Networked Information Governance Solution Offering

From MIKE2.0 Methodology

(Redirected from Governance 2.0 Solution Offering)

-> You are here: Networked Information Governance Solution Offering

This Solution Offering currently receives Major Coverage in the MIKE2.0 Methodology. Most required activities are provided through the Overall Implementation Guide and SAFE Architecture, but some Activities are still missing and there are only a few Supporting Assets. In summary, aspects of the Solution Offering can be used but it cannot be used as a whole.

1 Introduction
2 Solution Offering Definition
- 2.1 Capabilities for Information Governance
- 2.2 Additional Capabilities for Networked Information Governance
3 Creating Mashups to MIKE2.0 for Governance 2.0
4 Relationship to Solution Capabilities
5 Relationships to other Solution Offerings
6 Extending the Open Methodology through Solution Offerings

Introduction

MIKE2.0 Solutions

Composite Solutions

The Networked Information Governance (Governance 2.0) Solution Offering brings a collaborative aspect to a traditional Information Governance approach. This networked approach makes it easier to collaborate on the definition and implementation of common standards, methods and architecture. It enables Information Governance to be more easily implemented in a physically central, virtual or offshore model. This helps to address challenges faced by many governance programs that struggle to build momentum, face a governance model that may go against organizational culture or see this approach as being prohibitive to agility.

Executive Summary

From corporate fraud to failed personal protection acts, poor management of information has lead to a number of recent disasters - for government authorities and the private sector. This has resulted in increasing demands for openness and transparency from shareholders and employees, which fundamentally means better information. In addition, organisations must perform analysis as never before due to new security threats and increased competition.

The web accelerated the information management problem that had been growing for years – ever since organisations first moved to federated technology architectures. Many organisations now feel stuck in a web of information and they need a way out. The difficult position that most organizations are now in is that they cannot start over to get out of this mess – they have to fix the problems from the past while they move forward at an ever-increasing pace.

From their experience in application development and technology infrastructure, most organisations know that governance and standards are a key to getting control of complex issues. Unlike a few years ago, Information Governance now regularly ranks at the top of CIO priorities. This should is a considered a major step forward in moving towards a model of Information Development.

Despite their recognition of the problem, many organizations are still failing. A recent survey from the Data Warehouse Institute lists that only 8% of organizations have implemented successful Information Governance programs. Part of this is because moving to common standards, models and information processes involves difficult centralisation process. It can be hard to build momentum, may go against organisational culture and is often prohibitive to agility. As shown through the example of the web, governance is the key to the success of a networked model. A networked model can also be the key to governance. By making it easier to collaborate on the definition and implementation of common standards, methods and architecture this model can be implemented in a physically central, virtual or offshore model.

Solution Offering Purpose

This is a Core Solution Offering. Core Solution Offerings bring together all assets in MIKE2.0 relevant to solving a specific business and technology problem. Many of these assets may already exist and as the suite is built out over time, assets can be progressively added to an Offering.

A Core Solution Offering contains all the elements required to define and deliver a go-to-market offering. It can use a combination of open, shared and private assets.

Solution Offering Relationship Overview

The MIKE2.0 Solution Offering for Networked Information Governance describes how the Activities and Supporting Assets of the MIKE2.0 Methodology can be used to apply Enterprise 2.0 techniques to extend a traditional approach to Information Governance. This comprehensive solution brings together many aspects of the overall MIKE2.0 Methodology and also makes recommendations on the use of external assets.

MIKE2.0 Solutions provide a detailed and holistic way of addressing specific problems. MIKE2.0 Solutions can be mapped directly to the Phase and Activities of the MIKE2.0 Overall Implementation Guide, providing additional content to help understand the overall approach.

The MIKE2.0 Overall Implementation Guide explains the relationships between the Phases, Activities and Tasks of the overall methodology as well as how the Supporting Assets tie to the overall Methodology and MIKE2.0 Solutions.

Users of the MIKE2.0 Methodology should always start with the Overall Implementation Guide and the MIKE2.0 Usage Model as a starting point for projects.

Solution Offering Definition

This Solution Offering provides a strategy and set of implementation techniques for implementing Networked Information Governance concepts and technologies in any organisation. As a Composite Solution Offering, it brings together other Solution Offerings in the MIKE2.0 Methodology. It makes use of 2 offerings within MIKE2.0:

It is the techniques from Enterprise 2.0 that are used to improve the “informal network” that exists within every organisation and its connection with the outside world to enable the a more sophisticated approach to Information Governance. Listed below are the capabilities for a more traditional approach to Information Governance followed by the aspects of "Networked" Information Governance.

Capabilities for Information Governance

Listed below are the most important factors to a successful Information Governance programme and are enabled from this Solution Offering. This definition provides the target scope for this solution offering, which also includes unstructured content. These capabilities are implemented across the 5 implementation phases.

Accountability. Due the nature of information capture and how it flows across the enterprise, everyone has a role to play in how information is governed. Many of the most important roles are played by individuals that are fairly junior in the organization as the root cause of most issues are at the data capture stage. There must, however, be individuals dedicated to Information Governance. These roles are filled by senior executives such as the CIO, Information Architects and Data and Content Stewards.

Efficient Operating Models. The Information Governance approach should define an organizational structure that most effectively handles the complexities of integration and information management across the whole of the organization. Although there will typically be some centralization as information flows across the pillars of the business, this organizational model need not be a single, hierarchical team. The common standards, methods, architecture and collaborative techniques that are all part of Information Governance are what allow this model to be implemented in a physically central, virtual or offshore model. Assessment tools and techniques should be provided to move to these new organizational models in a progressive fashion over time.

A Common Methodology. An Information Governance program should include a common set of activities, tasks and deliverables to build a competency that is specialized for Information Management. This enables greater reuse of artifacts and resources as well as higher productivity out of individuals. It also helps bring out the commonalities of different Information Management initiatives across the organization.

Standard Models. A common definition of terms, domain values and their relationships is one of the fundamental building blocks of Information Governance. This should go beyond a traditional data dictionary to also include a lexicon of unstructured content. It should also cover “data in motion” by defining common messaging interfaces. Business and technical definitions should be represented and the lineage between them easy to navigate.

Architecture. An Information Management architecture should be defined for the current-state, transition points and target vision. The inherit complexity of this initiative will require this architecture to be represented through multiple views, such as is done in Krutchen’s Model. Use of architectural design patterns and common component models is a key aspect of good governance. This architecture must accommodate a heterogeneous technology environment that will need to change over time and quickly adapt to new requirements.

Comprehensive Scope. An Information Governance approach should be comprehensive in its scope, covering structured data and unstructured content. It should also cover the whole lifecycle of information, from its initial creation, to integration across systems, its archiving a and eventual destruction. This comprehensive scope can only be brought together with an architecture-driven approach and well defined roles and responsibilities.

Information Value Assessment. Organizations place a very high value on their information assets and will view their organization as significantly de-valued when these assets are unknown . An Information Value Assessment should provide a mechanism to assign an economic value to the information assets an organizations holds and the resulting impacts of Information Governance practices on this value. It must also measure whether the return outweighs the cost and the time required to attain this return. This is an area where current methods are particularly immature but some models do exist. This is an area where industry models must greatly improve, similar to what has occurred in the past 10 years in the infrastructure space.

Senior Leadership. Senior Leaders face great pressure due to information management issues. CIOs, for example, must face a host of business users that are increasingly demanding about the information that they want and a leadership team that now blame failures on "bad data". In the post Sarbanes-Oxley environment where CFOs are asked to sign off on financial statements, the quality of data and the systems that produce that data are being scrutinized now more than ever before. CMOs are being asked to grow revenues with less manpower, new regulations around the management of information are getting in their way of being effective. Senior Leaders must align and work towards a common goal of improved information, while appreciating Information Management is still immature as a discipline and that there will be some major challenges ahead.

Historical Quantification. In the majority of cases the most difficult aspect of Information Management is that most organizations are trying to fix 20 – 30 years of “bad behavior”. The current-state is often unknown, even at an architectural or model level. The larger the organization the more complex this problem becomes. Historical quantification through common architectural models and tools-based quantitative assessments of data and content are key aspects of establishing a known baseline to move forward. For such a significant task this assessment must be done in a progressive fashion as opposed to all at once.

Strategic Approach. An Information Governance program will need to address complex issues across the organization. Improvements will typically be measured over months and years, not days. Therefore, a strategic approach is required so that a comprehensive program of work can be implemented over long periods of time through multiple release cycles. The strategic approach will be at a level of detail that allows for flexibility to change but still meaningful enough to deal with complex issues.

Continuous Improvement. It is not always cost-effective to fix all issues in a certain area, but to instead follow the “80/20 rule”. An Information Governance program should explicitly plan to re-visit past activities and build on a working baseline through audits, monitoring, technology re-factoring and personnel training. Organizations should look for opportunities to “release early, release often” but remember what this means from a planning and budgeting perspective.

Flexibility for Change. While an Information Governance program involves putting standards in place, it must have an inbuilt pragmatism and flexibility for change. A strong governance process doesn’t mean that exceptions can’t be granted, only that it must be known when exceptions are occurring. The Continuous Improvement approach means that some workarounds can be initially granted and then re-factored at a later point in time in order to balance short-term business priorities.

Governance Tools. Measuring the effectiveness of an Information Governance program requires tools to capture assets and performance. Just as application development and service delivery tools exist, organizations need a way to measure information assets, actions and their behaviors.

Additional Capabilities for Networked Information Governance

It is the techniques from Enterprise 2.0 that are used to improve the “informal network” that exists within every organisation and its connection with the outside world to enable the a more sophisticated approach to Information Governance. In addition to the capabilities defined in the Information Governance Solution Offering, Networked Information Governance involves:

Collaborative Community. Implementing a governance program will require teamwork and communications, often involving individuals that do not work together closely on a daily basis. Key enablers for the networked approach to Information Governance are collaborative technologies such as blogs, wikis and forums that encourage user-driven content. These technologies can help streamline communications and capture content that is part of the informal network.

Organising the Informal Network. Content classification through categorization is an important part of organizing the informal network. By building a content model that is easily populated through user-driven categorisation, informal collaboration begins to take on more formal structures while still remaining easy for users.

Aggregation of Ideas. Not all good ideas have to come from the inside. Whether it comes from online books or a discussion on the web, there is no shortage of valuable techniques for Information Governance. Once a standard taxonomy is in place these ideas can be linked into an organization’s approach without providing “information overload”. Social Bookmaking techniques provide an easy way to bring linked content together and can make use of standard tags for organisation.

Linking the Informal to Formal. The same principle of applying content categories to the informal network can be applied to more traditional governance processes and to link formal and informal assets together. Formal Information Governance processes are used to define this taxonomy.

Searching the Knowledge Network. Access to federated information will be key to the success of the program. As the implementation will span formal and informal networks and internal and external systems, Enterprise Search techniques should be implemented to make this information easily accessible. Security models must be put in place to balance user access with privacy requirements.

Collaborative Asset Management. The maturity of your business and technology assets should be a known quantity and this information easily shared across the organization. As part of the Information Governance programme assets should be continually improved and their effectiveness rated by the community at large and domain leaders. Whether they be re-usable Data Management Services or Governance Policies, collaboration is important to improving and sharing assets in a large organization.

Creating Mashups to MIKE2.0 for Governance 2.0

Bringing this all together is a Global Standards Body. Having an external perspective through a central authority can help to balance competing interests and work to a similar approach. This is the goal of the MIKE2.0 Methodology and it is an important enabler for Networked Information Governance. This same collaborative approach is also important for continually improving MIKE2.0

The standard provided by MIKE2.0 links to the best IM assets on the web and within a company. Using OmCollab, you can quickly integrate MIKE2.0 with your own internally-held assets.

Relationship to Solution Capabilities

This Solution Offering maps into the Solution Capabilities of MIKE2.0 as described below.

Relationship to Enterprise Views

The MIKE2.0 Solution for Networked Information Governance covers all areas of Information Development, across people, process, organisation, technology and strategy. It is a key enabler to delivering an Information Management competency and moving to a model of a sophisticated Information Governance Organisation.

Mapping to the Information Governance Framework

This Solution Offering provides the Information Governance Framework for MIKE2.0 and is a Foundational Solution for MIKE2.0 as well as being a go-to-market offering. Foundational Solutions are used to support all Solution Offerings across the MIKE2.0 Methodology. The Networked aspect of this solution take this baseline approach and extends it, with the goal of making it easier to implement across a highly federated organisation.

Mapping to the SAFE Architecture Framework

Developing a common architectural framework is an important part of a holistic approach to Information Governance. The SAFE Architecture provides a complementary Foundational Solution to the Information Governance Framework. Key aspects of the architecture in relation to this offering include:

A systematic approach that goes from building the blueprint conceptual architecture to an incremental Solution Architecture
A detailed methodology for product selection, design and construction
Defines a standards-based, services-driven architecture
Provides an approach that allows capabilities to be delivered progressively

Through this approach a consistent architecture can be defined and implemented over time that complements the people, process, and organisational aspects of Information Governance

Mapping to the Overall Implementation Guide

There are a number of aspects that make up the MIKE2.0 approach to improving Information Governance and the operating model for how it is delivered. It crosses the 5 phases of the overall approach. It brings together the key activities for Information Governance and Enterprise 2.0 into an integrated solution.

The Usage Model for Composite Core Solution Offerings provides a list of all the required activities for this offering. Shown below are the most important activities for a typical programme and how they relate to the overall approach.

Business Assessment and Strategy Definition (Phase 1)

Improving Information Governance as part of MIKE2.0 is initiated from the onset of the programme, during the definition of the Business Blueprint. Phase 1 Activities for improving Information Governance include assessment of the current-state environment and establishing the initial Data Governance team.

Enterprise Information Management Awareness

The Enterprise Information Management Awareness activity is important to make sure the team has a firm understanding on the key concepts before moving forward on the engagement.

An effective approach is to first start with the more traditional definition of Data and Content Governance, before moving to the rationale for the collaborative approach that is present in Networked Information Governance.

Business Strategy for Overall Information Development

For Information Governance the Overall Business Strategy for Information Development is required but this is normally done within the context of an Information Management Strategy engagement. If it has not been done at a strategic level it should be done as part of this programme.

From a collaboration perspective, this activity also defines the scope of information to be shared and jointly developed, as well as the ultimate knowledge goals for the organisation. It will be helpful at this time to draw the boundaries and relationships for information that will be developed through more formal networks vs. those that are more informal.

Organisational QuickScan

The Organisational QuickScan for Information Development is about trying to quickly understand of the organisation’s current environment for Information Governance and to begin to establish the vision for where it would like to go throughout the programme. This means that some of the key tasks within this Activity involve capturing the current-state set of practices around Information Governance, which are often poorly documented. As MIKE2.0 uses a broad definition of Information Governance, this assessment process involves People, Process, Organisation and Technology. QuickScan assessments are a core part of this activity as they not only provide a rich starter set of questions but also provide maturity guidelines for organisations. The gap between the current-state assessment and the envisioned future-state gives as early indicator of the scope of the overall Information Governance programme.

Future State Vision for Information Management

Defining the overall Information Management Architecture and Standards are an important part of Information Governance. If this is not done within another programme, it should be done as part of an Information Governance programme by defining the Future State Vision for Information Management. The strategic logical and physical architectures may also be reviewed in later activities.

The Future State Vision for Information Management is an important activity for defining the strategic conceptual architecture for Enterprise 2.0-style collaboration if it does not exist. Implementation of Enterprise 2.0 techniques and technologies for Networked Information Governance will introduce some fundamental changes to business process although it should be noted that this flexibility does not result in the complete removal of process. The controls put in place for collaborative content development are different than what may be seen in some Web 2.0 environments.

Data Governance Sponsorship and Scope

In order to conduct a successful Data Governance programme, it is important to have sponsorship at senior levels. Data Governance Sponsorship and Scope is focused on defining what this initial scope will be for improved Data Governance, based on the high-level information requirements and the results of the organisational assessment. This leadership team will play an ongoing role on the project.

Initial Data Governance Organisation

The Initial Data Governance Organisation is focused on establishing the larger Data Governance Organisation. Roles and Responsibilities are established and the overall Organisational structure is formalised. Communications models for Data Governance are also established, which become a critical aspect of issue resolution and prevention further down in the implementation process. The Data Governance Organisation that is established at this point will become more sophisticated over time. The continuous implementation phases of MIKE2.0 (phases 3,4,5) revisit organisational structure for each increment and there are specific improvement activities around moving to an Information Development Organisational model in Phase 5.

Return on Investment of Information Assets

The Return on Investment of Information Assets activity is under development. It will be an important activity in the Information Governance Solution Offering but measuring information value and providing and overall business case for Information Management.

Programme Review

The Programme Review activity is important for assessing that the Information Management programme is aligning with overall strategy and the methodological approach. It should be conducted on a periodic basis.

Technology Assessment and Selection Blueprint (Phase 2)

If a set of technologies do not exist that provide Enterprise 2.0-style capabilities, a process will be required to establish requirements, assess the current-state for suitable technologies, definition of future state architectures and technology selection.

From a traditional Data Governance perspective, two of the key Activities involve the development of Policies and Standards that will be used as part of the implementation phases of the project. As part of the Continuous Improvement approach introduced in Phase 5, Audits will be conducted to enforce the use of standards and policies and communication will be used as the basis of improved culture. It is also at this point that we try and begin capturing information into a metadata repository in a more structured fashion that will better translate into design and built assets.

Strategic Requirements for Technology Backplane Development

In the MIKE2.0 Methodology, Enterprise 2.0 technologies are seen to reside along the Technology Backplane of Information Development and Infrastructure Development. This activity is used to define the capabilities that are needed for the strategic implementation of these programme.

Strategic Non-Functional Requirements

Strategic Non-Functional Requirements for Enterprise 2.0 are defined at a overarching level in this activity. For Networked Information Governance to be effective, there must a significant focus on usability, performance and ability to scale to meet future business volume growth requirements. Users will expect the solution to be easy to use from their experience with sites on the public internet and a quick capturing of requirements at this time will help shape the design in later stages. Note that these requirements should be done quickly – getting a working system in front of users and re-working through prototyping is a much more effective method for meeting usability requirements.

Current-State Logical Architecture

The Current-State Logical Architecture assesses the current capabilities in the environment for Collaboration and Knowledge Exchange. For example, there may be existing content in a number of knowledge repositories that will be accessed through new Search technology; existing Search technology may be used to access a new Social Bookmarking system.

Future-State Logical Architecture and Gap Analysis

The Future-State Logical Architecture and Gap Analysis builds on the conceptual architecture that is already defined and takes it to the level of detail required to make strategic technology decisions for collaboration. A gap analysis can then be conducted be conducted between the current-state and future-state to determine which technologies can be re-used.

Future-State Physical Architecture and Vendor Selection

Through defining the Future-State Physical Architecture and Vendor Selection, logical capabilities are mapped to specific product options for collaboration. This mapping is then used to make technology decisions, oftentimes through an RFP-based selection process.

Data Policies

Data Governance Policies are derived from the Policies and Guidelines developed in Phase 1. These high-level policies impact the definition of Data Standards, in particular data security, normalisation and auditing practices.

Data Standards

Data Standards are an important part of Data Governance as standards take complexity out of the implementation process though common language, term definitions and usage guidelines. The standards should be established before the implementation teams begin any detailed work. This will make sure that the team is using a common set of techniques and convention and working within the overall policy framework for Data Governance. As part of an overall Data Governance programme, standards are typically developed for:

Data Specification
Data Modelling
Data Capture
Data Security
Data Reporting
Data Standards should be straightforward and follow a common set of best practices. Oftentimes, Data Standards will already exist that can be leveraged.

Metadata Driven Architecture

The strategy, design and implementation of a Metadata Driven Architecture is a key part of the approach to improving Data Governance. Metadata management is developed across multiple activities in MIKE2.0, eventually maturing to a more active approach to metadata integration. The metadata management architecture and supporting development practices are a critical aspect of MIKE2.0, evidenced by the metadata architecture overlay of the SAFE Architecture that goes across all components in the architecture.

It is important to get metadata management practices in place from the onset. As Phase 2 involves strategic technology requirements and product selection, the implementation team may lack the tools with which they plan to strategically manage metadata and ideally move to a metadata-driven environment. Therefore, projects will often need to take a tactical approach in the early stages. Regardless of whether a product has been selected yet, MIKE2.0 recommends some form of repository and base meta-model be in place from the onset. MIKE2.0 provides a starter set model for metadata management that encapsulated much of the core metadata that we want to capture. During the Blueprint phase, this model can be used to collect information that historical would have been captured in documents or spreadsheets.

Roadmap and Foundation Activities (Phase 3)

The Foundation Activities of MIKE2.0 are arguably the most important aspects of the overall methodology for improving Data Governance. The focus in implementing the Foundation Activities is around those Key Data Elements that are deemed the most crucial to the business.

Detailed Business Requirements

When developing the Detailed Business Requirements for Networked Information Governance, the focus is on the scope of information to be shared and defining the more detailed functional requirements for collaboration. As users will be driving the content creation, this activity is generally more focused on scope as opposed to capability.

Taxonomy Design

The Taxonomy Design activity defines the structures for relating content to one another. For collaboration and knowledge environment, the development of this taxonomy is one of the critical aspects of the solution. As part of the taxonomy design, an approach will be defined to bring together a formally designed structure to one that grows more organically.

Business Scope for Improved Data Governance

Definition of the Key Data Elements as part of the Business Scope for Improved Data Governance is a key part of the MIKE2.0 approach to Data Governance. KDEs help focus the work to be done to the most critical data that impacts business users. Data valuation then assigns value to KDEs that are used to prioritize the scope of the Data Governance program. The Data Governance approach focuses primarily on these KDEs for each increment.

Enterprise Information Architecture

Most organisations do not have a well-defined Enterprise Information Architecture. MIKE2.0 takes the approach of building out the Enterprise Information Architecture over time for each new increment that is implemented as part of the overall programme. The scope for building the Enterprise Information Architecture is defined by the in-scope Key Data Elements (KDEs). The Enterprise Information Architecture includes the model to support these KDEs, what systems they reside in, the mastering rules for this data and how often it is to be mastered.

Root Cause Analysis of Data Governance Issues

Preventing Data Governance issues involves analyzing those process activities or application automation that prevents Data Governance issues from occurring in the first place. Root Cause Analysis of Data Governance Issues is concerned with correcting root cause issues as opposed to addressing the symptoms.

Data Governance Metrics

Data Governance Metrics are focused on defined areas to be measured for the KDEs, to assess current performance levels and set targets for improvement. Each KDE is measured against the defined metric category through the appropriate measurement technique.

Data Profiling

Data Profiling is used to quantitatively identify Data Quality issues. This is a key aspect to improving Data Governance as it provides clear results on actual data. MIKE2.0 recommends Data Profiling be conducted frequently as an approach to improve overall Data Governance.

Data Re-Engineering

Data Re-Engineering helps improve Data Governance by dealing with historical Data Quality issues that are typically identified in Data Profiling. MIKE2.0 recommends that Data Re-Engineering follow a serial process of standardisation, correction, matching and enrichment but that this process by conducted iteratively, following the "80/20 rule". This provides a model improving Data Governance is the most cost-effective and expedient fashion.

Phase 4 - Design Increment

Whereas traditional Data Governance does not employ any design and development activities, there are a number of activities for Networked Information Governance that support the development of a collaborative system.

Information Security Design

Information Security Design defines which information can be seen by users within the collaborative environment. The most important aspects of security design relate to how information is accessed and who can edit content. Group-based access control is typically used to implement security rules. Information Security is particular important for those initiatives that interact with outside communities.

Infrastructure Management Process Design

The Infrastructure Management Process Design applies to the back-end environment that stores content. It also applies to the management processes and technology responsible for holding backup content from the collaboration environment and making it quickly available in the case of a recovery scenario.

Data Integration Logical Design

Data Integration Logical Design is particularly relevant in relation to federated Search. Within this activity, logical adapter interfaces are defined that may go through an application interface or the back-end of a system.

Data Integration Physical Design

Data Integration Physical Design is particularly relevant to federated Search. Physical design of interfaces incorporate the technical details of how the interface will be developed as well as considerations such as performance and reliability.

Collaborative Framework Design

Collaborative Framework Design is one of the most important activities for this Solution Offering and all tasks are needed. It is the activity that defines how users will interact with one another, how internal and external assets will be brought together in the collaborative environment and how users may specifically classify content.

User Interface Design

The User Interface Design activity defines the front-end interface in which a user will interact with the collaborative system. For successful Enterprise 2.0 engagement, the simplicity of this interface design is essential.

Develop, Test, Deploy and Improve Activities (Phase 5)

Through development, testing and deployment activities the solution the prototyped is hardened and implemented into production.

The latter Activities of Phase 5 are focused on Continuous Improvement of the overall Data Governance processes, technology environment and operating model.

Technology Backplane Development

Through development, testing and deployment activities the solution the prototyped is hardened and implemented into production. The Technology Backplane Development activity covers the development of integration and information management components for Enterprise 2.0. This includes development of interfaces, web components and security technologies.

Testing Activities

Depending on the complexity of the solution, different testing activities will be required although testing is generally not complex. Functional Testing and some level of System Integration Testing will be required at a minimum; SVT is are also important. Perhaps most important is UAT; it should be ensured that are users are actively engaged throughout the development and testing process. Integration to the outside world may also require some specialized testing focused on security, performance and usability. Testing for Enterprise 2.0 technologies is much quicker than other types of engagements.

Continuous Improvement – Compliance Auditing

Continuous Improvement - Compliance Auditing are conducted by an external group as opposed to the internal Data Governance team. Audits don’t involve the technical aspects of data analysis (i.e. data profiling), but instead involves inspection of results and looking at overall processes for Data Governance.

Continuous Improvement – Standards, Policies and Processes

Continuous Improvement - Standards, Policies and Processes revisits the overall set of standards, metrics, policies and processes for Data Governance. Recommended changes feed into the next increment of work as part of the continuous implementation approach of the MIKE2.0 Methodology.

Continuous Improvement – Data Quality

Continuous Improvement - Data Quality involves identification of root causes and ongoing Data Quality monitoring. This allows a far more proactive approach to Data Governance, whereby organization can either address issues quickly or stop them from occurring altogether.

Continuous Improvement – Infrastructure

Continuous Improvement - Infrastructure environment involves closely monitoring the current-environments and instituting tactical changes that are inline with the strategic vision of improved Data Governance.

Continuous Improvement – Information Development Organisation

MIKE2.0 recommends an Information Development Organisation as the most mature organisational model for improving Data Governance in the most efficient and effective fashion. Using the Information Maturity Model first introduced in Organisational QuickScan Activity, the Continuous Improvement - Information Development Organisation approach progressively moves the organisation to the optimal approach for Data Governance.

Mapping to Supporting Assets

Improving Information Governance should go across people, process, organisation and technology. In addition to following the relevant Activities from the Overall Implementation Guide, the following artifacts from MIKE2.0 can be used to assist in this effort:

An assessment tool to measure where an organisation is at on the Information Maturity Model

The Centre of Excellence Delivery Model Solution Offering provides recommended Role Definitions and Organisational Models

The SAFE Architecture provides a target architecture model at the conceptual level as well as best practice solution architecture options

Sample Information Governance Policies that can be applied onto projects. These are general policies that can be applied on information management engagements. They are the next level down in detail from Information Management Guiding Principles.

Integrating a Formal Taxonomy to an Informal Taxonomy is important as a means to bridge different forms of content

Strategic Capabilities for Enterprise 2.0 can be used to help define the rationale for the Networked approach to Information Governance

High Level Solution Architecture Options for Enterprise Search provide different models that can be applied to get access to federated content

In addition, reference other Core Solution Offerings for best design standards and implementation processes.

Relationships to other Solution Offerings

Information Governance Solution Offering provides the foundation for this offering

The Enterprise 2.0 Solution Offering provides the collaborative approach that is applied for Networked Information Governance

Extending the Open Methodology through Solution Offerings