Which bodies should run the program and who should sit on them is arguably the most sensitive component of an Information Governance (IG) program. Prepare for debates on the number of distinct bodies, their size, their composition, their meeting frequency, their remit, their authority, even their name.
Advanced organizations typically have a 4-tier structure:

  • an executive sponsor (Board member) at the top
  • an Information Governance Council or Steering Committee to take executive decisions and formally own standards and definitions etc.
  • a Standardisation Working Group of mid-level managers with solid knowledge of their data assets to negotiate joint positions on standards and policies etc.
  • a Data Standards Implementation Group of Data Stewards and Data Managers to ensure all decisions taken are appropriately implemented across systems, processes and working practices

Mature organizations often have a structure like this in place for each data domain in scope, though many choose to have just one executive sponsor and one Council covering all domains.
But organizations embarking on a new IG program may shy away from what might look to them like a monster-sized organization. It is often best to start with a simplified authority matrix of just 2 tiers, though it is hard to get away from the need to have a separate authority matrix for each data domain (see diagram “Authority Matrix – Strategic ‘Governance Councils’ and Operational ‘Standardisation Working Group’”).


A large UK manufacturing organization decided to have separate Councils for each of the four data domains in scope, but appointed the Group Finance Manager as the mediator for topics that transcended the boundaries between the data domains.
[this is part 12 in a 14-part blog on Capgemini’s “QuickStart Information Governance” framework]
For more information on QuickStart Information Governance, please contact Ralf Teschner.