I read with great interest Jim Ericson’s blog of March 23rd, 2010, entitled, “Governance: A Rulebook, not a Playbook“. Jim was reviewing the growing interest in “governance” and its importance to how organizations manage information. One part of the blog I didn’t “get” or at least I think I disagree with; one point I agreed with.
First the part I didn’t agree with. Jim said,
“Some software folks are now proposing that the implementation of master data management should be redefined as the implementation of data governance. That’s a head-scratcher to me because governance might be called a framework or a practice, but certainly not a product. While they go hand in hand, to say MDM is actually governance sounds to me like saying a BMW is actually a set of traffic regulations.”
Looking at the first point, “implementation of MDM should be redefined as implementation of data governance”, I would say that MDM includes a key component that is governance (of mater data). So yes, MDM includes a governance component. How could MDM not include (master data) governance? What on earth is MDM if there is no governance? Some IT oriented data integration effort? We have too many of those already. Gartner includes governance in its definition of the discipline of MDM.
Perhaps the confusion – and this might be Jim’s point – comes from the software side. Do MDM software vendors (or vendors that sell into the MDM market) now claim that they are selling governance tools? We would agree that governance is not a technology – so one cannot “sell” governance tools (for MDM) seperate from MDM tools. Perhaps some self-named MDM vendors do not sell what is needed to support the governance routine; as such these would be weak offerings. But it is not clear to me what Jim was getting at. I think for a program to be called “MDM” it has to have a mater data governance component/routine; not an enterprise wide, govern-everything program, but a governance component that concerns itself with master data. If not, it is not MDM.
Now the part I agree with completely:
“…governance does not equal good decision-making”
Governance of master data (I am not talking about governance of any and all data) as a rule book provides for a framework where processes are maintained that assure, in context, “single view” of master data at the point at which the business user needs it. Master data governance does not care for any one specific need; it has to care about needs for all uses – analytical, operational, transactional, whatever. However, mater data governance does not a) assure the right business decision is taken, or b) that the actual desired business outcome is achieved. The decision, and outcome, is way beyond “governance” of anything, let along master data governance. Governance is an enabler, not an end to itself.
Come talk about governance of master data (not any old governance or any old data) at our upcoming MDM Summit:
Read Complimentary Relevant Research
100 Data and Analytics Predictions Through 2021
Over the next few years, data and analytics programs will become even more mission-critical throughout the business and across industries....
View Relevant Webinars
Digital Business Architecture: From Strategy to Guiding Execution
New techniques have emerged to help CIOs and EA practitioners leverage business architecture to guide investment and execution decisions,...
Comments or opinions expressed on this blog are those of the individual contributors only, and do not necessarily represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management. Readers may copy and redistribute blog postings on other blogs, or otherwise for private, non-commercial or journalistic purposes, with attribution to Gartner. This content may not be used for any other purposes in any other formats or media. The content on this blog is provided on an "as-is" basis. Gartner shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever arising out of the content or use of this blog.