In talking to customers last week, they again reinforced that information governance success is still on the horizon for each of them—and these were companies that had a dedicated data governance organization in place for years! Here are some of the key barriers still affecting most customers I talk to, and some general guidance on how to overcome them.
Points for you, if you can identify some lyrics or the artist in my song choices—or if you can think of a better one!
Stayin’ Alive
They’re already very good at manually moving data and making it fit-for-use. As a consequence, the larger organization doesn’t buy in to the need to focus on information as a critical asset. The impact: the EIM group is continually focused on keeping the train on the tracks, unable to spend any time/resources on making sure that the destination is correct and fresh cargo is delivered.
Another consequence is that the company believes their information is good enough. And if it is, why do they need to own the quality and use of that information? Someone else has been taking care of it so far, so what’s the problem?
Guidance: This one is tricky, but here’s what some companies do:
- Roll up the opportunity cost in a qualitative way, demonstrating both the level of manual work and the projects you’re unable to drive because you lack the bandwidth—as well as what can go wrong if information isn’t considered a core contributor to new strategies, like big data or social
- Talk about exposure to risk and how people-dependent your current processes are (Let me know if this works for you!)
Holding Out for a Hero
Management that’s lived through an information crisis (delayed go-lives, incorrect compliance reporting, inability to ship product from a plant, unplanned machinery down-time) can be a powerful supporter of the information agenda. However, that management layer changes frequently. Because of this, there’s a continual re-education and justification process for the EIM investment.
Guidance:
- Make sure you continually publish results in business-value terms—even when you’re not immediately being asked for this data
- Stockpile your data quality tales of woe, and have them ready to support your metrics (notice the tie to data supported by a story)
All My Life I’m Searching for Something
As a result of all of the above tension, groups are focusing on one more magic metric; the idea being if they only had this one additional metric, people would see the value:
- If we had one number that showed the value of information in each business process
- If we could show the dollar value of each information asset, according to the business usage of that information
- If we could show exactly how much time (and the cost of that time) we spend ensuring current levels of information quality
Guidance: Yes, we can always do a better job putting together business-centric metrics. Percentage of nulls on a field is never going to cut it. However, one more metric isn’t likely to turn around the conversation.
Check out the Made to Stick book for details, but the Heath brothers talk about using emotional stories to help sell your position. It’s a great read. The need for one more metric is highlighting more of an organizational culture problem, which requires a different solution. As my friend Herman says, “Hope isn’t a strategy.”
Is your organization experiencing these same challenges? How have you tackled them? What is your strategy for tackling them?
And have you identified the artists who covered the songs?
