Open Framework, Information Management Strategy & Collaborative Governance | Data & Social Methodology - MIKE2.0 Methodology
Wiki Home
Collapse Expand Close

Collapse Expand Close

To join, please contact us.

Improve MIKE 2.0
Collapse Expand Close
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.

Strategic Change Drivers Deliverable Template

From MIKE2.0 Methodology

Jump to: navigation, search
Under construction.png
This article is currently Under Construction. It is undergoing major changes as it is in the early stages of development. Users should help contribute to this article to get it to the point where is ready for a Peer Review.
This deliverable template is used to describe a sample of the MIKE2.0 Methodology (typically at a task level). More templates are now being added to MIKE2.0 as this has been a frequently requested aspect of the methodology. Contributors are strongly encouraged to assist in this effort.
Deliverable templates are illustrative as opposed to fully representative. Please help add examples to this template that are representative of the proposed output.


Strategic Change Drivers are the organisation’s motivations for achieving its business vision or the areas of difficulty the organisation is currently experiencing. The implications of change will affect one or more areas across the Enterprise View of the organisation and should be summarised in these terms whenever possible. Change drivers may include:

  • Technological developments
  • Loss of market share or key clients
  • Emerging market opportunities
  • New employment patterns
  • New organisational structures
  • Laws and regulations such as Sarbanes Oxley, Basel II
  • Environmental issues
  • Need to reduce cost
  • New competitors

Example 1 - Drivers for a Centralized Information Architecture

  • A Lack of Enterprise Integration - Over recent years, we have addressed many data issues through short term fixes, which although appear low cost at the time, increase the overall complexity of our systems and reduce transparency. This results in a high relative cost of infrastructure.
  • A lack of an Integrated Data Management Environment - To date, we have not employed any data profiling nor undertaken any data quality work within the department This means that for many key applications, we do not measure data quality nor identify target areas requiring improvement.
  • Lack of a Common Messaging Model – To date, each system’s integration needs have been met on a case by case basis, resulting in duplication in data extract and transportation costs, and an inability to leverage existing processes in future development requirements. A CMM should be a key component to significantly reduce our data integration costs going forward and to rationalise our exiting spend.
  • A lack of an Integrated Sub-Ledger - In our current environment, the source data feeds posted to the General Ledger are “raw” data feeds. The result is that the GL retains a large amount of data, which it then provides to further “down stream” systems which in turn undertake manual reconciliations to assess data quality and identify missing data. One of the impacts on the GL is to continually increase its database size. Remediation work is already being addressed as part of the Business Case for Finance Process Remediation.
  • Proliferation of End User Reporting Tools - In our current reporting environment, we have reporting tools from a number of suppliers. To generate our management, regulatory and risk reports, we connect all of these tools together. These tools have databases within them, have various business rules and data modifications and have complex “macros” performing various tasks. This environment presents a significant operational risk and adds significant complexity and cost to our reporting.
Wiki Contributors
Collapse Expand Close