The Importance of Your Program Descriptions

by Gwen Thomas
March 1, 2009

Let’s consider some different definitions for a single discipline or program to see how the wording of these definitions sends different messages to program stakeholders. As an example, we’ll use definitions of data governance. Consider the details they focus on. Do they project a strategic or tactical perspective? Consider the subliminal messages they might send: Will participants need to be tech-savvy? How hard will the work be?

We’ll start with the definition of data governance introduced by the Data Governance Institute:

“Data governance is a system of decision rights and accountabilities for information-related processes, executed according to agreed-upon models that describe who can take what actions with what information, and when, under what circumstances, using what methods.” (Source: www.DataGovernance.com)

This is a general, all-purpose definition of data governance, focused at the mid-level managers who must come together to make cross-functional decisions, set policies, and execute them. Its emphasis is on the idea of governance as setting the rules by which managers manage.

Why did the Data Governance Institute (my organization) highlight “rules of engagement” (a key component of the DGI Data Governance Framework)? When it was written and published, we wanted to provide an alternative to definitions that focused on authority and control structures, since we thought those definitions might not be well-accepted in consensus-based cultures.

Now look at some alternative definitions. Can you see how the way data governance is defined might influence how it’s executed? Can you tell from the definitions whether it’s aimed at executives, middle managers, or individual contributors? Can you guess what types of changes (to the organization, processes, authority structures, technology, and data) are being supported by data governance?

Here’s a definition from IBM: “Data governance is about how an organization uses data to benefit and protect itself.” (Source: www-01.ibm.com/software/tivoli/governance/servicemanagement/ data-governance.html.)

Would you expect an organization that uses this definition to be focusing its data governance efforts on improving the quality of its data or on standardizing definitions or policies for that data? I wouldn’t. I’d expect a focus on security, with the techno-centric approaches that usually go with that. I’m not certain how to interpret the “benefit” part of the definition. What conclusion would you make about what’s expected of participants and stakeholders?

Here’s another definition: “Data governance refers to the overall management of the availability, usability, integrity, and security of the data employed in an enterprise.” (Source: http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/sDefinition/ 0,,sid91_gci1151688,00.html.)