Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT
This research is reviewed periodically for accuracy. Last reviewed on 19 June 2017.
Key Challenges
■ Advances in information management requirements, technology skills and the vast range of
data sources demand an updated set of maturity indicators to help enterprise data and
analytics leaders — for example, chief data officers (CDOs), chief analytics officers (CAOs) and
CIOs — establish a roadmap for continuous improvement.
■ Effective enterprise information management (EIM) requires equal and concurrent attention to
seven key building blocks: vision, strategy, metrics, information governance, organization and
roles, information life cycle, and enabling infrastructure.
■ Even lines of business that increasingly circumvent the IT organization and tend to their own
information management needs require a set of signposts for improved competency.
Recommendations
For data and analytics leaders:
■ Periodically assess your organization's EIM maturity (e.g., annually) using this maturity model to
gauge and communicate improvements or degradation in EIM capabilities over time, and to
support the case for required alignment, leverage and linking of data and analytics programs.
■ Plan information strategy with particular attention to maturity indicators one or two levels above
your current level of maturity.
■ Achieve similar levels of maturity across all building blocks to ensure resources are optimized,
wasted time and technology are minimized, and that one area does not drag down the overall
EIM program.
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Through 2019, 90% of large organizations will have hired a chief data officer (CDO); of these, only
50% will be hailed a success.
By 2020, 50% of information governance initiatives will be enacted with policies based on metadata
alone.
By 2020, the Internet of Things and digital business will drive requirements in 25% of new
information governance and master data management (MDM) implementations.
Through 2019, 10% of organizations will have established operational information stewardship in
line-of-business functions.
Introduction
Enterprise information management (EIM) cannot be implemented as a single project. Instead,
organizations must implement it as a coordinated program that evolves over time — see "Strategic
Roadmap for Enterprise Information Management." EIM can be adopted in support of a small
business unit, where individual data and analytics programs need to be aligned; or it can be
adopted across the entire enterprise. Thus EIM is an enterprise-class program model and maturity
can be monitored at different scales. Gartner's EIM maturity model will enable data and analytics
leaders, such as CDOs, CAOs or CIOs, to identify what stage of maturity they have reached and
what actions to take to reach the next level.
Analysis
Many business, data and analytics leaders tasked with the goal of managing information as a
strategic asset want to know the steps required to achieve such an objective. Before beginning an
EIM program, practitioners must first assess the capabilities and willingness of their organization to
move beyond current information management practices and overcome separate, sometimes
conflicting, information silos. Organizations in the early stages of EIM often do not have the ability to
undertake the projects required in later stages, such as managing master data or metadata across
the enterprise.
To help data and analytics leaders assess the status of their EIM programs, or to plan their EIM
journeys, Gartner has created a five-stage maturity model across Gartner's seven building blocks of
EIM. The descriptions of the five stages will enable these leaders to identify which level their
organizations are at. The maturity model also indicates what actions an organization should take at
each stage to move to the next level.
The maturity levels and indicators themselves are aligned with current and near-term capabilities of
enterprises across industries and geographies.
■ Level 1 organizations are typically in the lower 10% of those we advise. They are generally
aware of key issues and challenges, but lack the budget, resources and/or leadership to make
any meaningful advances in EIM.
■ Level 2 organizations represent approximately 30% of those we come across. They generally
operate in a reactive application-centric mode, waiting until information-related problems
manifest in significant business losses or lack of competitiveness before addressing them.
■ Level 3 organizations represent the approximate 40% of those that are more or less mainstream
today in terms of their information-related capabilities. They have become more proactive in
addressing certain areas of information management, and have started to put the "enterprise" in
enterprise information management. Some programs are operational and effective, but there is
little leverage or alignment across programs and investments.
■ Level 4 organizations represent approximately 15% of those that are clear leaders in their
industry with respect to managing and leveraging information across more than two programs.
The following tables represent sets of common maturity characteristics for each of the seven EIM
building blocks. They are meant to be indicative, if not a comprehensive set of, characteristics for
helping organizations understand their degree of competence in various areas of EIM, and suggest
incremental steps to higher levels of capability.
Vision
As a first step, data and analytics leaders must define the business goals that the EIM initiative must
support. EIM enables people from across the enterprise to share, manage and reuse information
that was created in different applications and stored in different databases and repositories. But
these capabilities do not help the enterprise by themselves. Leaders must design their EIM initiative
so that sharing and reusing information creates business value, and the value created must
contribute to enterprise goals. Improving the productivity of individuals, departments or even a
business unit would not necessarily justify an EIM initiative. An enterprise goal might be to offer the
best service in the market or to become more agile in adapting to changing business conditions.
Level Indicators
Level 1: Aware Information is a source of power, but managed in silos. People spend time arguing about whose
data is correct and who owns it instead of seeking uniform availability. There is general
acknowledgment that information management (or lack thereof) is a serious problem.
Level 2: Reactive IT attempts to formalize objectives for information availability to achieve targeted operational
needs. Progress is hampered by culture, contradictory incentives, organizational barriers and
lack of leadership.
Level 4: Managed Senior business executives champion and communicate information-related best practices.
Information is viewed as an indispensable fuel for enterprise performance and innovation to be
shared seamlessly. Customers and partners influence information vision. Information assets are
linked and leveraged across several programs.
Action item:
■ Data and analytics leaders, jointly with IT and business leaders, should establish and
communicate what the organization's attitude and approach to information is. How do you
foresee information being managed and used to generate benefits to the organization?
"The Chief Analytics Officer's Vision Sets the Narrative for the Business Analytics Strategy"
"A Good Information Management Strategy Starts With Vision and Values"
Strategy
Data and analytics leaders must define an information strategy that provides the long-term or
ongoing plan for realizing this EIM vision. An EIM strategy needs three main components:
commitment from the enterprise; a roadmap for EIM; and a plan for structures to execute the
strategy.
Level Indicators
Level 1: Aware Information is hoarded by departments and individuals as a source of power and influence, or is
unknown altogether. Information is seen merely as application-specific. An information
management organization may be in formative stages, but sponsorship is nonexistent.
Level 2: Reactive Business units recognize the broader value of information and begrudgingly share it on cross-
functional projects. An EIM organization emerges to establish and control standards, and
improve information availability while reducing expenses, but the main focus is on technology.
Level 3: Proactive A high-level sponsor (e.g., CDO) is named to define an enterprisewide information strategy and
coordinate a broad agenda, including funding and roadmap. Information management resources
and technologies start to become pooled and shared across projects. Strategy definition is
shifting from a static, annual process toward more of a dynamic "living document."
Level 4: Managed A well-funded and well-led information program addresses most enterprise needs (current and
planned). Business units are committed and involved. Most components and resources are in
place and functioning. The office of the CDO is empowered to drive EIM vision in support of the
business needs.
Level 5: Data and analytics leadership has a say in corporate strategy as information is deemed an actual
Optimized corporate asset. Information is defined primarily by the value it brings, not by its structure or
other characteristics. Business informational needs and risks are met proactively. The
information strategy considers the organization's extended ecosystem of partners, suppliers and
customers. Information strategy is no longer a separate work task but is embodied in how the
business operates.
Action item:
■ Data and analytics leadership must lay out an overall approach to managing information in
support of current and future planned business initiatives, and in line with anticipated advances
in information technology and data growth. How will information be managed effectively, and by
whom?
Metrics
Data and analytics leaders must be able to estimate and demonstrate the value of their initiative by
measuring performance in business terms rather than just IT terms. Leaders should define metrics
derived from the goals of the EIM initiative, and in alignment with established enterprise goals and
metrics.
Level Indicators
Level 1: Aware Any goals and measures for information management and delivery are purely subjective and
rarely, if at all, tracked. Information management is not a budget item and priorities are based on
influence peddling and failure prevention.
Level 2: Reactive Simple (often predisposed) costs/benefit models justify independent information management
investments, or are merely part of IT-business projects themselves. Priorities are based on user
surveys, minimizing each information management program expense, and infrastructure
performance/scale. There is a proliferation of nonfinancial metrics.
Level 3: Proactive Information management financial justifications for each investment are typically related to
expense savings, or embedded in other projects. Qualitative measures emerge for information
management that may not necessarily link well to business KPIs. Some data profiling is done for
tactical purposes, usually only for specific data quality needs.
Level 4: Managed As EIM becomes a budget item of its own, various measures of information value (e.g., quality,
top/bottom line) and risk are developed, tracked and communicated. Some information metrics
are linked to business initiatives, and business cases are linked. Feedback loops reporting
information value and investment yield emerge.
Level 5: Optimized A portfolio approach to EIM investments and risks is adopted wherein business cases are
aligned and interrelated. Information valuations and yield (e.g., ROI) models drive investments in
information, technology and business innovation. Information-related metrics correlate to
business value metrics.
EIM = enterprise information management; KPI = key performance indicator; ROI = return on investment
Action item:
■ Measurements for various aspects of EIM, including budgeting and ROI, must be tied to
enterprise goals and measures. How will EIM, and particularly improvements in EIM, manifest in
enterprise performance improvements?
"Shift From a Project to an Asset Perspective to Properly Value and Fund IT Investments"
"Measure Your Information Yield to Maximize Return on Information and Analytics Investments"
Governance
Data and analytics leaders must ensure that decision rights and accountability for acquiring,
valuing, creating, storing, using, archiving and deleting information are specified adequately. Such
an information governance framework includes the principles, guidelines, policies, processes,
standards, roles and metrics that ensure information will help the enterprise achieve its goals.
Information governance precepts must also align with established enterprise governance
components.
Level Indicators
Level 1: Aware Few official policies exist for the handling or use of most information, other than those required
by law and industry regulations. Ad hoc data quality efforts and a lack of data definitions result in
low data trust and usage.
Level 2: Reactive Policies, mostly for information silos, have emerged for information management and use but are
not monitored and are regularly circumvented. Information owners are assumed and upstream
data quality is performed as needed.
Level 3: Policy adherence procedures for key information assets are developed and monitored by
Proactive information owners and stewards who have limited authority. Formal data quality/integration,
metadata and MDM programs emerge, but they tend to focus on small subsets of business data
or business outcomes to be improved. Efforts to align governance and stewardship of different
kinds of data, spanning content and structured data, start to emerge.
Level 4: An enterprise information governance organization is functioning (e.g., within the context of the
Managed office of the CDO) and carries sway on all IT and business projects. Policies evolve into a full set
of precepts (e.g., principles, guidelines, policies, standards, procedures) which are well-
communicated and enforced. Data quality is largely automated. Information governance priorities
are based on business need, not IT demands. Information security and risk are now linked to the
same information governance process.
Level 5: Enterprise information governance is encoded into an automated information asset management
Optimized system. Business process improvement is now part of information governance. All information
assets, including external sources, are inventoried. Information stewards have become
information advocates, focused more on fostering information value generation now that data
quality has become part of the culture.
Action item:
■ Effective information governance demands diverse business involvement and leadership, and
requires more than a stand-alone set of policies. How will information's management and
quality and use be monitored, measured and assured in-line with current and future business
needs?
"Information Governance Gets Real: Four Case Studies How the Way Out of Information Chaos"
Table 5. Gartner EIM Maturity Model Indicators for "Organization and Roles"
Level Indicators
Level 2: Reactive Pooled or centralized database administrators, data administrators and data modeling
resources emerge, all of whom are strictly part of the IT department. IT also houses business
intelligence analysts and data integration specialists. Business users are engaged in
information-related activities mostly to resolve issues, rather than in upfront design and
planning.
Level 3: Proactive Formal information and content management organizations materialize within IT and governance
councils and stewardship bodies in the business. At least one data scientists is hired by a
business unit. Projects are set up and staffed one at a time, but tend to lack a plan for
organizational continuity or intraenterprise synergy.
Level 4: Managed EIM and analytics move outside of IT as a CDO is installed to lead a separate enterprise
information services organization. Specialty roles — such as big data infrastructure/architecture
specialists, data scientists, information strategists, information architects, information product
managers, and data curators — become prevalent. Information-related competency centers
emerge under the CDO for core analytics, data modeling, metadata and master data.
Level 5: Optimized The CDO oversees and has authority and budget for most aspects of the information life cycle.
This information services organization supports the entire LOB-customer-partner-supplier
information ecosystem. Data-related meetings have become business-centric. An information
product management function develops and facilitates new revenue streams.
CDO = chief data officer; EIM = enterprise information management; LOB = line of business
Action item:
■ Establish, budget for and fill necessary organization structures and roles in support of the EIM
strategy, tasks and infrastructure components. Separate EIM from IT. Who will be responsible
for and involved in key EIM activities, and how will they be organized and managed?
"Successful Organizational Design Principles for the Office of the Chief Data Officer"
"How Data Scientist Skills and Qualifications Differ From Those of BI Analysts and Statisticians"
"Redefine, Reorganize, Revamp and Rebrand Your BICC to Shift Focus to Analytics"
Life Cycle
Data and analytics leaders must ensure a well-defined set of information architecture and flows
(conceptual, logical and physical) that support information governance precepts, information value
optimization and business objectives.
Level Indicators
Level 1: Aware There is no understanding of information having its own life cycle. Data is kept and maintained in
silos and IT does its best to integrate data as requested. Usually this involves making data extracts.
The focus, if there is one, is on local efficiencies and use of individual datasets. Data is deleted early
due to lack of infrastructure, resulting in potential regulatory violations.
Level 2: Data integration is effective in linking disparate data, but efforts to semantically align and form
Reactive shared procedures across silos are sporadic. Metadata management is mostly manual (e.g.,
spreadsheets) and remains focused on individual data assets. Technical efficiency is deemed more
important than the business efficacy from shared data. Data is retained well beyond its usefulness
and may introduce risks.
Level 3: Information flows are well-documented, but not maintained. Metadata standards, tools and
Proactive procedures emerge. But valiant attempts at enterprise metadata management are less than
successful. Only some information governance policies are encoded as procedures. Information
architecture is not yet formalized or embedded in the EIM program. There are still no enterprise
policies or procedures for information disposal or archival.
Level 4: Enterprise metadata management and master data management are ongoing initiatives that help
Managed coordinate and enable business initiatives. Semantically consistent and important information
assets are shared across all needed programs and investments. Information architects are often
involved in EIM but are less than central to, or sufficiently influential on, such efforts. End-of-life
procedures for information assets are established only for those subject to industry regulations.
Information is governed outside the control of any given business application.
Level 5: Information architects are embedded in (and key players in) the EIM program. Information life cycles
Optimized and metadata are documented, implemented and aligned — and all differences are culled as a
matter of course. New information uses build on previously deployed and documented models
spanning the information life cycle. Information life cycles are seen as business processes, not as IT
workflows or tasks. Information value and governance are measured, monitored and optimized
across critical information life cycle paths. Enterprise procedures are in place for the defensible
disposal of information assets based on value, risk and compliance modeling.
Action item:
■ Data, analytics and application managers must document and enable the proper flow of
information from its creation or capture through to when it is ultimately archived or deleted. How
will data movements, availability and retention/disposal be architected in line with current and
future business, application and user and governance needs?
"Toolkit: Use Value Stream Mapping to Optimize Your Product Information Supply Chain"
"Governance of Master Data Starts With the Master Data Life cycle"
Infrastructure
Data and analytics leaders must formalize and often consolidate the range of information-related
technologies and structures. Effective connection and coordination among disparate technologies,
including the logical and physical integration of information, are paramount.
Level Indicators
Level 1: Aware Information management, storage and processing capacities are overloaded and almost entirely
application-specific, leading to strategic business compromises and catastrophic mishaps.
There is significant redundancy of tools and technologies, along with a prevalence of shelfware.
Level 2: Reactive Information infrastructure limitations and/or enhancement backlogs perceptibly inhibit business
performance. Information silos limit business interoperability both internally and with business
partners and customers. IT spend starts to "spill over" as business units invest in their own tools
in reaction to information infrastructure weaknesses. There is no enterprise data warehouse, but
there are many unmanaged data extracts. Applications are integrated, but semantics are
inconsistent.
Level 3: Proactive Information infrastructure and operations capabilities and expenses are planned and support
known business needs. An inventory of tools and technologies is maintained. Separate
operational, content and analytic environments (e.g., data warehouse) now exist. Most
technology acquisition decisions are made independently with a focus on tools, not solutions.
Efforts to integrate data warehouses tend to focus on constructing a single analytic data
structure.
Level 4: Managed A purely centralized information infrastructure has given way to integrated, standardized,
extensible, and IT-supported LOB environments. Some use of cloud storage and processing
enables improved expense management and dynamic capacity. Logical data warehouses and
data-as-a-service architectures are developed. Enterprise MDM, EMM and information
governance and stewardship solutions are deployed broadly. Information management
solutions, not tools, are central to infrastructure investments.
Level 5: Optimized The information infrastructure is dynamically elastic, relying heavily on cloud capacity. Big data,
advanced analytics, enterprise content and collaborative decision systems execute on purpose-
built platforms. Infrastructure capacity and components are shared across business units and
even some ecosystem partners. Information management capabilities, no longer solutions or
tools, are the focus of infrastructure investments.
EIM = enterprise information management; EMM = enterprise marketing management; LOB = line of business; MDM = master data
management
Action item:
"Adopt Logical Data Warehouse Architectural Patterns to Mature Your Data Warehouse"
"Shift From a Project to an Asset Perspective to Properly Value and Fund IT Investments"
"Measure Your Information Yield to Maximize Return on Information and Analytics Investments"
"Successful Organizational Design Principles for the Office of the Chief Data Officer"
"How Data Scientist Skills and Qualifications Differ From Those of BI Analysts and Statisticians"
Evidence
Gartner's EIM building blocks and associate information maturity model are based on dozens of
EIM maturity workshops and thousands of analyst interactions with clients each year to understand
and advise on their EIM situation, capabilities and needs.
GARTNER HEADQUARTERS
Corporate Headquarters
56 Top Gallant Road
Stamford, CT 06902-7700
USA
+1 203 964 0096
Regional Headquarters
AUSTRALIA
BRAZIL
JAPAN
UNITED KINGDOM
© 2016 Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Gartner is a registered trademark of Gartner, Inc. or its affiliates. This
publication may not be reproduced or distributed in any form without Gartner’s prior written permission. If you are authorized to access
this publication, your use of it is subject to the Usage Guidelines for Gartner Services posted on gartner.com. The information contained
in this publication has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy,
completeness or adequacy of such information and shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in such information. This
publication consists of the opinions of Gartner’s research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. The opinions
expressed herein are subject to change without notice. Although Gartner research may include a discussion of related legal issues,
Gartner does not provide legal advice or services and its research should not be construed or used as such. Gartner is a public company,
and its shareholders may include firms and funds that have financial interests in entities covered in Gartner research. Gartner’s Board of
Directors may include senior managers of these firms or funds. Gartner research is produced independently by its research organization
without input or influence from these firms, funds or their managers. For further information on the independence and integrity of Gartner
research, see “Guiding Principles on Independence and Objectivity.”