Page 48 -

Elements of Data Governance Programs 27

ELEMENTS OF DATA GOVERNANCE PROGRAMS

In many ways, a data governance program is like any other business program. Many elements of data
governance make perfect sense to businesspersons when they first consider DG. For some reason, the
people on the technology side of the information management and data governance equation get
dazed and confused. Either way, this section will cover these basic program elements in the context of
DG. Later on in the book, we will get into the specific design and deployment of each of these
elements.

Organization

Like any other activity within a company or government entity, there needs to be a formal statement of
roles. The official designation of accountability and responsibility are key factors to the survival of
DG. Most important to new DG programs is the concept of accountability for data. This is most likely
a very new role. To be clear, it will seem very new and different to hold someone accountable for data
qualitydespecially when accountability means a direct effect on bonuses or promotions. There will
also be a perception that the DG program is rather powerful or bold to be making these designations.
Assigning responsibility will also be an important activity. In many organizations, the responsible
parties have a formal role as designated “stewards” or “custodians.” Other implementations of DG may
place everyone under a label of a steward, and the responsible parties will be direct supervisors. Either
way, you can see that some formal organizational design is in order.
The organization around DG also requires a hierarchy of some sort to enable issue resolution,
monitoring, and direction setting. Rarely does this hierarchy of DG become a stand-alone area (i.e.,
there is rarely a data governance “department”). Most of the time, the DG organization is a virtual
organization made up of business and IT personnel.

HELPFUL HINT
Remember that the ultimate goal of DG is to disappear as a stand-alone program. It becomes part of the fabric of
business, like financial controls. That is why the DG “department” is really a monitoring structuredmuch like an
audit committee. To be more specific, DG may not really disappear, but it will be very thin. There will always be the
need to resolve issues. But like other types of corporate governance, these events become accepted as normal
activities, not special programs.
There may be a thin department with participants that roll in and roll out. Some highly regulated organizations
may want to have a separate DG department only if it cannot be fit into the compliance areas. This is one of those
areas we promised to point outdwe differ from many of our peers. Given the long-term nature of DG (i.e., it’s not
a lot different than financial controls or well-known policies), there is little need for a full time overhead structure.
In our opinion, that perpetuates the labeling of information asset management as a program that can be termi-
nated, as opposed to the behavior change it really represents.
A specific time frame for DG to reach the “transparent” stage is hard to define, as it will vary based on scope
and organization. The degree of transparency will be tied to your progress up the information management maturity
curve, so whatever the timing is of your IMM progress is most likely your timing for DG to fade into the business
fabric. If you are using a 5-stage maturity model to measure DG effectiveness, then whenever you hit stage 4 or 5,