THE DATA ADMINISTRATION NEWSLETTER – TDAN.com
ROBERT S. SEINER – PUBLISHER

The Message

At the beginning of a recent presentation to an audience of data enthusiasts from dozens of companies and organizations – I asked everybody in attendance whose organization is doing data governance to raise their hands.  Approximately half of the hands went up – to one degree or another.

To make an important point, I premised the same question again by saying “Okay … this time I want everybody to raise their hand when I ask the same question.”  I asked the same question and everybody’s hand went up. To the audience’s surprise I said, “Now that’s more like it.” I received some confused glances at first but by the end of the session, the attendees understood the message.

In this article, I want to share that message with you and help you take that message to your management:

An Example

Let’s use your data warehousing environment as an example – as you likely have one or more of these, have been involved in building one of these, or at least have heard of these things if you are a reader of this publication and article.

When you were building your data warehouse, an individual or several individuals had the responsibility of defining what data went in the data warehouse. An individual(s) had the responsibility for producing that data through one or multiple extract, transform and loading processes.  An individual(s) had the responsibility for using the warehouse data for its intended purpose.  For each of the systems or data resources that fed the data warehouse, an individual(s) had the responsibility for defining, producing and using that data.  Responsibility abound throughout your data warehousing environment.

Decisions were (and still are) made around your data warehouse, issues were and are solved, security was and is applied, metadata was and is made available, data was and is exported for individual use … these are all occurrences around data warehousing and business intelligence.  You may do some of these things very well. Other things may need to be improved. These occurrences are a microcosm of the rest of your enterprise’s existing data governance. To some degree, the governance of data is taking place. Often there is no formal “thing” called Data Governance – but to a large degree, you are “executing and enforcing authority over the management of data and data-related resources,” my definition of Data Governance.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could put some structure around how we already govern our data without throwing a lot of money and resources at the “problem”? You can. I can tell you how. Take the “Non-Invasive Data Governance”™ approach.

Okay … that was a blatant attempt at getting you to learn more about the approach I use to help my clients implement Data Governance and Information Governance Programs.  But ... it is true! "Non-Invasive Data Governance"™ is a people-oriented solution that takes into account and formalizes existing levels of responsibility while specifically addressing opportunities to improve.

Five Parts of the Message

If you follow the “Non-Invasive Data Governance”™ Approach, or if you may be interested in following this approach, the five messages that you want to take to management are:

1. We ARE already governing data (but we are doing it informally).
     
2. We CAN formalize how we govern data by putting structure around what we are presently doing.
     
3. We CAN improve:
   • How We Manage Data Risk & Secure Data
   • Data Quality & Provide Quality Assurance
   • Coordination & Cooperation Around Data
   • Communications Around Data
       
4. We DO NOT Have to Spend A Lot of Money.
   • In fact … Data Governance only costs the time we put into it.
       
5. We need structure.  We should consider a “Non-Invasive Data Governance”™ Approach.

Let's walk through each of these five messages and demonstrate to management what we mean by these messages.

We ARE already governing data (but we are doing it informally).  There are already people in the organization that have responsibility for data. We should inventory who does what with the data and provide an operating model of roles and responsibilities that best suits our organization. At some level, there will need to be somebody that has an enterprise view and responsibility for data that cuts across the silos and manage data as a shared resource.  This will be our biggest challenge because it is not natural for us to manage data as a shared and enterprise resource. A challenge but a "do-able" challenge nonetheless.

We CAN formalize how we govern data by putting structure around what we are presently doing. There are people in our organization in operational, tactical, strategic and support roles around data. We need to know who they are and put formal structure around who is responsible, accountable, consulted and informed about the business rules and regulations associated with the data they define, produce and use.

We CAN Improve. Our Data Governance efforts can help us to improve how we manage risks associated with compliance, classification, security, business rules ... of our data. People of our organization potentially put us at risk every day when they are not assured of knowing the rules associated with the handling of data. Our efforts to improve the quality of data must be coordinated and cooperative across business units using the formal structure mentioned above. Quality assurance requires that operational and tactical staff have the ability to record, track and resolve known data quality issues. Our organization can immediately improve how we communicate about data through recording and sharing information about who does what with data.

We DO NOT Have to Spend A Lot of Money. Data Governance is not a costly endeavor.  Depending on the approach we take, Data Governance should only cost the time we put into it (okay ... perhaps with a little help from someone that has been down the path before).  Certainly Data Governance will require that an individual(s) spend the time defining and administering the Program, but there is large misconception that Data Governance must be over-and-above the existing work efforts of the organization. We should avoid calling things "Data Governance processes" because that gives people the impression that formal behavior around data definition, production and usage of data is the fault of data governance rather than the glue that assures these behaviors are handled properly.

We NEED structure.  We should consider the “Non-Invasive Data Governance”™ Approach. We must follow a proven approach to Data Governance that is not threatening to the people of our organization that will participate in the program. Data Governance will require that both the business and the technology areas of the organization take formal and shared accountability for how data is governed. The participants in the Data Governance Program already have "day jobs" and we must add value, not interfere, with what they do as their daily jobs. The goal of "Non-Invasive Data Governance"™ is to be transparent, supportive and collaborative. These concepts lie at the heart of the implementation of the "Non-Invasive Data Governance"™ approach. 

Conclusion

At first glance, implementing a Data Governance Program may appear to be a huge challenge. There is certainly some truth to this statement depending on the size and complexity of your organization but not for the reason most people believe. In the article, Non-Invasive Data Governance™ Explained, I describe exactly what is meant by being non-invasive in your approach to Data Governance. Take a look at that article and see if the approach, and the message shared with you in this article, will help you to convince management that Data Governance is already taking place. Tell them your organization just needs structure and a consistent and proven approach to implementing Data Governance.

- - - - -

“Non-Invasive Data Governance”™ is a trademark of Robert S. Seiner and KIK Consulting & Educational Services.

Copyright © 2010 - Robert S. Seiner and KIK Consulting & Educational Services