One Size Does Not Fit All---A Contingency Approach to Data Governance

Abstract

Enterprizes need Data Quality Management (DQM) to respond to strategic and operational challenges demanding high-quality corporate data. Hitherto, companies have mostly assigned accountabilities for DQM to Information Technology (IT) departments. They have thereby neglected the organizational issues critical to successful DQM. With data governance, however, companies may implement corporate-wide accountabilities for DQM that encompass professionals from business and IT departments. This research aims at starting a scientific discussion on data governance by transferring concepts from IT governance and organizational theory to the previously largely ignored field of data governance. The article presents the first results of a community action research project on data governance comprising six international companies from various industries. It outlines a data governance model that consists of three components (data quality roles, decision areas, and responsibilities), which together form a responsibility assignment matrix. The data governance model documents data quality roles and their type of interaction with DQM activities. In addition, the article describes a data governance contingency model and demonstrates the influence of performance strategy, diversification breadth, organization structure, competitive strategy, degree of process harmonization, degree of market regulation, and decision-making style on data governance. Based on these findings, companies can structure their specific data governance model.

References

1. Abrams, C., Von Känel, J., Müller, S., Pfitzmann, B., and Ruschka-Taylor, S. 2007. Optimized enterprize risk management. IBM Syst. J. 46, 2, 219--234.
2. Ahituv, N., Neumann, S., and Zviran, M. 1989. Factors affecting the policy for distributing computing resources. MIS Quart. 13, 4, 389--401.
3. Baskerville, R. and Myers, M. D. 2004. Special issue on action research in information systems: Making IS research relevant to practice - Foreword. MIS Quart. 28, 3, 329--335.
4. Baskerville, R. L. and Wood-Harper, A. T. 1998. Diversity in information systems action research methods. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 7, 90--107.
5. Bitterer, A. and Newman, D. 2007. Organizing for data quality. Gartner Research, Stamford, CT.
6. Boynton, A. C. and Zmud, R. W. 1987. Information technology planning in the 1990’s: Directions for practice and research. MIS Quart. 11, 1, 58--71.
7. Brown, A. E. and Grant, G. G. 2005. Framing the frameworks: A review of IT governance research. Comm. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 15, 696--712.
8. Brown, C. V. 1997. Examining the emergence of hybrid IS governance solutions: Evidence from a single case site. Inf. Syst. Res. 8, 1, 69--94.
9. Brown, C. V. 1999. Horizontal mechanisms under differing IS organization contexts. MIS Quart. 23, 3, 421--454.
10. Brown, C. V. and Magill, S. L. 1998. Reconceptualizing the context-design issue for the information systems function. Organiz. Sci. 9, 2, 176--194.
11. Burns, T. and Stalker, G. 1961. The Management of Innovation. Tavistock, London.
12. Cohen, S. and Roussel, J. 2004. Strategic Supply Chain Management: The Five Disciplines for Top Performance. McGraw-Hill.
13. Crié, D. and Micheaux, A. 2006. From customer data to value: What is lacking in the information chain? Datab. Market. Customer Strategy Manage. 13, 4, 282--299.
14. Crowe, A. 2005. The Pmp Exam: How to Pass on Your First Try. 3rd Ed., Velociteach Press, Kennesaw, GE.
15. Curtis, D., Colville, R. J., Haight, C., and Brittain, K. 2005. Use and awareness of ITIL is increasing. Gartner Research, Stamford.
16. Dahlberg, T. and Kivijärvi, H. 2006. An integrated framework for IT governance and the development and validation of an assessment instrument. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Science. Vol. 8, 194--192. IEEE Computer Society,
17. Dallas, S. 2002. Six IT governance rules to boost IT and user credibility. Gartner Research, Stamford, CT.
18. Dallas, S. 2004. IT governance requires decision-making guidelines. Gartner Research, Stamford, CT.
19. Davenport, T. H. 1993. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
20. Dember, M. 2006. Case study: Gaining efficiencies as a result of implementing a data governance program. http://dbq.dpc.or.kr/conference/2006/pdf/Harmony2_02_Martha%20Dember.pdf.
21. Donaldson, L. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
22. Dyché, J. and Levy, E. 2006. Customer Data Integration. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
23. Ein-Dor, P. and Segev, E. 1982. Organizational context and MIS structure: Some emprirical evidence. MIS Quart. 6, 3, 55--68.
24. English, L. P. 1999. Improving Data Warehouse and Business Information Quality. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
25. Eppler, M. J. 2006. Managing Information Quality. 2nd ed. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
26. Friedman, T. 2006. Gartner study on data quality shows that IT still bears the burden, G00137680. Gartner Group, Stamford, CT.
27. Grundei, J. 2006. Examining the relationship between trust and control in organizational design. In Organization Design, R. M. Burton, et al., Eds. Springer Science + Business Media LLC, Boston, MA, 43--65.
28. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
29. Hodgkinson, S. L. 1996. The role of the corporate IT function in the federal IT organization. In Information Management: The Organizational Dimension, M. J. Earl, Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
30. Huang, K.-T., Lee, Y. W., and Wang, R. Y. 1999. Quality Information and Knowledge. Prentice Hall, NJ.
31. Hult, M. and Lennung, S.-A. 1980. Towards a definition of action research: A note and a bibliography. J. Manag. Studies 17, 2, 241--250.
32. IT Governance Institute. 2005. CobiT 4.0: Control objectives, management guidelines, maturity models. IT Governance Institute, Rolling Meadows, IL.
33. Jarvinen, P. H. 2000. Research questions guiding selection of an appropriate research method. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, 124--131.
34. Kagermann, H. and Österle, H. 2006. Geschäftsmodelle 2010 - Wie CEOs Unternehmen transformieren. Frankfurter Allgemeine Buch, Frankfurt, Germany.
35. Keats, B. and O’Neill, H. M. 2001. Organizational structure: Looking through a strategy lens. In The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management, Blackwell Publishing, 520--542.
36. Korac-Kakabadse, N. and Kakabadse, A. 2001. IS/IT Governance: Need for an Integrated Model. Corp. Govern. 1, 4, 9--11.
37. Kotter, J. P. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Bus. Rev. Mar.-Apr., 59--67.
38. Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and Environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
39. Madnick, S., Wang, R., Chettayar, K., Dravis, F., Funk, J., Katz-Haas, R., Lee, C., Lee, Y., Xian, X., and Bhansali, S. 2004. Exemplifying Business Opportunities for Improving Data Quality through Corporate Household Research. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
40. Marco, D. and Smith, A. M. 2006. Metadata management & enterprize architecture: Understanding data governance and stewardship. DM Rev. Sept.-Oct.-Nov.
41. Miller, D. 1992. Environmental fit versus internal fit. Organiz. Sci. 3, 2, 159--178.
42. Newman, D. and Logan, D. 2006a. Achieving agility: How enterprize information management overcomes information silos, Gartner Research, Stamford, CT.
43. Newman, D. and Logan, D. 2006b. Governance is an essential building block for enterprize information management. Gartner Research, Stamford, CT.
44. Nohr, H. 2001. Management der Informationsqualität, Nr. 3/2001, Fachhochschule Stuttgart, Stuttgart.
45. OECD 2004. OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. OECD Publications Service, Paris, France.
46. Olson, M. H. and Chervany, N. L. 1980. The relationship between organizational characteristics and the structure of the information services function. MIS Quart. 4, 2, 57--68.
47. Österle, H. and Winter, R. 2003. Business engineering. In Business Engineering, H. Österle and R. Winter Eds. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 3--18.
48. Patel, N. V. 2002. Emergent forms of IT governance to support global e-business models. J. Inf. Tech. Theory Appl. 4, 2, 33--48.
49. Peterson, R. 2004. Crafting information technology governance. Inf. Syst. Manag. 21, 4, 7--22.
50. Price, R. and Shanks, G. 2005. A semiotic information quality framework: Development and comparative analysis. J. Inf. Tech. 20, 88--102.
51. Rau, K. G. 2004. Effective governance of IT: Design objectives, roles, and relationships. Inf. Syst. Manag. 21, 4, 35--42.
52. Redman, T. C. 1996. Data Quality for the Information Age. Artech House, London, UK.
53. Redman, T. C. 2000. Data Quality. Digital Press, Boston, MA.
54. Reid, A. and Catterall, M. 2005. Invisible data quality issues in a CRM implementation. J. Datab. Mark. Customer Strategy Manag. 12, 4, 305--314.
55. Russom, P. 2006a. Master data management: Consensus-driven data definitions for cross-application consistency. The Data Warehousing Institute, Seattle, WA.
56. Russom, P. 2006b. Taking data quality to the enterprize through data governance. The Data Warehousing Institute, Seattle, WA.
57. Sambamurthy, V. and Zmud, R. W. 1999. Arrangements for information technology governance: A theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Quart. 23, 2, 261--290.
58. Senge, P. M. and Scharmer, O. 2001. Community action research. In Handbook of Action Research, P. Reason and H. Bradbury Eds. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 238--249.
59. Shankaranarayan, G., Ziad, M., and Wang, R. Y. 2003. Managing data quality in dynamic decision environments: An information product approach. J. Datab. Manag. 14, 4, 14--32.
60. Susman, G. I. and Evered, R. D. 1978. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Admin. Sci. Quart. 23, 4, 582--603.
61. Swanton, B. 2005. Master data management organizations: A balance of control and responsibility. AMR Research, Boston, MA.
62. Tavakolian, H. 1989. Linking the information technology structure with organizational competitive strategy: A survey. MIS Quart. 13, 3, 308--318.
63. Tellkamp, C., Angerer, A., Fleisch, E., and Corsten, D. 2004. From pallet to shelf: Improving data quality in retail supply chains using RFID. Cutter IT J. 17, 9, 19--24.
64. Umanath, N. S. 2003. The concept of contingency beyond “It depends”: Illustration from IS research stream. Inf. Manag. 40, 551--562.
65. Vermeer, B. H. P. J. 2000. How important is data quality for evaluating the impact of EDI on global supply chains? In Stärkung der Integrationsfähigkeit durch Prozessharmonisierung und Stammdatenmanagement auf Basis einer globalen, T. Vogel and P. Osl Eds. ERP-Lösung, Beitrag.
66. Wang, R. Y. 1998. A product perspective on total data quality management. Comm. ACM 41, 2, 58--65.
67. Wang, R. Y., Lee, Y., Pipino, L., and Strong, D. 1998a. Manage your information as a product. Sloan Manag. Rev. 39, 4, 95--105.
68. Wang, R. Y., Lee, Y. W., Pipino, L. L., and Strong, D. M. 1998b. Manage your information as a product. Sloan Manag. Rev. 39, 4, 95--105.
69. Wang, R. Y. and Strong, D. 1996. Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 12, 4, 5--34.
70. Weill, P. 2004. Don’t just lead, govern: How top-performing firms govern IT. MIS Quart. Exec. 3, 1, 1--17.
71. Weill, P. and Ross, J. 2005. A matrixed approach to designing IT governance. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 46, 2, 25--34.
72. Wende, K. 2007. A model for data governance -- Organizing accountabilities for data quality management. http://www.acis2007.usq.edu.au/assets/slides/Kristin_Wende_DataGovernance_V2.pdf.
73. Woodward, J. 1980. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. 2nd, Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
74. Zahay, D. and Griffin, A. 2003. Information antecedents of personalisation and customisation in business-to-business service markets. J. Database Mark. 10, 3, 255--271.

Index Terms

• Mathematics of computing

  • Information theory

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Management of computing and information systems

      • Information system economics

      • Project and people management

        • Project management techniques

        • Project staffing