I recently participated in a roundtable during a conference in Paris organized by the French branch of DAMA, the data management international organization. During the question/answer part of the conference, it became clear that most of the audience was confusing data management with data governance (DG).This is a challenge my Forrester colleague Michele Goetz identified early in the DG tooling space. Because data quality and master data management embed governance features, many view them as data governance tooling. But the reality is that they remain data management tooling — their goal is to improve data quality by executing rules. This tooling confusion is only a consequence of how much the word governance is misused and misunderstood, and that leads to struggling data governance efforts.It’s critical to identify early what are the objectives (and potentially confusing objectives) of different stakeholders (quality versus costs and risks versus agility). Don't try to arrive at consensus on these objectives. Be aware of the gaps between them but also of how they relate to each other. For example, seeking 100% quality (a common objective for some data) could waste a huge amount of money without a reasonable return. Identify the KPIs associated with each objective and the limit threshold. A sign of bad data governance is showing only one metric addressing only one objective. Craft a preliminary metric target specifying a reasonable compromise for each project. Begin to consolidate the multiple project metrics into a simple representation showing the direction of their multiple unitary decisions. Using these multiple metrics and consolidating the direction to go in, you will get governance and ultimately achieve operational excellence.Henry Peyret is principal serving enterprise architecture professionals at Forrester Research. Read more Forrester blogs here.
You can skip this ad in 5 seconds