Write value statements (also time to market, ability to respond to market
known as value propositions, changes, and other strategic business
mission statements etc.) that initiatives. Articulating the relationship
show all stakeholders exactly why between the longer-term measures and
the implementation will help your
Data Governance can be somewhat difficult
organization
but doable.
• Create a best practices approach
that solidifies the entire program
CREATE A BLUEPRINT
The blueprint (some call it a roadmap) allows you
to assess the current state of governance within
the bounds of your particular solution, while also
providing an illustration of the program’s expected
activities.
If, for example, your program focuses on the
alignment of structured and unstructured data
within a number of databases, then the blueprint
would demonstrate the disordered state of the
current systems, explain why such an alignment is
needed and what value it would bring, detail the
steps needed to repair the problem, and envision
how the eventual solution will look.

The blueprint is not only valuable for stakeholders involved in implementing a solution, but will aid in
gathering the necessary management support for the program as a whole. The blueprint demonstrates
what is needed, define KPIs, demonstrate the future viability and sustainability of the solution, show
how key decisions will be made and by whom, communicate the essential procedures and policies to be
instituted, and establish the eventual outcomes.
WRITE VALUE STATEMENTS
The value sStatement is an essential tool in the business world, showing an organization’s guiding
principles and vision. Value statements align smaller program goals to the overarching values of an entire
organization. Therefore, they are useful for presenting your program to other stakeholders – especially
senior management. The main point of creating value statements is to keep them simple and concise.
There are different formulas you can use for such propositions, but two well-known ones in the Data
Governance world work as follows:
• If we do (X), then we can expect to gain (Y) - (Robert S. Seiner)
• If we do (A), then we can expect (B), which should lead to (C) – (Data
Governance Institute)
Both formulas require that you create highly specific statements, rather than large sweeping claims that
hold little meaning. For example:
• If we align our BI reporting systems so that sales and marketing use the same
uncontaminated data, then we can expect more accurate tracking of
customers, leading to more successful marketing campaigns and
customer-service protocols.
• If we have a more coherent Metadata platform, then we can expect

significant improvement in our decision-making mechanisms due to more
reliable metrics.
Value statements can also include (but do not have to) an extended formula that states:
• If we don’t do (D), then we can expects the results to be (C)
These propositions should not be too numerous. A maximum of 2-5 is adequate to fulfill the needs of any
solution. Too many statements will only bring about uncertainty as to the actual point of the entire project
– keep them straightforward.

CREATE A BEST PRACTICES APPROACH
Lots of information exists on best practices in data BOB’S INSIGHT
management and Data Governance. Many organizations
focus on the principle of best practices, but too often Bob focuses on Data Governance best
best practices remain only an ideal and far from the practices at the start of every Data
truth. The goal of writing a few highly specific best Governance program. From time to time
practices for your solution is to give a concrete focus these best practices vary, but often the
to the project that ties directly into the blueprint. best practices include statements like:
Successful Data Governance implementations define • In order for Data Governance
best practices as early steps, and allow stakeholders to to be successful there is a high
get involved so they know what is expected of them. level of senior management
Two criteria need to be answered when formulating a support, sponsorship, and (most
importantly) understanding of the
best practice approach: activities of the Data Governance
program and team.
• The best practice must be practical
and doable, or it makes no sense to • Dedicated resources must be
include it. given responsibility for delivering
the Data Governance on an
• Will the organization be at risk if the ongoing basis, for as long as the
program exists.
best practice is not achieved?
• The goals, scope, expectations,
When writing best practices, the outcome to these and measures of success for
questions must be affirmative, or they may be the Data Governance program
considered “practices” rather than “best” practices. must be clearly defined and
communicated.
For example, a midsize organization that helps
perform background checks on possible customers
for apartment and housing landlords, small mortgage
banks, and other financial institutions has had continued
difficulties with its customer information database,
or rather many databases. The company has gone
through restructuring a couple of times over the past
decade, expanding its outreach to more than 20 states.
It has a number of different legacy systems, a recently
implemented system, and disorganized processes for
conversion. In short, its customer tracking metrics
are in shambles. This firm needs more than one best
practice and certainly more than one Data Governance
solution to clean up its data; but one example could be:

• “To institute a clearly-defined
Data Governance solution to align
our customer tracking metrics, we BOB’S INSIGHT
will implement a training program
so all staff who work regularly with A Data Governance best-practice assessment
the new system will enter quality and critical analysis are very important
data. We will cease to use all the when starting a Data Governance program.
older systems as of [date]. And our It is important to define the best practices
data-conversion teams will establish as target behaviors and to start moving in
well-defined processes for each that direction. Without a destination and a
system that must be converted.” roadmap, the journey becomes increasingly
difficult.
The above example is short, to the point, and clearly
says what will be done. Of course, the organization
will need more than one. Adding even more specifics
to each statement can help further define each best
practice.
9. WHAT IS YOUR
CURRENT STATE OF DATA
GOVERNANCE? ACTIVITIES
AND PROCESSES
The next stage in implementing a Data Governance
solution is identifying the differences between the
current condition of governing data and the future
condition desired. This is often referred to as a
gap assessment. It ties directly into best practices
from above. Most assessments are broken down
into specific levels of success on the current state;
a preferred state is decided upon; and the steps
needed to attain that future state are created within
the framework of the blueprint or roadmap. Some
initial questions in the assessment include:
• Why is this best practice for our

organization?
• What are we presently doing that

supports the best practice?

• Where there opportunities for the improvements of best practices?
• What’s the gap between where we are and where we say we want
to be by defining the best practice this way?
• What recommendations come out of this?
The process should also include a period of discovery, wherein assessment surveys (as well as personnel
interviews and meetings) are sent out to possible SMEs, primary stakeholders, possible future Data Stewards,
and others who can help highlight and finalize the initial current state valuation. Once the information
has been collected, you should create a record of strengths, list possible development opportunities to key
areas, define the disparities between the current and future states, align those disparities with possible
risks and pitfalls that could occur during implementation, and add all of that information to the blueprint.
The survey asked respondents three crucial questions about the current state of Data Governance within
their organizations that will help highlight some of the primary issues facing organizations working
towards Data Governance solutions:
• “In what areas do existing Data Governance (or, more simply stated,
governance activities) take place in your organization?” [Figure 14]
• “What processes, already in place in your company, bode well to the

application of formalized accountability (governance) through Data
Governance and Data Stewardship?” [Figure 15]
• “What processes are not in place that would bode well for the application
of formalized accountability (governance) through Data Governance and
Data Stewardship?” [Figure 16]
The results of the first question [Figure 14] are not too surprising. Analytics and Reporting (56.7%),
Information Security (53.4%), and Compliance (47.8%) were the top three choices – respondents were
allowed to “check all that apply.” The data assets required for the successful management of these particular
areas are of crucial importance to any enterprise, and so are often the first needs addressed within the
scope of a Data Governance solution(s):

Figure 15 asked about principal processes already in place for the formal application of governance. The
top four answers were:
• Business information and data needs: 61.2% (115)
• Data issue resolution and Data Quality processes: 53.2% (100)
• Building of business element definition and glossary implementation: 52.7%

(99)
• Identification and monitoring of regulatory, compliance and risk management

needs: 44.7% (84)

When viewed in comparison with Figure 8 (first steps in starting a program), Figure 9 (existing areas),
and Figure 10 (processes in place), there are a number of similarities that act as focal points of necessity
for the successful implementation of Data Governance:
• Defining business need is of foremost importance: 49.7%/61.2% [F 13/15]
• The creation of some form of business glossary is necessary: 48.3%/52.7%[F

13/15]
• Compliance and regulatory issues are one of the principal issues for many
enterprises: 47.8%/44.7% [F 14/15]
• Appropriate policies, roles, and processes – especially those related to data

issue resolution and Data Quality need to be considered from the beginning:
43.7%/53.2% [F 13/15]

The final survey question regarding the current state of Data Governance focused on what processes are
not in place for the formal application of Data Governance. The results, when viewed with the previous
statistics, are almost directly in line with what has already been discussed. The one standout, not previously
mentioned, holds the first position in this question though [Figure 16]:
• Validation and production of data oriented measures and metrics: 50% (92)
• Data issue resolution and Data Quality processes: 46.2% (85)
• Building of business element definition and glossary implementation: 40.2%

(74)

The first choice in Figure 16 (processes not in place) was the fifth most answered question in Figure 15
(existing processes already in place) at 37.8%; so it provides a valuable segue back to the previous section
on defining your solution. Some organizations have already implemented data-oriented measures and
metrics; yet those that haven’t say the validation and production of such measures/metrics would be the
most significant process not already in place. So who’s responsible for instituting formalized procedures
for measures and metrics? How is such documentation completed? And why aren’t more organizations
implementing such processes at the outset? A well-defined blueprint, with a completed Gap Assessment,
will help alleviate this problem. But until the roles and responsibilities for such procedures are documented,
it would remain an issue.
10. TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGY

One of the most asked early implementation Data Governance questions is: do we have to buy new
tools to have a successful Data Governance solution? The answer is no. Certainly, there are many tools
and technologies on the market that can aid in implementing such a solution, but most likely the tools
already exist within the organization. If you’ve decided to retire one or more legacy systems and purchase
(or develop in-house) a new tool set, then by all means such a decision can be valuable. But, do not
spend enormous amounts of money on new tools because you think you need to; one of the traditional
complaints about Data Governance is its gargantuan cost – such complaints need not be true.
The survey asked two specific questions regarding tools and various software platforms used when starting
a Data Governance program:
• “How much of an impact has the (will the) selection and purchase of software
tools had on the direction of your Data Governance program and the
Metadata associated with the program?” [Figure 17]
• “What types of software products do you use? (check all that apply)” [Figure
18]

The results from this question are rather split. The highest percentage of respondents said the selection/
purchase of tools had no impact (46.6%/76). The least number of respondents said it was a major influence
(21.5%/35); while the rest said it did play a role but was not a major influence (31.9%/52).
Figure 18 continues the discussion of tool and software usage by asking respondents to check what sort of
software products they currently use (they could check all that apply):

The top five answers to the question were:
• Business Analytics/Reporting: 77.6% (125)
• Data Movement (ETL): 69.6% (112)
• Business Intelligence: 62.7% (101)
• Data Modeling: 59% (95)
• Data Quality: 45.3% (73)
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The use and implementation of tools is not a topic that should be shelved until later. It is an essential factor
when deciding on the design of the entire Data Governance solution. But it is certainly not necessary to
do a massive overhaul of the organization’s current tools. When 77.6% already are using some kind of BA/
reporting tool, or 41.6% have a Metadata repository tool, then it is important to assess their value before

sending them to the legacy dustbin. If senior management is
worried about costs, the restructuring of already-available
tools might help alleviate some of their worries. If such a
BOB’S INSIGHT
restructuring is not in the best interests of the program,
then by all means do your research and purchase the best Bob is a firm believer that technology
tool for the job. can make or break a successful
Data Governance program. That
does not mean that technology is
11. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES the solution to Data Governance.
You cannot purchase and install a
There is no doubt that NoSQL and other non-relational
piece of hardware or software and
database platforms, Big Data, the Cloud, Semantics, Data
therefore have a Data Governance
Virtualization, and so many others are altering the way
program. Data Governance is all
data is being managed by organizations all over the world.
about formalizing people’s behavior
To remain competitive in the global marketplace, with
the constant pressures of increasing data streams due to associated with data.
Big Data, enterprises must concentrate on maximizing Technology can assist in managing
their potential. No one is really arguing anymore that workflow, Metadata, communications,
Big Data or NoSQL or others are just fads; such industry modeling, analytics, you name it. But
trends are here to stay. The advantages of these emerging the truth is that the implementation
(or already emergent) technologies are many; enterprises of the technology itself requires
need solutions to collect, analyze, and profit from them. governance. Formalized behavior is a
But do they really play a significant role in the decision necessary result.
making process when implementing a Data Governance
solution? For the most part the answer is no (with many
caveats). It is true that such technologies need to be part
of the discussion, but as seen in Figure 19, most of them
outside of Business Analytics are not playing a major role:
• Business Analytics: 56.3% (90)
• None: 38.8% (62)
• Big Data: 21.9% (35)
• Data Virtualization: 15% (24)

To add some depth and clarity to this question, the survey also asked respondents to “please describe
the biggest impact that these technologies are having or had as you were starting your Data Governance
program.” Of the 38 respondents who answered the open-ended question, most focused on processes
rather than specific technologies:
• “Our efforts in these areas are still works in progress, very immature. I believe
that the Business Analytics portion of our efforts will play a large role, all
through the entire program.”
• “Our approach to Data Governance has not been technology driven, but
rather what data management capabilities must we evolve to best leverage
the emerging technology platforms.”
• “Emphasis on analytics/informatics impelled implementation.”
• “Our company loves software... It might be the only way to sell a DG

program.”

• “Unlikely that any of the emerging technologies would have an impact on our
DG program starting.”
• “We are tip-toeing into Big Data and need policy around that area; without
Data Governance our business analytics team is just shooting in the dark; data
virtualization heightens the need for good Metadata.”
• “None of these are on the radar here. We are on a more basic level. Crawl
before run”
• “In implementing a Big Data analytics solution, we have quantified just how
poor our Data Governance is.”
• “Cost for implementation was high and required ongoing investment.

Leadership wanted to ensure this money was being spent wisely.”
• “Our governance program was primarily driven by federal regulatory

demands. Enterprise specifies what must be done, individual lines of business
determine the technology that best suits their landscape.”
• “Too many sources of data when developing data warehouses/data marts

required the support of the Data Stewards Advisory Group to address/resolve
data issues, including identification of authoritative data sources.”
• “These items will have an impact, but the program is not far enough along to
be able to determine how significant this is.”
• “To effectively use business analytics requires strong Data Quality. With
multiple disconnected systems, lack of a data dictionary, much time is
currently spent on manual intervention and resolving Data Quality
questions.”
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
To be sure, any organization that wants to leverage the colossal quantities of data now available must work
towards implementing some kind of Big Data solution. The same goes with the many benefits of NoSQL
and non-relational platforms, the potential lowering of hardware costs with cloud-based services and data
virtualization, as well as the advantages presented with the implementation of semantic technologies. All
of them are important; all of them can provide benefits to an organization that can utilize their potential.
But whether they are of necessary focus when starting a Data Governance solution remains to be seen.
As shown in this report, multiple other concerns must be addressed. And, while emerging technologies
(especially business analytics when the solution necessitates) should have some place in the discussion,
many other steps require more emphasis.

12. CONCLUSION – WHY DATA GOVERNANCE
SUCCEEDS
The challenges for implementing a sustainable governance solution of any size are as variable and
numerous as the enterprises beginning them. Governance can be a confusing landscape that is difficult
to traverse, but it doesn’t have to be. There are so many factors that contribute to success and, if followed
with diligence and focus, will allow an organization to move forward:
• Gain organizational support
• Formalize responsibility
• Demonstrate value
• Allocate resources
• Provide vision
• Provide capability
• Provide sustainability
Your organization can successfully execute and enforce authority over the management of your data
assets and functions. While you may decide to attempt the “all or nothing” approach and try a solution
on a grand, enterprise-wide scale with fundamental organizational transformation, a smaller, granular
approach is probably the best way to begin. It costs less. It takes less time, resources, and stress. It can
demonstrate measurable success before you continue forward with more ambitious notions.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
ROBERT. (BOB) S. SEINER

PRESIDENT AND PRINCIPLE, KIK CONSULTING & EDUCATION SERVICES
Bob Seiner is the President and Principal of KIK Consulting & Educational
Services (www.kikconsulting.com) and the Publisher of The Data
Administration Newsletter (TDAN.com). Bob was recently awarded the DAMA
Professional Award for significant and demonstrable contributions to the data
management industry. Bob specializes in “non-invasive data governance”, data
stewardship, and meta-data management solutions.
Bob also presents a monthly webinar series, Rea-World Data Governance,
produced by DATAVERSITY. Visit here to view the schedule for the
upcoming months: http://www.dataversity.net/category/education/webinars/
upcoming-webinars/rwdg/
CHARLES ROE
FREELANCE WRITER, CR SCRIBES / WRITER AND EDITOR, DATAVERSITY
Charles Roe, freelance writer & founder of CR Scribes, is backed with advanced
degrees in English, History and a Cambridge degree in Language Instruction.
He worked for 10 years as an instructor of English, History, Culture and Writing
at the college level in the USA, Europe and Turkey. He grew up working for a
family-owned business in the construction industry, has owned and operated
a web design and hosting company, a photo studio, has written numerous
academic papers and worked as a professional copyeditor/proofreader for close
to 15 years. He spent many years after graduate school working in the high
tech industry in tech support, as a database analyst for an ophthalmic software
design company and a part-time server administrator. He writes on a variety
of topics, including more technical topics, for a host of businesses. He writes
creatively in his spare time.


SPONSORS
ABOUT ASG
ASG Software Solutions is a recognized innovator in enterprise IT software solutions, and a leading
provider of enterprise Metadata Management solutions. ASG’s metadata repository, ASG-Rochade®, is
the world’s leading metadata repository. It is implemented to administrate information, manage data
warehouses, and manage applications. The solution helps businesses catalog, understand, and profitably
exploit the value of their information. Furthermore, it also enables decision-makers to comprehend the
source of the data and to supervise all stages of the data-warehouse cycle. This support for the monitoring
of information makes it easier for businesses to uphold compliance guidelines such as Basel II, Solvency
II, HIPAA, etc.
A recognized innovator in enterprise IT and business software solutions, ASG Software Solutions has been
optimizing 85 percent of the world’s most complex IT organizations for over 25 years. We create and deploy
unique software solutions that reduce cost, mitigate risk, and improve service delivery throughout the IT
lifecycle. ASG’s comprehensive solutions help you solve today’s challenges, such as Cloud Computing and
Big Data, while driving your business forward by providing insight and control across Cloud, distributed,
and mainframe environments.
www.asg.com
ASG Worldwide Headquarters
1.239.435.2200 or 1.800.932.5536
1333 Third Avenue South Naples, Florida USA 34102

SPONSORS
The Data Governance Professionals Organization (DGPO) is an international non-profit, vendor

neutral, association of business, IT and data professionals dedicated to advancing the discipline of data
governance.
The DGPO provides a forum that fosters discussion and networking for members and seeks to encourage,
develop and advance the skills of members working in the data governance discipline.
DebTech International, L.L.C. is a training and conference production organization specializing in

data management and data governance education and consulting services. DebTech International is the
co-producer of the DGIQ Conference, The Data Governance Financial Services Conference and the Data
Governance Winter Conference. These events are conducted jointly with DATAVERSITY.

Test 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Test 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

NAVIGATING THE DATA GOVERNANCE LANDSCAPE:

ANALYSIS OF A 2013 SURVEY ON HOW TO

by Robert S. Seiner and Charles Roe

• Management support is the most important component in starting a program.

• Lack of ownership or leadership is the most challenging issue during a

• The building of a business glossary is a key element that’s not in place in

• People primarily applied Data Governance policy to further education,

• More than half of the surveyed organizations identified business analytics as

• Half of all respondents said producing and validating data-oriented measures

©2013 DATAVERSITY Education, LLC. All rights reserved. 2

• About you and your organization (four questions)

• The current state of Data Governance (three questions)

• The current state of Data Governance personnel (three questions)

• Starting a Data Governance program (five questions)

• Data Governance tools and technologies (three questions)

• Data Governance support (three questions)

• Information/Data Governance: 56.7% (118)

• Data and/or Information Architecture: 42.3% (88)

• Business Intelligence and/or Analytics: 17.3% (36)

©2013 DATAVERSITY Education, LLC. All rights reserved. 3

Software or System Vendor

Marketing and/or market research

Corporate research and/or library

Documents and/or records management

Business intelligence and/or analytics

Data and/or information architecture

Content and/or digital asset management

Finance management and/or reporting

Other (please specify)

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Figure 1. 208 respondents.

• Insurance: 15.8% (34)

• Healthcare: 14.4% (31)

• Consulting: 10.2% (22)

• Finance: 8.4% (18)

©2013 DATAVERSITY Education, LLC. All rights reserved. 4

Figure 2. 215 respondents.

• Over 50,000: 21.3% (46)

• 10,000 – 50,000: 20.8% (45)

• 1,000 – 5,000: 19% (41)

©2013 DATAVERSITY Education, LLC. All rights reserved. 5

100 – 1,000, 13.0%

3. INTRODUCTION – THE DEFINITION AND BENEFITS OF

©2013 DATAVERSITY Education, LLC. All rights reserved. 6

• “Data Governance is the exercise of authority and control (planning,

• “Data Governance is a quality control discipline for adding new rigor

• “Data Governance is a system of decision rights and accountabilities for

• “Data Governance is the formal orchestration of people, processes, and

• “Data Governance is the execution and enforcement of authority over the

©2013 DATAVERSITY Education, LLC. All rights reserved. 7

• Increase the value of your existing data

• Provide better training of employees when dealing with data assets

• Decrease costs of managing data

• Standardize data policies, standards, procedures, and systems

• Resolve existing data-related problems

• Ensure better compliance, security, and privacy

• Get everyone on the same page

• Enable better tracking mechanisms for the delivery and supervision of

• Allow people to work more efficiently

• Reduce organizational tensions due to data issues

©2013 DATAVERSITY Education, LLC. All rights reserved. 8

• Data security, privacy, and usage

• Data sharing (both inside and outside of organization)