Proposal

Critical success factors for an effective

data governance programme







Ibrahim Alhassan
ID 112220465



[Proposal V.3.1] 2


Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Research objective .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Practical motivation ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Intellectual motivation .................................................................................................................. 3
1.4. Research model/questions .......................................................................................................... 4
1.5. Research plan ................................................................................................................................... 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 7
2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2. Data governance definition .................................................................................................................... 8
2.3. Data as an asset ......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.4. Data governance and related terms ................................................................................................. 13
2.5. Data governance components ............................................................................................................ 14
2.6. Data governance characteristics........................................................................................................ 15
2.6.1. Data governance goals ...................................................................................................................................... 15
2.6.2. Data governance structure ............................................................................................................................. 17
2.6.2.1. Function position............................................................................................................................................. 17
2.6.2.2. Hierarchical position ..................................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.3. Roles .......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
2.7. Data governance activities ................................................................................................................... 19
2.7.1. Strategies ................................................................................................................................................................ 20
2.7.2. Policies ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20
2.7.3. Processes ................................................................................................................................................................ 21
2.7.4. Standards ................................................................................................................................................................ 21
2.8. Data governance decision domains .................................................................................................. 22
2.9. Critical success factors ........................................................................................................................... 25
2.9.1. Critical success factors for data governance ............................................................................. 26
2.10. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 27
References ........................................................................................................................................ 29



[Proposal V.3.1] 3

1. INTRODUCTION
This document presents the first draft of the research proposal. This version covers two main
parts: the introduction to the proposal and the literature review chapter. In the first part, the
research objective as well as both the practical and intellectual motivations are covered. An
initial research model is then provided that will be reviewed and updated in the second
version of this document. In the final section of the first part, a research plan is illustrated that
consists of the activities that will be carried out during the PhD journey.
The literature is reviewed and investigated in the second part. It covers the concepts most
often related to data governance, as well as critical success factors. This part concludes with
the research model that is going to be operated in the next version of this document under the
research methodology section.
1.1. Research objective
The objective of the research is to explore the critical success factors (CSFs) for an effective
data governance programme. In order to do so, the data governance programme here is
structured as part of overall corporate governance, as well as aligned with IT governance
practices and other data management aspects.
1.2. Practical motivation
Data governance is an emerging subject in the information systems field. It requires further
development and research, as, according so many researchers (Cheong, Chang 2007, Khatri,
Brown 2010, Weber, Otto et al. 2009), there is a limited amount of existing material.
Practitioners also consider data governance as a promising approach for enterprises to
improve and maintain the quality and use of data (Otto 2011a). A study by IBM found that
only 7% of the sample had implemented data governance, whereas 84% believed that there
was a need for it (CDI Institute 2006).
1.3. Intellectual motivation
Although data governance is a combination of concepts that have already been investigated
comprehensively in the academic literature, such as data quality and data management, they
[Proposal V.3.1] 4

have not been combined under one umbrella phenomenon. They are studied and investigated
separately.
It can be argued that data governance from both an academic and practitioner point of view
should be a universal approach to data accountability that fits the data aspects of all
organizations (Weber, Otto et al. 2009, Wende 2007). The main driver for having data
governance is to consider data as an asset of any organization (Panian 2010).
1.4. Research model/questions
In order to explore the critical success factors for an effective data governance programme, a
set of research questions should be formulated and operated. Thus, the research question are
as follows:
A. What are the data governance objectives?
B. What are the critical success factors for an effective data governance programme?
C. How are these critical success factors related to each other?
This first question (A) aims to explore the specific objectives and goals for data governance
that lead to identifying the CSF, as explained in detail in the second chapter under critical
success factors approach. The second question (B) aims to identify a list of CSFs for an
effective data governance programme. Finally, the third question (C) states the relationship
between these CSFs and categorizes them.
From the above, a high-level research model can be formulated (see Figure 1) by exploring
the actors or business units that have a role in or implications for a data governance
programme. These actors should monitor a set of CSFs in order to achieve the data
governance goals and objectives.


Figure 1: High-level theoretical model


Actors CSFs
DG
goals
Monitor To achieve
[Proposal V.3.1] 5

1.5. Research plan
The initial research plan is illustrated in Figure 2, which consists of the research activities and
processes to be followed in order to achieve the research objective. From Figure 2 it can be
seen that there are three areas to which the research activities are allocated: a literature review,
the methodology, and findings.

Figure 2: Research plan

In the first literature review phase, the data governance aspects are analysed by exploring and
analysing the data governance meaning and components, as well as identifying the boundaries
of what is and what is not data governance. This is cooperative with other governance
Activities
Decision
Domains
Critical Success Factors for effective data governance programme
Interview key people
Data analysis Data analysis
L
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

R
e
v
i
e
w

M
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y

F
i
n
d
i
n
g

A potential CSFs map for effective data governance
Select case study
Position each case study
Related documents
Exploring Data
Governance
Analysis of CSFs
approaches
Analysis of CSFs for
other data management
approaches
Evaluation
[Proposal V.3.1] 6

practices, as well as other data management approaches. Thus, data governance activities,
which include strategies, policies, processes, and roles, are explored. After that, the decision
domains of data governance are identified. After exploring each data governance part, the
CSF approaches are investigated amongst other data governance components in order to
conclude the literature review chapter with a full theoretical model that has a potential set of
CSFs for an effective data governance programme.
Case study is the chosen research strategy in the methodology phase. There are multiple case
studies. Each case study is assessed in accordance with the chosen maturity model. After that,
the chosen case studies are placed within different maturity levels in terms of data governance.
This has the aim of testing the proposed model in different environments to achieve the most
appropriate results. The data gathering is initially planned to involve collecting the required
information by interviewing the key people responsible for data governance or data
management in each organization. In addition, related documents are collected during each
round of data gathering in order to gain better insights into the current practice of each case.
In terms of data analysis, this is coded into the model produced from analysing the literature.

[Proposal V.3.1] 7


2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
Data governance is an emerging subject in the information systems field. As stated in certain
works (Cheong, Chang 2007, Khatri, Brown 2010, Weber, Otto et al. 2009), it needs further
development and research, as there is a limited amount of existing material. Practitioners also
consider data governance as a promising approach for enterprises to improve and maintain the
quality and use of data (Otto 2011aa). For example, a study by IBM found that only 7% of the
sample had implemented data governance, although 84% of the sample believed that there
was a need for it (CDI Institute 2006). Although data governance is a combination of
concepts that have already been investigated comprehensively in the academic literature, such
as data quality and data management, they have not been combined under one umbrella
phenomenon. They are studied and investigated separately.
It can be argued that data governance from both an academic and practitioner point of view
should be a universal approach to data accountability that fits all organizations data aspects
(Weber, Otto et al. 2009, Wende 2007). The main driver for having data governance is to
consider data as an asset in any organization (Panian 2010). A survey of 200 organizations
(Pierce, Dismute et al. 2008) stated that 58% of the organizations recognize data as strategic
assets and manage them accordingly. Nevertheless, better data lead to better decisions, which
eventually lead to better business. Hence, data governance requires more attention from
stakeholders (Fisher 2009).
This chapter aims to review the related literature regarding data governance in order to gain a
comprehensive view of the related concepts. In addition, it attempts to identify the most
appropriate elements that can be used as CSFs for an effective data governance programme.
Therefore, the data governance-related concepts and their boundaries are highlighted in the
following points:
What is data governance and what are its goals?
What are the related decision domains for enterprise data that need to be made?
Which roles are involved and how are they structured?
What are the related CSFs for other data management approaches?
[Proposal V.3.1] 8

This chapter starts with a data governance definition, then identifies data governance goals.
After that, data governance structure and related roles are covered, before considering the
related activities of organizing data governance. In the final section, the decision domains are
investigated and defined.

2.2. Data governance definition
Before defining data governance, the term governance should be defined and distinguished
from the term management. According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary,
governance is the activity of governing a country or controlling a company or an
organization; the way in which a country is governed or a company or institution is
controlled. In the information systems field, governance is about how an organization uses
its assets (Horne 1995). It refers to what decisions should be made in order to ensure effective
management and use of resources and who makes the decisions, whereas management
involves implementing decisions (Khatri, Brown 2010). Hence, management is led by
governance (Otto 2011c).
In terms of a data governance definition, this has been presented several times in the literature
(Cohen 2006, Loshin 2007, Panian 2010, Khatri, Brown 2010, Otto 2011b). However, there
are differences in the definitions due to the nature of the papers purposes in defining the term
data governance. Here, it is an attempt to categorize the components of the definitions, then
identify the most suitable to make data governance understandable and to cover all the aspects
of a data governance programme in order to shape the success factors for mapping an
effective data governance programme.
Data and information are defined as different concepts in the literature. For example, Zeleny
(1987) differentiated them as data know nothing and information know what, with
knowledge know how and added wisdom as know why. Another example (Tuomi 1999)
states that information is structured data. Then, the information in turn becomes knowledge.
Basically, data are less than information and information is less than knowledge. Typically, as
Rowley (2007) found, information is defined in terms of data and knowledge in terms of
information, as well as wisdom being defined in terms of knowledge. Figure 3 illustrates the
view of Tuomi (1999) regarding data, information, and knowledge.
[Proposal V.3.1] 9


Figure 3: The relationship between data, information, and knowledge from Tuomi's (1999) perspective

However, in the context of data governance, data and information in the literature are treated
and considered as data (Otto, Wende et al. 2007, Weber, Otto et al. 2009), as well as treating
structured knowledge in the context of data as an asset (Oppenheim, Stenson et al. 2003).
To begin the analysis of the definitions, Panian (2010) defines data governance
comprehensively as the processes, policies, standards, organization, and technologies required
to manage and ensure the availability, accessibility, quality, consistency, auditability, and
security of data in an organization.
Generally, data governance relates to who holds the decision rights and is held accountable
for an organizations decision making about its data assets (Khatri, Brown 2010). Another
definition of data governance by Cohen (2006) is that it is the process by which a company
manages the quantity, consistency, usability, security and availability of data.
From the practical papers perspective, Loshin (2007) defines data governance as being
expected to address issues of data stewardship, ownership, compliance, privacy, data risks,
data sensitivity, metadata management, master data management and even data security. IBM
sees data governance as a quality control approach for adding new rigour and discipline to the
process of managing, using, improving and protecting organizational information (IBM, 2007
cited by Otto 2011b).
Finally, Otto (2011b) defines data governance as a companywide framework for assigning
decision-related rights and duties in order to be able to handle data adequately as a company
asset.
From the definitions provided, the components of the data governance definition can be
categorized under Wh questions, as stated in Table 1 below.




Data Structured to be Information Sequentially to be Knowledge
[Proposal V.3.1] 10

Table 1: Summary of the components of definitions of data governance
Wh question Data governance Author(s)
What?
Processes (Cohen 2006), IBM (2007), (Panian 2010)
Policies (IBM 2007)
Standards (Panian 2010)
Organization (Panian 2010)
Technologies (Panian 2010)
Why?
To manage and ensure the .
Availability (Cohen 2006), (Panian 2010)
Accessibility (Panian 2010)
Quality IBM (2007), (Panian 2010)
Consistency (Cohen 2006), (Panian 2010)
Auditability (Panian 2010)
Security (Cohen 2006), (Loshin 2007), (Panian 2010)
Usability (Cohen 2006)
Privacy (Loshin 2007)
Risk (Loshin 2007)
.. of data in an organization.
Considering data as an
organizations assets
(Khatri, Brown 2010)
Where?
In all aspects of the data in a
firm.
IBM (2007)
Who?
The holders of decision rights
regarding data assets.
(Khatri, Brown 2010), (Loshin 2007)

In light of the above, it seems that Panian's (2010) definition covers the majority of the data
governance components. However, it does not examine the roles involved (positions); it
simply examines the operational part and the activities involved. Therefore, it cannot be taken
as a primary definition of data governance. On the other hand, the definition by Khatri and
[Proposal V.3.1] 11

Brown (2010) seems to consider who should take data governance into account, although
without considering exactly the activities and answering the what? questions. Although the
definition considers data as an asset, it still narrows data governance down to the five decision
domains without considering the processes and policies. This definition can only be taken as a
primary definition if compared with Panians (2010).
In addition, the definitions by Cohen (2006) and IBM (2007) are still missing some of the
important elements. Cohen (2006) limits the need for data governance to privacy, data risk,
data sensitivity, and data security. IBM (2007) also narrows data governance down to data
quality control, whereas it involves more than data quality control activities.
Finally, it seems that the most suitable definition that is concise and covers the related
components of the definitions of data governance, as well as supporting the intended topic of
the critical success factors of data governance, is that by Otto (2011b), which was published
in the journal Communications of the Association for Information, where data governance is
described as A companywide framework for assigning decision-related rights and duties in
order to be able to adequately handle data as a company asset (p. 47).
Otto (2011b) defines data governance in a way that renders it a set of categories, instead of
limiting data governance to a set of activities or operations aspects, for example when stating
that it is A companywide framework for assigning decision-related rights and duties,
whereby all the related roles are involved, not simply part of the company. This indicates
strategic data governance activities. Through this, therefore, all the roles that affect data in a
firm are involved.
In addition, the phrase to be able to adequately handle data combines all the activities that
can be involved in order to handle data correctly as strategic assets that do not appear in the
balance sheet of a firm.
Finally, the definitions can be classified into three main parts, as shown in Table 2.





[Proposal V.3.1] 12

Table 2: The classification of the selected definition
Phrase Consists of
A companywide framework
Strategic initiatives, processes, policies, standards, and
technologies.
For assigning decision-related
rights and duties
All the organizations structure levels* related to data.
To be able to adequately handle
data as a company asset
Availability, accessibility, quality, consistency,
auditability, security, usability, privacy, risk, and
considering data as an asset of a firm.
All the organizations structure levels means that data governance is driven by every level in
an organization. For example, Cheong and Chang (2007) identified the related roles and
duties for data governance: the Data Governance Council, Data Custodian, Data Steward, and
User Groups. These roles and their structures are identified later in this paper.

2.3. Data as an asset
In the context of data governance, data are considered an asset of a firm as stated in the
definition of data governance. Horne (1995) connected governance with optimal uses of
assets, then treated data and information as an asset which drives the importance of
governance of the data and information within an organization. The concept of data as an
asset developed with a report by the Hawley Committee in 1994, which defined data assets
as: Data that is or should be documented and that has value or potential value (Oppenheim,
Stenson et al. 2003).
The tangible assets in an organization are usually recorded in the balance sheet, then the
company attempts to optimize their use and reduce risks by considering their value. Therefore,
the organization plays a critical role in protecting and keeping data safe, as well as training
people to optimize their use in order to gain the maximum value from them (Horne 1995). On
the other hand, considering data and information as an intangible asset should lead to
maximizing the value of data which are subjective to maximize the data quality that is
supported by data governance (Kooper, Maes et al. 2011, Otto 2011cc, Panian 2010).
Data assets are considered to have a value or potential value for an organization if they are
managed and controlled correctly (Panian 2010). Finally, Otto (2011b) positioned data assets
[Proposal V.3.1] 13

among data governance in order to illustrate a general view of data governance-related
concepts (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Data governance and related concepts (Otto 2011b)

2.4. Data governance and related terms
It can be argued that data governance is a new term with novel implications for data as an
asset. However, there are many terms and approaches in the academic literature that deal with
data and information under the information systems field, such as total data quality
management (TDQM), which treats data and information as information products to ensure
the quality of the consumer information that supports a manufacturing life cycle (Wang
1998). Another approach is data quality management, which considers controlling an
organizations data quality dimensions (Wang, Strong 1996) and there are many more
different approaches and terms (Lucas 2010, Otto, Wende et al. 2007).
However, Lucas (2010) distinguishes between data governance and other related phenomena.
Data governance mainly refers to the following: 1) a strong relationship regarding the
management of data assets; 2) defining corporate data strategy; and 3) providing resources
and organizational structures that enable the implementation of a strategy and goals.
Therefore, according to Otto, Wende et al. (2007), governance activities specify the functions
and tasks that need to be done, who is involved and the distribution of the tasks. From the
above, it can be seen that these activities are aligned with the difference in meaning between
management and governance, as previously discussed.
In contrast, and in practice, different terms are used for data governance activities. A survey
by Pierce, Dismute et al. (2008) that selected 224 participants found that 55.4% used the term
data governance for activities associated with a data governance programme, whereas
[Proposal V.3.1] 14

17.2% used information governance. However, some of the activities associated with data
governance were considered as data stewardship as well as information management, which
was the response of 45% of the sample. In addition, approximately 10% of the activities were
considered to be data resources management, information stewardship, or other. This study
clarifies that there are some overlap activities between the different terms that are used for
treating the data and information assets in any organization. Wende (2007) also considers a
model for data governance in which he creates two layers between governance and
management, as can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Terms in governance and management (Wende 2007)

2.5. Data governance components
From the previous sections regarding data governance definitions and data as an asset, it
seems that data governance is an initiative strategy that can encompass three main successful
enterprise strategy elements, as stated by Fisher (2006): the right technology, used by the
right people, in the right business processes. Therefore, a data governance initiative should
consider these three elements in order to implement an effective data governance programme.
In addition, Cheong and Chang (2007) organized the components of data governance under
three categories: 1) organizational bodies and policies where the structure and decision rights
are involved; 2) standards and processes; and 3) data governance technology where the
metadata repository and the technical tools are classified.
However, effective data governance is not just a matter of investigating issues in the data and
fixing them; it is about preventing data quality problems by managing and governing the data
life cycle in order to meet stakeholders needs (Lucas 2010). In the following section, the
characteristics of data governance are investigated in detail.

[Proposal V.3.1] 15

2.6. Data governance characteristics
Data governance goals and structure as data governance organizational aspects are covered in
this section, followed by a consideration of the rest of the data governance components, which
include policies, procedures, standards, and some aspects of strategies.

2.6.1. Data governance goals
There are a number of goals that can be achieved by organizing data governance in an
enterprise. These goals can be categorized as business, IT, and functional goals, as stated by
Otto (2011a). Business and IT goals are formal goals that are measurable and serve to assess
the effectiveness of data governance, whereas functional goals relate entirely to the decision
areas for the rights and responsibilities specified by data governance (Otto 2011a).
Thomas (2006) identified seven universal goals for a data governance programme. Table 3
illustrates these seven goals with a related category - business, IT, or functional - as well as
references from the literature in order to identify the most important common goals for a data
governance programme.
From Table 3, it can be seen that five of the universal goals of data governance are mentioned
and considered in the literature of data governance: 1) enable better decision making (Rifaie,
Alhajj et al. 2009, Panian 2010, Otto 2011a, Otto 2011b, Moseley 2010, Page 2011);
2) reduce operational friction (Panian 2010, Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007, Otto 2011a,
Moseley 2010, Page 2011); 3) build standard, repeatable processes (Page 2011, Weber, Otto
et al. 2009, Wende 2007, Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007, Ojo, Janowski et al. 2009);
4) protect the needs of data stakeholders (Page 2011, Wende 2007, Rifaie, Alhajj et al. 2009,
Panian 2010); and 5) reduce costs and increase effectiveness through coordination of effort
(Panian 2010, Rifaie, Alhajj et al. 2009, Otto 2011b, Page 2011).
However, the other two goals are rarely mentioned in the literature: 1) train management and
staff to adopt common approaches to data issues (Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007, Page 2011),
and 2) ensure transparency of processes (Page 2011, Thomas 2006). On the other hand, there
are some business goals that are widely considered as data governance business goals but are
not part of the universal goals. For example, ensure compliance and legal requirements (Ojo,
Janowski et al. 2009, Panian 2010, Rifaie, Alhajj et al. 2009, Wende 2007, Otto 2011a,
Moseley 2010). Finally, in terms of IT goals, the following are missing from the universal
[Proposal V.3.1] 16

goals: 1) to increase data quality and 2) to support IT integration (Pierce, Dismute et al.
2008).

Table 3: Data governance goals
Goal Category Reference
Enable better decision making Business
(Rifaie, Alhajj et al. 2009, Panian 2010, Otto
2011a, Otto 2011b, Moseley 2010, Page
2011) Rifaie et al. (2009)
Reduce operational friction Business
(Panian 2010, Vayghan, Garfinkle et al.
2007, Otto 2011a, Moseley 2010, Page 2011)
Protect the needs of data
stakeholders
Functional
(Page 2011, Wende 2007, Rifaie, Alhajj et al.
2009, Panian 2010), Wende (2007)
Train management and staff to
adopt common approaches to data
issues
Business (Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007, Page 2011)
Build standard, repeatable
processes
Functional
(Page 2011, Weber, Otto et al. 2009, Wende
2007, Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007, Ojo,
Janowski et al. 2009)
Reduce costs and increase
effectiveness through coordination
of effort
Business
(Panian 2010, Rifaie, Alhajj et al. 2009, Otto
2011b, Page 2011)
Ensure transparency of processes Business (Page 2011, Thomas 2006)

For the purpose of this paper, the most common goals are taken and considered. Some of the
goals can also be considered as a subset of others; for example, support IT integration can be
part of increase effectiveness through coordination of effort. These goals are as follows:
1- Enable better decision making.
2- Reduce operational friction.
3- Reduce costs and increase effectiveness through coordination of effort.
4- Build standard, repeatable processes.
[Proposal V.3.1] 17

5- Protect the needs of data stakeholders.
6- Ensure compliance and legal requirements.

The above are general and universal goals which are not specific enough to be used for a CSF
approach. However, the above goals can be taken as an initial stage to identify more
measurable and specific goals for data governance.

2.6.2. Data governance structure
Data governance structure should be studied in depth in order to fulfil the first part of the data
governance definition: A companywide framework for assigning decision-related rights and
duties. The data governance structure must be integrated with other areas of organization
governance structure (Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007). From a structure point of view, data
governance can be considered as a subset of IT governance (Rifaie, Alhajj et al. 2009).
However, it can be argued that data governance is part of corporate governance, with the
same level as IT governance in an organization (Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007, Wende 2007).
Nevertheless, it is required to have a close collaboration between IT and business in order to
acquire a successful data governance programme (Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007). As
mentioned earlier, governance and management are different, which leads to distinguishing
between data governance and data quality management, as shown earlier in Figure 5.
In the following subsections, the related functional positions as well as the hierarchy of the
positions of data governance will be identified. These positions are seen from the point of
view that data governance is a level below corporate governance with alignments to IT
governance, as illustrated in Figure 5, not as part of IT governance. The roles and rights
involved will also be covered.

2.6.2.1. Function position
Function position refers to the function or department that takes responsibility for a data
governance programme. It can be argued that a data governance programme is driven by
business functions (Cheong, Chang 2007, Panian 2010). However, on the other side, the IT
Department should handle and control a data governance programme (Delbaere, Ferreira
2007). From another perspective, data governance should be controlled by both IT and
business functions, as there are activities related to each function (Page 2011, Otto, Wende et
al. 2007).
[Proposal V.3.1] 18

When data governance is driven by business, this does not mean ignoring the IT function; it
means that data governance is controlled by business functions and uses IT functions
infrastructure and capability in order to achieve the goals of data governance (Otto, Wende et
al. 2007, Panian 2010). In addition, in terms of data governance activities, daily work or
certain duties, everyone in an enterprise should have some form of these activities (Rifaie,
Alhajj et al. 2009). Finally, it seems that data governance is mostly controlled by business
with some duties and responsibilities for IT functions, as well as everyone in an enterprise
dealing with the enterprise data. In a later section of this paper (2.6.3. Roles), the roles and
responsibilities will be investigated in greater depth.

2.6.2.2. Hierarchical position
Identifying the position of data governance in an enterprise hierarchical structure can be solid
and clear from an academic point of view (Otto 2011a). There is a sense common among
authors who write about data governance positions of positioning data governance at the
executive management level as well as the middle management level for both business and IT
teams (Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007, Pierce, Dismute et al. 2008). On the other hand, it can
be argued that data governance should involve positions at all levels of an enterprise structure
(Cheong, Chang 2007, Panian 2010, Rifaie, Alhajj et al. 2009).
Nevertheless, in some cases and practitioners, data governance initiatives start from the
bottom up, due to limitations in understanding of the outcomes of data governance
programmes. For example, in one survey, Pierce, Dismute et al. (2008) found that for 26% of
the sample, data governance initiatives were four or more levels away from the highest level
of management, which Pierce, Dismute et al. (2008) considered should not be the case. In
another example, Otto (2011b), when analysing one of the case studies in his research, found
that British Telecom (BT) started its data governance programme in a small way from the
bottom up. The initial budget for data governance implementation was low, and the
organization did not introduce it to other departments until it had recognized its success.

2.6.3. Roles
In order to implement a data governance programme, the roles and responsibilities have to be
clearly defined for all the people involved in order to achieve a successful outcome (Cheong,
Chang 2007, Ojo, Janowski et al. 2009). Hence, accountabilities should be addressed and
[Proposal V.3.1] 19

defined, assigning people to be accountable for the data within an enterprise structure as well
as enforcing the data governance mandates throughout the enterprise (Ojo, Janowski et al.
2009, Panian 2010, Wende 2007, Otto 2011b, Thomas 2006). The following is a set of data
governance roles with a description of each. These roles are summarized from some
previously proposed (Korhonen, Melleri et al. 2013, Horne 1995, Weber, Otto et al. 2009,
Wende 2007).
1- Executive sponsor: accountable for sponsorship, strategic direction, funding, and supporting
the data governance programme, which includes executive or senior managers such as the
CEO or CIO (Weber, Otto et al. 2009, Wende 2007, Korhonen, Melleri et al. 2013).
2- Data quality board or data governance council: this defines the data governance framework
for the enterprise data overall and controls the data governance implementation, which
includes a data governance committee chaired by the other roles (Weber, Otto et al. 2009,
Wende 2007, Korhonen, Melleri et al. 2013).
3- Chief steward: operates the data quality board decisions and puts them into practice. This
involves a senior manager with a data management background (Thomas 2006, Korhonen,
Melleri et al. 2013, Weber, Otto et al. 2009, Wende 2007).
4- Business data steward: documents and operates in detail the standards and policies of data
governance for the specific unit managed by him/her. This requires a professional from the
business unit or a functional department (Weber, Otto et al. 2009, Wende 2007, Korhonen,
Melleri et al. 2013).
5- Technical data steward: provides definitions of the data elements in detail by profiling and
explaining source system details and data flows between systems. Involves a professional
employee from the IT Department (Weber, Otto et al. 2009, Wende 2007, Korhonen, Melleri
et al. 2013).
However, a data governance programme is not limited to the above roles, which are general,
whereas exact roles depend on each case.

2.7. Data governance activities
Data governance is a continuing set of activities through which data ownerships and data
decision makers provide and maintain the data governance-related strategies, policies,
processes, and standards that are required to control data assets effectively (Storey, Dewan et
al. 2012, Rifaie, Alhajj et al. 2009) which are aligned with an overall corporate governance
[Proposal V.3.1] 20

framework (Moseley 2010). In the following subsections, the data governance strategies,
policies, processes, and standards are described. However, data governance activities are not a
set of pre-identified strategies, policies, processes, and standards; they are specific to each
case of implementing a data governance programme (Begg, Caira 2012, Fu, Wojak et al.
2011). Nevertheless, they are required for a successful data governance programme (Thomas
2006).

2.7.1. Strategies
The strategies of data governance should be treated as the overall enterprise strategies (Page
2011). These initiatives begin with a strategy plan, by identifying a vision statement and then
a list of goals that support the vision statement. After that, in order to measure the goals, their
objectives should be identified (Otto, Wende et al. 2007). Generally, establishing an
enterprise-wide process is one of the critical data governance strategies (Vayghan, Garfinkle
et al. 2007), as well as clearly identifying the roles and responsibilities of related decision
domains (Cheong, Chang 2007). The main duties for setting up a data governance strategy as
stated by Wende (2007) include:
Analysing and understanding the role of data within the company and considering data as an
asset.
Planning actual data quality initiatives.
Executing an assessment for the current status of the data quality in order to identify the most
critical areas for improvement.
Establishing a data asset review process to ensure fulfilment of the data governance
programme.

2.7.2. Policies
Establishing data policies is one of the critical stages for implementing a data governance
programme (Moseley 2010). For best practice, data governance programme policies should be
handled in the way in which corporate policies are implemented (Vayghan, Garfinkle et al.
2007). The policies should be clarified and the principles that drive the data governance
strategies documented (Ojo, Janowski et al. 2009). This involves all the dimensions of data
quality, including accuracy, timeliness, completeness and credibility (Khatri, Brown 2010).
Policies are established from the executive level of the data governance structure (Russom
[Proposal V.3.1] 21

2008). However, they are practised at all data governance structure levels (Cheong, Chang
2007, Panian 2010, Rifaie, Alhajj et al. 2009).
As an example, in financial institutions, where a data governance programme should be
implemented, there are several areas that must have a set of data policies that are driven by a
data governance programme (Delbaere, Ferreira 2007), which are: 1) customer
communication, 2) financial reporting, 3) capital adequacy, and 4) operational risk. Generally,
one of the obvious examples of these policies is that of sharing data either externally or
internally, as well as a policy for accessing data (Russom 2008, Ojo, Janowski et al. 2009).
However, having a data governance policy can act as a obstacle for business; hence, there
should be a balanced policy that fulfils business needs within a data governance programme
(Tallon, Ramirez et al. 2013).

2.7.3. Processes
Data governance addresses a common process in order to ensure all users and stakeholders of
data assets go through a unified set of steps in managing each and every aspect of the
enterprise data (Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007). It includes the establishment of appropriate
measurement and control systems in order to fulfil the data governance goals (Weber, Otto et
al. 2009), and should be standardized, documented, and repeatable (Thomas 2006). Some of
the required processes for data governance are summarized in the following points:
1- Reviewing and approving organizational structure of data assets in an enterprise in order to
achieve an appropriate data architecture to support data governance goals.
2- Ensuring the processes address the security of data assets (Horne 1995).
3- Developing processes for building the life cycle of data assets (Ojo, Janowski et al. 2009).
4- Developing processes for data collaboration between parties that are either external
(suppliers), or internal (another system) (Ojo, Janowski et al. 2009).

2.7.4. Standards
One of the successful factors of data governance is identifying data standards in order to
ensure all the data assets are defined as fit for all needs and purposes (Cheong, Chang 2007).
By applying standards for data assets, the data green can be achieved, which means
eliminating duplicated and non-related data for a specific case (Sarsfield 2009). Ojo, Janowski
[Proposal V.3.1] 22

et al. (2009) identified three standard categories of data assets: 1) the data description
standard, which includes a unified way of describing data throughout enterprise data; 2) the
data context standard, which addresses the data asset definition; and 3) the data sharing
standard, which contextualizes the roles for accessing data assets.

2.8. Data governance decision domains
The definition of data governance indicates who holds the decision rights and accountability
regarding an enterprises data assets. Therefore, the decision domains should be identified in
order to assign the right responsibilities and duties. In reviewing the literature relating to data
governance frameworks that focus on decision domains, the following three frameworks can
be found (Fu, Wojak et al. 2011, Wende 2007, Khatri, Brown 2010). The data governance
model in (Wende 2007) consists of data quality management roles, decision areas, and main
activities and responsibilities. However, in this model, the decision areas are identified among
each enterprise. They are not a common set of decision domains. The main contribution of
Wende's (2007) model is role assignment by applying a responsibility assignment matrix
(RAM), which consists of the RACI chart: responsible (R), accountable (A), consulted (C),
informed (I). Figure 6 illustrates Wende's (2007) draft model.

Figure 6: Draft of a data governance model (Wende 2007)
On the other hand, the frameworks by Khatri and Brown (2010) and Fu, Wojak et al. (2011)
focus more on identifying sets of decision domains for data governance. The framework by
Khatri and Brown (2010) comprises five interrelated decision domains: 1) data principles,
2) data quality, 3) metadata, 4) data access, and 5) data life cycle. These five decision
[Proposal V.3.1] 23

domains follow a similar approach to IT governance decision domains to that of Weill and
Ross (2004). Each of the five decision domains addresses a set of core issues which are
explained later in this paper.
Lastly, the framework by Fu, Wojak et al. (2011) addresses a list of decision domains that are
shared with Khatri and Brown's (2010) framework. However, the former focuses more on the
main decision domains of predictive toxicology data governance. These decision domains are:
1) data principles; 2) data quality that consists of a) data accuracy, b) data completeness, and
c) data integrity; 3) metadata and management; 4) data availability; and 5) data authorization.
Figure 7 shows these decision domains in the framework and each of their positions.

Figure 7: Decision domains for data governance (Fu, Wojak et al. 2011)

Nevertheless, it seems that there is a common sense between Khatri and Brown's (2010)
framework and that of Fu, Wojak et al. (2011), as they share similar decision domains with
some differences in the naming and level of importance. Finally, in this paper, the five
decision domains by Khatri and Brown (2010) will be taken as the primary decision domains
for data governance, as the framework from Fu, Wojak et al. (2011) specifies three core areas
of data quality, despite the other areas of decision domains. It is also built from seeking
predictive toxicology. However, Khatri and Brown's (2010) framework does not specify them,
as they believe each and every decision domain has its core issues as well as the general one
of a data governance programme. Khatri and Brown's (2010) framework is also built
[Proposal V.3.1] 24

similarly to one of the strong frameworks in IT governance by Weill and Ross (2004). Figure
8 illustrates Khatri and Brown's (2010) framework.
Data principles
Data quality
Metadata
Data life cycle
Data access
Figure 8: Decision domains for data governance (Khatri, Brown 2010)

According to Khatri and Brown (2010), data principles are shown at the top of the framework
as they are intended to establish the direction for all other decision domains. Hence, the
principles set the boundary requirements for uses of data assets, which addresses the
enterprises standards for data quality. The data quality then refines the basis for how data are
interpreted (metadata) as well as accessed (data access) by users. Finally, the data life-cycle
decision defines the production, retention and retirement of data assets which play
fundamental roles in operationalizing the data principles into the IT infrastructure. There
follows a brief description of each decision domain.
Data principles are the top level of a data governance framework. They address policies,
standards, and guidelines of data assets in an enterprise (Khatri, Brown 2010), as well as
providing linkage between the data and organizational business by addressing the direction of
all other decision domains (Fu, Wojak et al. 2011). They also define the business owner of the
data assets as part of the enterprise-wide assets. Each principle is supported by a rationale and
a set of implications. Hence, data principles clarify the required behaviours for both IT and
business users in relation to data assets (Khatri, Brown 2010).
Data quality refers to the ability of data to satisfy the users requirements for the data (Khatri,
Brown 2010, Otto, Wende et al. 2007) and to achieve enterprise agility objectives (Weber,
Otto et al. 2009). It is one of the most important decision domains for data governance (Fu,
Wojak et al. 2011) as it affects the decisions that rely on data in firms (Stockdale 2013,
Parssian, Sarkar et al. 2009). Poor data quality can be associated with an increase in the cost
and complexity of developing a business (Cheong, Chang 2007, Storey, Dewan et al. 2012,
Al-Abdullah, Weistroffer 2011). Data quality involves the collection, organization, storage,
[Proposal V.3.1] 25

processing, and presentation of high-quality data (Wende 2007). The quality of the data
consists of a set of attributes or dimensions such as accuracy, completeness, consistency,
relevancy, and timeliness (Otto, Wende et al. 2007, Viscusi, Mecella et al. 2010). Guidelines
have been developed by information systems in order to measure and quantify these
dimensions (Storey, Dewan et al. 2012).
Metadata describe what data are about and provide a mechanism for a concise and consistent
description of the representation of data (Khatri, Brown 2010). It can be said that metadata are
data that describe other data (Shankaranarayanan, Even 2004, Mathes 2004). These provide
descriptive information about a particular set of data, objects, or resources, including how
data are formulated and when and by whom they were collected (Stockdale 2013). Metadata
offer many advantages for managing complex decision environments such as data warehouses,
which is beneficial to the decision makers who use the enterprise data (Shankaranarayanan,
Even 2004). Additionally, good metadata enable decision makers and users to make better
decisions regarding whether received data are acceptable or not in terms of quality (Parssian,
Sarkar et al. 2009).
Data access is premised on the ability of data beneficiaries to assign a value to different
categories of data (Khatri, Brown 2010). Hence, data assets should be accessible upon
demand by any of the authorized users (Lomas 2010). The data access decision domain
addresses policies and procedures for how data can be accessed in what way and with what
device, as well as including the data export format (Fu, Wojak et al. 2011).
Data life cycle involves the stages through which data move in order to design data
governance (Khatri, Brown 2010). This involves storage, retention, and retirement practices
(Tallon, Ramirez et al. 2013). Here, the processing of data throughout the whole enterprise
system should be governed and managed in order to fulfil data governance programme
requirements.

2.9. Critical success factors
Critical success factors (CSFs) are widely investigated in information systems literature (Wui-
Ge Tan, Cater-Stel et al. 2009), and there are some researchers who focus on the approaches
related to data management(Guynes, Vanecek 1996, Porter, Parker 1993, Talib, Rahman
2010). Rockart (1979) highlighted the importance of CSFs for executives in helping them to
define their significant information needs. According to Munro and Wheeler (1980), CSFs are
those that determine success for a company or business unit. Therefore, CSFs are those tasks
[Proposal V.3.1] 26

and activities which must be done in an effective way to ensure success (Munro, Wheeler
1980) and require careful attention from management (Rockart 1979).
In terms of identifying CSFs, Rockart (1979) suggests conducting two or three separate
interviews with executives individually. The first round aims to identify the business goals
that indicate the CSFs. Then, after analysing these goals, a set of CSFs is identified and
related to the goals. The second round is used to review the identified CSFs, as well as to
discuss the measures in greater depth. Finally, a third session might be required in order to
obtain final agreement on the CSF measures and reporting sequence.
However, Munro and Wheeler (1980) have extended the approach to involve the following
activities:
A. Understanding business unit objectives.
B. Identifying critical success factors.
C. Identifying specific performance measures and standards.
D. Identifying the data required to measure performance.
E. Identifying the decisions and information required to implement the plan.
Therefore, exploring the CSFs for an effective data governance programme is important, as
there is a need for more studies in data governance from an academic point of view, as stated
earlier, as well as from the practitioner perspective. Nevertheless, there is a limited amount,
even a lack of, papers that specifically explore the CSFs for an effective data governance
programme. However, there are some insights or hints for potential CSFs for a data
governance programme which have been stated in the previous sections. Moreover, there are
some pertaining to other data-related concepts. Hence, there is in the following section an
attempt to explore and review proposed studies for CSFs related to data management
approaches.

2.9.1. Critical success factors for data governance
Critical success factors are the things that must go right (Rockart 1979). As stated earlier,
there is limited research regarding CSFs for data governance. However, reviewing the
characteristics of data governance and its activities can offer insights and perspectives
regarding the positional success factors of data governance, such as identifying data standards
(Cheong, Chang 2007), having clear roles and assigning the right responsibilities (Cheong,
Chang 2007, Ojo, Janowski et al. 2009), and collaboration between business and IT functions
(Vayghan, Garfinkle et al. 2007).
[Proposal V.3.1] 27

Nevertheless, following the CSF approach, Rockart (1979) indicates it is necessary to explore
the goals and objectives of an effective data governance programme in order to identify the
related CSFs. The data governance goals identified in section 2.6.1 are general and universal
and not sufficiently specific. Hence, they need to be tested in the field in order to make them
specific and measurable.
In addition, CSFs for data management approaches should be reviewed and investigated in
accordance with data governance characteristics, such as those identified by Guynes and
Vanecek (1996), in order to list the CSFs related to a data governance programme. IT
governance CSFs such as those identified by Nfuka and Rusu (2011) can also be taken as
another perspective in order to support the list of potential CSFs for data governance. This
should be followed by testing and studying these lists of factors in the field in greater depth in
order to conclude a final list of CSFs for an effective data governance programme.


2.10. Conclusion
This chapter highlighted several aspects of data governance. It began by identifying the most
suitable definition of data governance, which is by Otto (2011b): A companywide
framework for assigning decision-related rights and duties in order to be able to adequately
handle data as a company asset (p. 47). The paper then covered the concepts related to the
definition.
The main finding is that data governance is part of the whole corporate governance
programme, and should align data governance activities with corporate governance activities.
In addition, there are five decision domains that consist of several issues, depending on the
case for implementing data governance. These issues can be categorized under data
governance activities which are strategies, policies, processes, and standards. Each of these
domains is governed by and assigned one or more of the data governance roles. The RAM
assignment framework, which consists of the RACI chart (responsible [R], accountable [A],
consulted [C], informed [I]), can be used in order to organize the data governance programme
in an enterprise.
In relation to the research objective, CSF approaches were explored in order to build the
research model. In addition, it was found that there is a limited amount of research that
explores data governance CSFs. Hence, it is suggested to explore and study CSFs related to
other data management approaches as well as IT governance among data governance
[Proposal V.3.1] 28

characteristics in order to conclude with a model that has a potential list of CSFs that require
testing and studying in the field.
Therefore, is seems that there is a clear research gap that needs to be studied to fulfil
academics and practitioners needs, which is to explore the CSFs for an effective data
governance programme. This can be accomplished by studying related and potential CSFs as
well as exploring the goals and objectives of data governance, as can be seen in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Research model











Actors CSFs DG goals
Monitor To achieve
CSFs for data
management
CSFs for IT
governance
CSFs for data
governance
Potential CSFs for data governance
[Proposal V.3.1] 29

References
AL-ABDULLAH, M. and WEISTROFFER, H.R., 2011. A Framework to Enhance Decision
Outcomes: Data Quality Perspective, Proceedings of the Southern Association for Information
Systems Conference SAIS, USA 2011.
BEGG, C. and CAIRA, T., 2012. Exploring the SME Quandary: Data Governance in Practise in the
Small to Medium-Sized Enterprise Sector. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation,
15(1),.
CDI INSTITUTE, 2006. Corporate Data Governance Best Practices. Burlingame, CA (USA), .
CHEONG, L.K. and CHANG, V., 2007. The need for data governance: a case study, In Proceedings
of the 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Toowoomba (Australia), 2007- 12-06,
pp. 999-1008 2007.
COHEN, R., 2006. What's in a name? Data governance roles, responsibilities and results factors.
Information Management Online, , pp. 1057220-1057221.
DELBAERE, M. and FERREIRA, R., 2007. Addressing the data aspects of compliance with industry
models. IBM Systems Journal, 46(2), pp. 319-334.
FISHER, T., 2006. Data Monitoring: Add Controls to Your Data Governance and Compliance
Programs. Business Intelligence Journal, 11(4), pp. 51-57.
FU, X., WOJAK, A., NEAGU, D., RIDLEY, M. and TRAVIS, K., 2011. Data governance in
predictive toxicology: A review. Journal of Cheminformatics, 3(1), pp. 1-16.
GUYNES, C.S. and VANECEK, M.T., 1996. Critical success factors in data management.
Information & Management, 30(4), pp. 201-209.
HORNE, N.W., 1995. Information as an assetThe board agenda. Computer Audit Update, 1995(9),
pp. 5-11.
IBM, 2007. The IBM Data Governance Council Maturity Model: Building a roadmap for effective
data governance. IBM Corporation, Somers, NY (USA), .
KHATRI, V. and BROWN, C.V., 2010. Designing data governance. Communications of the ACM,
53(1), pp. 148-152.
[Proposal V.3.1] 30

KOOPER, M.N., MAES, R. and LINDGREEN, E.E.O.R., 2011. On the governance of information:
Introducing a new concept of governance to support the management of information. International
Journal of Information Management, 31(3), pp. 195-200.
KORHONEN, J.J., MELLERI, I., HIEKKANEN, K. and HELENIUS, M., 2013. Designing Data
Governance Structure: An Organizational Perspective. GSTF Journal on Computing, 2(4), pp. 11-17.
LOMAS, E., 2010. Information governance: information security and access within a UK context.
Records Management Journal, 20(2), pp. 182-198.
LOSHIN, D., 2007. Data governance for master data management and beyond.
LUCAS, A., 2010. Corporate data quality management: From theory to practice, Information Systems
and Technologies (CISTI), 2010 5th Iberian Conference on 2010, pp. 1-7.
MATHES, A., 2004. Folksonomies-cooperative classification and communication through shared
metadata. Computer Mediated Communication, 47(10), pp. 1-13.
MOSELEY, M., 2010. Improving Data Quality through Agile Data Governance. Business Intelligence
Journal, 15(1), pp. 17-24.
MUNRO, M.C. and WHEELER, B.R., 1980. Planning, Critical Success Factors, and Management's
Information Requirements. MIS Quarterly, 4(4), pp. 27-38.
NFUKA, E.N. and RUSU, L., 2011. The effect of critical success factors on IT governance
performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(9), pp. 1418-1448.
OJO, A., JANOWSKI, T. and ESTEVEZ, E., 2009. Semantic interoperability architecture for
electronic government, Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Digital
Government Research: Social Networks: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and
Government 2009, Digital Government Society of North America, pp. 63-72.
OPPENHEIM, C., STENSON, J. and WILSON, R.M.S., 2003. Studies on Information as an Asset I:
Definitions. Journal of Information Science, 29(3), pp. 159-166.
OTTO, B., 2011b. Organizing data governance: findings from the telecommunications industry and
consequences for large service providers. Communications of the AIS, 29(1), pp. 45-66.
OTTO, B., 2011a. A morphology of the organisation of data governance.
OTTO, B., WENDE, K., SCHMIDT, A. and OSL, P., 2007. Towards a framework for corporate data
quality management, 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. The University of
Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia 2007, pp. 916-926.
[Proposal V.3.1] 31

OTTO, B., 2011c. Data Governance. Business & Information Systems Engineering, .
PAGE, J., 2011. How to Launch a Data Governance Initiative. Business Intelligence Journal, 16(2),
pp. 17-25.
PANIAN, Z., 2010. Some practical experiences in data governance. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology Management,(62), , pp. 939-946.
PARSSIAN, A., SARKAR, S. and JACOB, V.S., 2009. Impact of the Union and Difference
Operations on the Quality of Information Products. Information Systems Research, 20(1), pp. 99-120.
PIERCE, E., DISMUTE, W. and YONKE, C., 2008. The state of information and data governance
understanding how organizations govern their information and data assets. IAIDQ and UALR-IQ, .
PIERCE, E., DISMUTE, W. and YONKE, C., 2008. The state of information and data governance
understanding how organizations govern their information and data assets. IAIDQ and UALR-IQ, .
PORTER, L.J. and PARKER, A.J., 1993. Total quality management--the critical success factors. Total
Quality Management, 4(1), pp. 13-22.
RIFAIE, M., ALHAJJ, R. and RIDLEY, M., 2009. Data governance strategy: a key issue in building
enterprise data warehouse, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information
Integration and Web-based Applications & Services 2009, ACM, pp. 587-591.
ROCKART, J.F., 1979. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard business review, 57(2),
pp. 81-93.
ROCKART, J.F., 1979. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard business review, 57(2),
pp. 81-93.
ROWLEY, J., 2007. The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of
Information Science, 33(2), pp. 163-180.
RUSSOM, P., 2008. Data Governance Strategies. Business Intelligence Journal, 13(2), pp. 13-14.
SARSFIELD, S., 2009. The data governance imperative. IT Governance Ltd.
SHANKARANARAYANAN, G. and EVEN, A., 2004. Managing Metadata in Data Warehouses:
Pitfalls and Possibilities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 14, pp. 247-
274.
STOCKDALE, D., 2013. Data governance and data stewardship. Handbook of Financial Data and
Risk Information II, 2, pp. 464.
[Proposal V.3.1] 32

STOREY, V.C., DEWAN, R.M. and FREIMER, M., 2012. Data quality: Setting organizational
policies. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), pp. 434-442.
TALIB, F. and RAHMAN, Z., 2010. Critical Success Factors of TQM in Service Organizations: A
Proposed Model. Services Marketing Quarterly, 31(3), pp. 363-380.
TALLON, P.P., RAMIREZ, R.V. and SHORT, J.E., 2013. The Information Artifact in IT
Governance: Toward a Theory of Information Governance. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 30(3), pp. 141-178.
THOMAS, G., 2006. The DGI data governance framework. The Data Governance Institute, Orlando,
FL (USA), .
TUOMI, I., 1999. Data is more than knowledge: implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for
knowledge management and organizational memory, Systems Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings
of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on 1999, pp. 12 pp.
VAYGHAN, J.A., GARFINKLE, S.M., WALENTA, C., HEALY, D.C. and VALENTIN, Z., 2007.
The internal information transformation of IBM. IBM Systems Journal, 46(4), pp. 669-683.
VISCUSI, G., MECELLA, M. and BATINI, C., 2010. Information Systems for eGovernment.
Springer.
WANG, R.Y., 1998. A product perspective on total data quality management. Communications of the
ACM, 41(2), pp. 58-65.
WANG, R.W. and STRONG, D.M., 1996. Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data
Consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), pp. 5-33.
WEBER, K., OTTO, B. and STERLE, H., 2009. One Size Does Not Fit All---A Contingency
Approach to Data Governance. Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ), 1(1), pp. 4.
WEILL, P. and ROSS, J.W., 2004. IT governance: How top performers manage IT decision rights for
superior results. Harvard Business Press.
WENDE, K., 2007. A model for data governanceOrganising accountabilities for data quality
management, Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS) 2007, pp. 417-425.
WUI-GE TAN, CATER -STEL, A. and TOLEMAN, M., 2009. Implementing it Service Management:
a Case Study Focusing on Critical Success Factors. International Association for Computer
Information Systems.
[Proposal V.3.1] 33

ZELENY, M., 1987. Management support systems: towards integrated knowledge management.
Human Systems Management, 7(1), pp. 59-70.