Need somewhere to start? How about the most wanted pages; or the pages we know need more work; or even the stub that somebody else has started, but hasn't been able to finish. Or create a ticket for any issues you have found.
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.
A Creation Guide exists that can be used to help complete this article. Contributors should reference this guide to help complete the article.
The Information Governance Solution Offering provides a comprehensive approach to improving Information Governance by a method for moving to an improved competency in how information is managed across the organization. This includes staff skill sets, policies, procedures and processes, organizational structures and technology. This solution offering is also a foundational aspect of the MIKE2.0 Methodology.
Executive Summary
There are varying definitions of the term "Information Governance". Whilst there is consensus that Information Governance includes Data Quality Management, it is difficult to get a consistent definition even at a high level. There are 3 primary reasons for this:
Data Quality is a complex topic that involves more than just the accuracy of data. Data Quality is typically measured across 7 quantitative dimensions and a number of qualitative dimensions. Composite data management issues such as referential integrity problems could also be considered data quality issues.
Data Quality Management involves more than just addressing historical data quality issues through data profiling and re-engineering. It involves preventing these issues from occurring in the first place. Issue prevention is complex, sometimes involving changes to source systems, business processes and supporting technology. Issues for some systems or users may not present a problem for others.
Data Governance can be seen to mean more than just Data Quality. It is sometimes used to cover a collection of best practices around the management of information: the ability to secure data, provide real-time access to data and deal with complex integration issues. Organisational efficiency and agility are also sometimes described as part of Data Governance.
The MIKE2.0 Methodology provides an approach for this broader definition of Data Governance and refers to this overall approach as Information Development. We believe that organizations have traditionally not given enough focus to this area and hence face many of the problems that they do today. MIKE2.0 provides an approach to implement a Data Governance programme that is very comprehensive in its scope and is aligned to addressing a number of other business problems which at their core are data management problems.
Why is a Comprehensive Approach Required for Data Quality Improvement?
A Comprehensive Data Governance Programme
Despite the tremendous cost of issues, most organisations are struggling to addresses their Data Quality issues. We believe there are 5 primary reasons why they are failing:
Our Systems are more complex than ever before. Companies now have more information and are conducting more integration between systems than ever before. New regulations, M&As, globalisation and increasing customer demands mean that information management challenges are increasingly formidable.
Silo-ed, short-term project delivery focus. As projects are often funded at a departmental level, they don’t account for the impacts of how data will be used by others. Data flows between systems and the design of these connection points must go across strict project boundaries.
Traditional development methods do not give enough focus to data management. Many projects are focused more on function and feature than on information – the desire to build new functionality has resulted in a information being left by the wayside.
Data Quality issues are Hidden and Persistent. Data quality issues can exist unnoticed for some time, although some users may suspect the data in the systems they rely on to make their decisions are not accurate, complete, current, valid, or consistent. This data can then get propagated to other systems as we increase connectivity. Organisations tend to underestimate the data quality issues in their systems.
Data Quality is Fit for Purpose. It is difficult for users of downstream systems to improve the data quality of their system because the data they derive information from is entered via customer facing operational systems. These customer facing system operators do not have the same incentive to maintain high data quality and they are focused on entering the data quickly and without rejection by the system at the point of entry. It is often when data is integrated, summarized, standardized and used in another context that quality issues begin to surface.
A comprehensive Data Governance programme must be defined to meet these challenges.
Why is a New Competency Model Required?
Many organisations have struggled to meet these challenges because they fail to focus their techniques on the enterprise-wide problem. They see information as a technology issue, rather than a fundamental and core business activity. In many ways information is the new accounting. Solutions required to address complex infrastructure and information issues are often contradictory to business funding models that are departmentally focused.
Defining an enterprise-wide programme, on the other hand, is also very difficult. Building momentum for these initiatives takes a long period of time and can easily lead to an approach that is out of touch with what the business needs. Attempts to enforce architectural governance, for example, quite easily become a disabling approach for the business or a "toothless watchdog" that provides little value.
Therefore, what is required is an approach that can address the inherit challenges on a federated business model and technology architecture in a manageable and effective fashion that fosters innovation - not an easy task. This is the rationale for MIKE2.0 and the need for a new competency of Information Development.
Moving from Data Governance to Information Governance
Because Information Management is a new field, practitioners have focused on what they know are structured data and have been wary of the more ambiguous aspects of governance such as Information Lifecycle Management (ILM), accountability, monitoring and Information Return on Investment (ROI) management. Therefore, a starting point for this solution relates to a consistent definition of this area and then provides assets related to people, process, organisation and technologies required for improved Information Governance.
MIKE2.0 has initially focused on an improved approach to Data Governance, with the aim of this solution being extended more broadly to also cover other forms of content. Through the collaborative method, Contributors are encouraged to help develop this solution in an emerging area.
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.
The Information Governance Offering is also a Foundational Solution . Foundational Solutions are "background" solutions that support the Core Solution Offerings of the MIKE2.0 Methodology.
Foundational Solutions are the lowest-assets assets within MIKE2.0 that are comprehensive in nature. They may tie together multiple Supporting Assets and are referenced from the Overall Implementation Guide and other Solution Offerings.
Solution Offering Relationship Overview
The Information Governance Solution Offering is part of the Architecture, Strategy and Governance Solution Group
The MIKE2.0 Solution Offering for Information Governance describes how the Activities and Supporting Assets of the MIKE2.0 Methodology can be used to deliver successful solutions for managing common master data across a number of systems in the enterprise.
MIKE2.0 Solutions provide a detailed and holistic way of addressing specific problems. MIKE2.0 Solutions can be mapped directly to the Phases 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
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.
Accountability. Due the nature of information capture and how it flows across the enterprise, everyone has a role to play in how it 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 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 while 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.
These capabilities are implemented across the 5 implementation phases.
The MIKE2.0 Solution for 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 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.
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. The most critical activities and how they relate to improving Information Governance are described briefly below:
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.
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.
Organisational QuickScan
The Organisational QuickScan for Information Development is about trying to quickly understand 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 an early indicator of the scope of the overall Information Governance programme.
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.
The Information Management Governance organisation should review all roles associated with Information Management along with the required skills for each role and the acitivities performed by these roles. The Information Management Roles, Skills and Activities shows typical roles associated with a generic Information Management setup. While the list of roles is extensive, it is not necessarily an exhaustive list. Every organisation will have special requirements. In addition, a role does not equate to a unique physical person. One person can handle multiple roles, especially within smaller organisations. More on that later. Also, a specific role can be performed by many people across the organisation. Skills and Activities associated with each role are also flexible and each organisation can use this table as a guideline and then customize it to their organisation.
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.
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)
From a 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.
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 done into 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.
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 resides 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.
Develop, Test, Deploy and Improve Activities (Phase 5)
The latter Activities of Phase 5 are focused on Continuous Improvement of the overall Data Governance processes, technology environment and operating model.
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:
In addition, reference other Core Solution Offerings for best design standards and implementation processes.
Relationships to other Solution Offerings
The Information Governance Solution Offering is a Foundational Solution for the MIKE2.0 Methodology. Therefore, most Solution Offerings are dependent on an Information Governance programme being in place.
The Data Quality Improvement Solution Offering is closely linked to the Information Governance Solution Offering as preventing these issues typically requires an improvement to Information Governance.
Extending the Open Methodology through Solution Offerings
Listed below are proposed extensions to the Overall Implementation Guide to meet the requirements for this Solution Offering:
Potential Activity Changes
Organisational QuickScan
The scope of QuickScan needs to be expanded to more broadly cover Information Management. IM QuickScan, for example, is primarily focused around Enterprise Data Management and, in particular, on Data Quality and Data Governance.
Data Governance Sponsorship and Scope
This activity will be being expanded to also give representation to unstructured content for complete coverage for the Information Governance offering.
Initial Data Governance Organisation
This activity will be being expanded to also give representation to unstructured content for complete coverage for the Information Governance offering.
