The management of enterprise information is not a trivial matter, it requires focus, resources, budget and coordination. Yet, despite the repeated and justified calls from data governance and management practitioners to take a more holistic view, businesses generally still view data as a project.
In many ways, this is due to how we are "selling" it. The data governance and management industry is fragmented, with many disciplines, multiple view points and partial solutions. We don't play well together, and business can see this...so it is not surprising that business is wary of commitment over and beyond dabbling around the edges.
To begin to solve this stalemate scenario, let us look at how business arranges itself to get things done in other areas to see if we can find a blueprint for The Data Department. We need to find a business function that touches the whole enterprise, is seamlessly integrated with all business structures and operations and is found in every enterprise.
So, let us look at the finance department...and see how it combines a centralized financial system of record with federation of roles, processes and metrics to produce an enterprise wide view of the current and future financial state of a business...
Step 1 - Is finance and data a good choice for this comparison?
First, let us ensure that the comparison between finance and data is viable from an enterprise business perspective...or - in other words - that we have enough core overlap to make that case.
Both are undoubtedly enterprise wide in nature, having a significant footprint across all enterprise operations.
Both provide a costed service to the business but do not directly create business value, they enable operational efficiency and reduce compliance risk. Therefore, they have a similar goal of providing this service across the entire enterprise at minimum cost.
Both carry governance and compliance obligations, have control organizations and processes to mitigate risk and have legal requirements to adhere to legislative directives that are often territory specific.
Both have the need for a strong CxO mandate, require a centralized organizational structure to manage group operations and also federate processes and activities to all business functions to be able to achieve full coverage. Neither can achieve their purpose without enterprise wide collaboration and buy in.
Both have a direct headcount number and cost which is small compared to the business as a whole, but also "borrow" time and resources from the wider enterprise to complete their mission...they have a similar hidden cost footprint due to being reliant on the federation of activities and neither can complete their functions without incurring that cost.
Both need to be able to create an as-is picture to provide the current state of their functional domains and also need to be able to predict trends and provide future operational insights.
Further to this, they both are directly involved in ensuring that business transformation provides value, finance from cost and data from architectural efficiency.
Both are discipline based functions, they operate under an umbrella of a set of industry approaches, best practices and standards.
Putting all of these aspects together, we can see plenty of overlap between the two, the main differences are the business artefacts that are being managed and the skills and processes being employed. So on this basis, we will push forwards as this being a viable comparison...if you don't agree...then place a comment and read no further...
Step 2 - Do this without a system of record, you're 'avin a laugh!
It would be a brave person indeed that approached the CFO of a global business with a suggestion of running their entire enterprise finance operation using desktop spreadsheets and visualization tools. It would be a very short meeting...and possibly career.
No, the CFO will demand and rightly expect full integrated enterprise system coverage.
