Governance is defined as the act, process or power of governing. Stated a different way, governance is the system or method of management. For without governance, there would be chaos. Do you think there was appropriate governance on Wall Street?
Corporate governance is a term that refers broadly to the rules, processes or laws by which businesses are operated, regulated and controlled. The term can refer to internal factors defined by the officers, stockholders or constitution of a corporation, as well as to external forces such as consumer groups, clients and government regulations.
Well-defined and enforced corporate governance provides a structure that, at least in theory, works for the benefit of everyone concerned by ensuring that the enterprise adheres to accepted ethical standards and best practices as well as to formal laws. To that end, organizations have been formed at the regional, national, and global levels.
Similar to corporate governance, data governance is a term that refers broadly to rules, processes or practices by which data is collected, shared, utilized and updated across the enterprise. Similar to corporate governance, stakeholders and custodians for the data assets need to be identified along with well-defined policies around the integrity and up-keep of the data assets.
If every decision and every operation relies on good quality data, is it safe to assume that the quality of that data is the best it can be? Who manages that data? Who has ownership of ensuring the quality of the underlying data that corporate systems rely on and every employee relies on for analysis and operation? Is it the role of IT? Not in my opinion…
The integrity of the data (completeness, accuracy, validity, reliability, fit for use) needs to be clearly understood by all-and accountability needs to lie with every employee within the organization, not just the data stewards or the data custodians. This is where I differ from most of the industry analysts.
You see, just as it is up to every corporate citizen to uphold the corporation’s ethical standards, best practices, and laws, it is up to every member of the corporation’s data community – those who generate it, refine it, analyze it, and use it – to adhere to best practices and data governance rules.
Today, business practices across departments encourage poor data quality practices at the point of capture and entry. For example:
- CSRs are measured on the speed and quantity of calls answered, but not the quality of the information captured.
- Sales reps are measured on their quota achievement and there is no accountability in terms of what they enter into SFA systems that cause product shipment and billing invoice delays.
- POS clerks, in retail or hospitality are incented to sign-up customers for royalty cards, regardless of whether they were an existing customer.
Such practices lie at the root of why many companies bleed cash and lose face with their customers and often are not even aware of such problems.
Data Governance and accountability needs to lie with every employee and business partner and not just one or two individuals who would otherwise end up fighting a losing battle and be set up for failure.
I believe data governance is everybody’s business. How about you?
Couldn’t agree more Navin. Why has it taken so long for organisations to get past the pointless question “who owns the data?”
Nobody ever asks “Who owns the money?” Cash flows through the organisation and wherever people are empowered to use it they are responsible and accountable for proper stewardship of that resource. Just because companies have accountants doesn’t mean the sole responsibility rests with them.
Data custodians and data stewards stand in the same relationship to the resource that is data – and every person in the organisation has a duty of care for that resource while it is in their hands, just as they would if if it were money
- and in a very real sense – it is!
Keep spreading the word!!
Gary Palmer, Chief Alchemist, Information Alchemy
I’m in complete agreement with you on this, Navin. The way companies are structured, the philosophy that data quality is the task of a single department or a named member of staff, and that it can only be achieved through the use of specific data quality “tools”, all militate against good data quality. We need to get this message out, as it is not recognised even amongst some data quality “experts”.
The roles of data custodians / stewards arose due to the vast amounts of poor quality data floating around enterprises. People had got the data wrong and now somebody how to find out just how wrong and then put it right.
In manufacturing this type of role used be carried out by the quality control team, who inspected products from the production line, identified defects and then rejected some or all of the batch.
Good manufacturing businesses moved away from quality control and to quality assurance. They learned that it is possible to make things right first time, every time and that this saves megabucks.
Sadly the world of information management is still back in the dark ages of “quality control”, where business functions and processes can be performed in a manner that allows inaccurate and incorrect data to be captured or created along the way. Then the business has to spend time and money finding and correcting this data, while at the same time suffering the losses and inefficiencies caused by the bad data.
It is true that the quality is the responsibility of everybody. But instead of saying “people must do better”, enterprises should be saying “the process must do better” and enforce (and enable) the capture of accurate data first time as an integrated part of the function / process.
Where accuracy cannot be enforced first time, there should be a “feedback” loop that forces the creator of the inaccurate data to correct it or charges them for the time taken by other people to correct it.