So you’ve decided to launch an Information Governance (IG) program. You’ve got a number of senior executives lined up to discuss the issues in a constructive manner. You might even have a Board member signed up as the executive sponsor of your IG program.
It is always surprising to see, however, how little effort organizations spend on determining exactly which data domains should be in scope of the IG program: should it be Customer data, Product data, Supplier data, Financial data, Employee data, Location data, Asset data, Material data, etc.?
If you don’t have the resources to cover all of these, you’ll have to pick the most critical ones to start with. And the choice of focusing on this or that data domain is often taken on the gut instinct of one or two senior IT managers.
Capgemini prefers a more fact-based approach. Once all data domains of interest have been identified, they should each get checked against seven different criteria:
Pain felt in the Business from poor IG
Business costs based on data Issues
Regulatory data compliance
Dependencies of other strategic projects
Trust in accuracy of MI reports
Organizational ‘reach’ of the data (touch points)
Applying ‘high’, ‘medium’, ‘low’ scores or Harvey balls, you will soon get a strong sense for how business-critical these domains really are. We recommend to apply an overall score from 1 to 10 to each domain separately, and to start an IG program only with those domains that were rated six or higher, though ideally no more than 2 or 3 domains to start with.
This metrics-based approach towards determining which data domains should be in scope of your IG program inspires confidence among program sponsors and ensures your IG efforts are good value for money.
For more information on Capgemini’s QuickStart Information Governance framework, please contact Ralf Teschner.
Note: This is the personal view of the author and does not reflect the views of Capgemini or its affiliates. Check out the original post here.