Page 47 -

26 CHAPTER 3 Overview of a data governance program

Scope factors that affect the federated layers and activities are:
• Enterprise sizedObviously, huge organizations will need to federate their DG programs, and
carefully choose the critical areas where DG adds the most value.
• BrandsdOrganizations with strong brands may want to consider this in their DG scoping exercise.
One brand may need a more centrally managed data portfolio than another.
• DivisionsdOne division may be more highly regulated, therefore requiring a different intensity
of DG.
• CountriesdVarious nations have different regulations and customs, therefore affecting how you
can govern certain types of information.
• IT portfolio conditiondWhen a DG effort is getting started, it is usually understood at some
intuitive level, the nature and condition of the existing information technology portfolio. An
organization embarking on a massive overhaul of applications (usually via implementing
a large SAP or Oracle enterprise suite) will have definite and specific DG federation
requirements.
• Culture and information maturitydThe ability of an organization to use information and data is
referred to as its information management maturity, or IMM. The manner in which an
organization gets its work done is usually called culture. In combination, the specific IMM
and culture of an organization will affect the scope and design of the DG program. For
example, an organization that is rigid in its thinking and has a low level of maturity will
require more centralized control in its DG program, as well as more significant change
management issues.

MINI CASE STUDY
Don’t fall into the scope trap of identifying the scope of DG with size or market dominance. You need to rationally
consider influencing factors we have presented, i.e., the business model, the assets to be managed, and what type
of federation is required. Let’s expand the global retailer example:
Business modeldThe business model is global, with heavy dependence on economy of scale across the supply
chain. So our scope will lean toward the entire organizationdwe will not be excluding any functions, like
merchandising or warehouse.
Content being manageddObviously there is a lot of content in a large organization, but consider the varietydretail
is, at its core, pretty simple. You buy stuff from one place and sellit tosomeone else. The main content is anything used
or descriptive of the “stuff” and getting it sold. Be carefuldit isn’t just the itemsdwhat about the people on the sales
floor?What aboutthe trucks andtrains to moveitems about? Allare integral tothe business. So froma scopestandpoint
we need to consider almost all of the content within this type of enterprise. The key guidance to apply isdthe scope of
data governance is a function of the assets being managed (i.e., the content and information being governed).
FederationdWe have stated the entire enterprise is in scope, and all content relevant to the business model is
in scope. We have not narrowed this down much, have we? When we examine the content (remember we are
considering all of it), we see that it stratifies into global, regional, and local. This is significant. If a region or locality
can buy items to sell, what is the intensity of DG in those supply chains versus the global ones? We have to consider
that local data may not be worth close governance and may be okay with a more relaxed level of intensity.
Scope mini case study bottom line: All content is in scope, but due to size, geography, and markets, we need to
consciously identify which specific content is managed centrally, regionally, or locally. The organization would
state that DG scope is all content relevant to the business model, but the intensity of DG will vary based on
a specifically defined set of federated layers.