You may soon find numerous other stakeholders demanding that their Information Governance (IG) interests – in other data domains, other divisions, other business functions, other territories, other IT systems etc. – should be considered as well. Before you know it, your to-do list has expanded to 50 or even 100 individual IG work packages.
Which of these work packages should be discussed first? And who should decide this? Most managers will have a clear opinion on priorities. But each important data class is used widely across several key business functions. And their respective executives may well have different, even conflicting priority interests.

So the key here is to get the 4 to 6 key stakeholders in a room and get them to agree, jointly, collectively, what the priorities should be, based on business value and urgency on the one hand and on effort and complexity on the other hand (see diagram “Workstreams Prioritisation Matrix”). This exercise then quickly informs the roadmap of activities.
When a large UK manufacturer assembled the Group Head of Finance, Head of Accounting, Head of Management Information, Head of Finance Shared Services, Head of Financial Applications and Head of Data Migration to discuss IG prioritities, they agreed the urgency and complexity of 14 key Financial Data IG activities, effectively defining the roadmap for the new IG process. Subsequent activities enjoyed strong support from all sides of the debate.
[this is part 6 in a 14-part blog on Capgemini’s “QuickStart Information Governance” framework]
For more information on QuickStart Information Governance, please contact Ralf Teschner.