Data Governance - An Implementation Reality Check
0 likes393 views
The document discusses the challenges organizations face with data governance (DG) implementation, highlighting the disconnect between expectations and reality. It emphasizes that while businesses understand the importance of DG, funding and prioritization often hinder effective implementation, leading to only basic maturity levels. Successful DG requires a comprehensive approach involving both soft and hard components, necessitating strong enterprise information management foundations and a commitment to change.
Data Governance - An Implementation Reality Check
- 1. • Cognizant White Paper Data Governance An Implementation Reality Check Abstract technology, infrastructure and man power, the problem of data governance (DG) usually begins. Giving data governance recommendations is easy Business must understand that the backbone of its but implementing them is altogether a different organization is 'data' and their competitiveness is ball game. Organizations do realize the determined by how data is handled internally importance and value of data governance across functions. initiatives but when it comes to funding and prioritization of such initiatives, it always takes a The problem of DG becomes critical as the lower priority. Over a period, governance becomes organization grows in the absence of any formal the root cause of a handful of the organizational oversight (i.e., a governance committee). Silos of issues and it is then when the organizations start technology will seep in and lead to disruption of to prioritize DG and bring in experts to set things the enterprise architecture, followed by right. processes. In due course, data will be processed by the consumers of data. The impact of this is huge “Are these experts providing what the as users can now manipulate and publish data. The ? organization needs?” ripple effect of this can be felt on processes like “Is the problem of data governance change management as this will now be solved when the expert leaves?” conducted locally at the user's machine rather © Copyright 2011, Cognizant. All rights reserved. than going through a formal change process. “If not, what is it that is lurking and needs to be addressed?” In-house DG team This article tries to throw light on the expectations of these organizations, what they get from the The DG team is either dormant or virtual in most experts and how much of the recommendation cases and often exists at either Level-1 (Lowest) or can be converted or is converted to reality. Level-2 in terms of maturity. The primary reason for this lack of maturity is the team's unfamiliarity Where does it all start? to DG processes beyond establishment of naming standards, documentation of processes, identification of roles & responsibilities and a few When the word 'asset' represents everything other basic steps. except 'data' to business; like investments in White Paper | 2011
- 2. Even if the team is capable of setting up a DG The catch: practice, the business is not flexible enough to empower it sufficiently to establish a successful The recommendations provided by the specialist governance practice. In some cases, people often look very promising and implementable. The identified to participate in the DG committee were catch lies in what the organization expects, what it already engaged in other business priorities such gets and how much of that can be converted to as, a program manager who is already tasked with reality. multiple high-priority corporate development initiatives. This masks the true purpose of a DG The first part, “Expectations of the organization” team and makes it virtual. relates to the assessment of the existing state of DG and getting recommendations to solve their The Problem DG problem. The second part, “What the organization gets,” is where the mismatch The in-house teams did not have a well defined happens. Most of the maturity models used by approach towards setting up DG; those who had, specialists, measure DG along the following five missed to define the metrics and those who dimensions: managed to define the metrics, did not know how l architecture Enterprise to take it forward. According to the Quality Axiom, Data lifecycle l l and controls Data quality "What cannot be defined cannot be ? measured; Data security l l (funding, ownership, etc.) Oversight What cannot be measured cannot be improved, and What cannot be improved will eventually The recommendations provided by these deteriorate" specialists traditionally pivot around these categories, but on a closer look, each of these This is very much true in DG also. In DG, it is not dimensions have two components: enough to define metrics and measure results. a. Soft component (Level 1) – the easily Organizations need to be able to control and implementable ones and monitor them, too. The problem lies in setting up b. Hard component (Level 2 & 3) – something the infrastructure and control mechanisms which requires funding, effort and time to capable of continuous monitoring. To solve this, a build specialist is called for.
- 3. Figure. 1 3 Levels of Data Governance Implementation 1 2 3 Organization Structure Metadata Infrastructure Setup Data Quality Control Setup Roles & Responsibility Data Security Setup DG Dashboard Process Orchestration Business Rules Identification Alert Setup Policy & Compliance Data Quality Monitoring Setup Master Data Management Metadata Capture Metrics Identification Self-heal Mechanism Shorter time to implement No matter how well the recommendations are part of DG investment cost and fails to get the categorized and sub categorized, these two required funding. If a two-year roadmap is components always exist. The soft components proposed and every time funding is requested, the involving policy/process changes, re-organization, only reason quoted is DG, why would the sponsor etc. are relatively easy to set up. However, the approve the investment? A visible DG component hard components that involve infrastructure, cannot be shown during the initial phases and database, dashboards, etc. either get ignored or hence the business will lose its trust in the are partially implemented. It is this hard initiative. This can be termed as failure at Level-2 component that defines, “How many of the expert stage. recommendations can be converted to reality?” DG initiatives can result in power shifts and can be The 3-level approach (Figure 1) works well when very difficult for senior managers and those in the the organization is serious, has the required organization who have been enjoying process funding, resources and wants to setup DG in a authority. This aversion to change/give up power short time frame. paves the way for something termed as a failure at Level-1 stage. This is an organization culture issue Reality check: that needs to be addressed to move further. Implementing DG is not as simple as buying a product off the shelf and installing. Even Conclusion specialists sometimes turn down requests for implementing these hard components because of To enable a mature DG setup, organizations need inadequate Enterprise Information Management to step back and take a look at their existing (EIM) maturity. EIM architecture involves data architecture, get the foundational elements in sourcing, integration, storage and dissemination. place, and finally push hard to implement the Setting up the DG will be difficult if only one of necessary hard and soft DG components. The cost these components is weak. It is analogous to of implementing these foundational elements constructing a sky-scraper on a weak foundation. should not be considered as a part of DG initiative, because doing so will only result in undercutting Normally the specialists quote a price that the priority and interest in this critical involves setting up foundation elements such as undertaking. changing the ETL infrastructure, setting up Data governance has to be an evolving process in metadata, fixing master data, etc. to setup DG. The an organization. A big bang overnight business, instead of considering the cost of implementation of DG might not be always getting these foundation elements up and running advisable unless the foundational components are as separate investments, sees this expenditure as in place.
- 4. About the Author Jayakumar is part of Cognizant Technology Solution Ltd., DWBI Business Consulting Practice which specializes in Corporate Performance Management, DW&BI Strategy Definition, Enterprise Data Management, DW/BI Process Consulting and Point Solutions. He has worked with clients across verticals like Financial services, Life Science, Healthcare and Manufacturing. About Cognizant Cognizant (NASDAQ: CTSH) is a leading provider of information technology, consulting, and business process outsourcing services. Cognizant’s single-minded passion is to dedicate our global technology and innovation know- how, our industry expertise and worldwide resources to working together with clients to make their businesses stronger. With over 50 global delivery centers and approximately 100,000 employees as of December 31, 2010, we combine a unique global delivery model infused with a distinct culture of customer satisfaction. A member of the NASDAQ-100 Index and S&P 500 Index, Cognizant is a Forbes Global 2000 company and a member of the Fortune 1000 and is ranked among the top information technology companies in BusinessWeek’s Hot Growth and Top 50 Performers listings. Visit us online at www.cognizant.com for more information. World Headquarters European Headquarters India Operations Headquarters 500 Frank W. Burr Blvd. Haymarket House #5/535, Old Mahabalipuram Road Teaneck, NJ 07666 USA 28-29 Haymarket Okkiyam Pettai, Thoraipakkam Phone: +1 201 801 0233 London SW1Y 4SP UK Chennai, 600 096 India Fax: +1 201 801 0243 Phone: +44 (0) 20 7321 4888 Phone: +91 (0) 44 4209 6000 Toll Free: +1 888 937 3277 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7321 4890 Fax: +91 (0) 44 4209 6060 Email: inquiry@cognizant.com Email: infouk@cognizant.com Email: inquiryindia@cognizant.com © Copyright 2011, Cognizant. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written permission from Cognizant. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. All other trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners.