So which work packages are worthwhile pursuing? Ask any manager dealing with data issues and they’ll always have a ready-made answer. But there are many ways to discover which Information Governance (IG) needs are relevant.
I would recommend to approach this from 3 directions:

  1. interview numerous knowledgeable stakeholders
  2. review existing standards documentation
  3. analyse core master data assets.

Every single one of them will unearth relevant data points. Do just one or two of them and you risk missing out on important components. This 3-pronged approach delivers a holistic picture of data and reporting issues and IG challenges (see diagram “Information Governance Framework: A 3-pronged program kick-off determines priorities and roadmap”).
You could also look at critical business processes that are regularly breaking down, analyse why management reports are not trusted, and review past instances of data privacy breaches etc.

You’ll end up collecting a wide range of standardization interests: definitions, data hierarchies, policies, processes: quite possibly 15 or more work packages per data domain.
A large UK business services provider saw the benefit of not just interviewing business data owners, but also reviewing the completeness and consistency of existing documentation and analyzing core master data sets for conformity and consistency issues. The resulting IG programme enjoyed much stronger support as it was based on hard facts rather than purely on opinions and hear-say.
[this is part 5 in a 14-part blog on Capgemini’s “QuickStart Information Governance” framework]
For more information on QuickStart Information Governance, please contact Ralf Teschner.