Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DataGovernanceMaturityModel IS PDF
DataGovernanceMaturityModel IS PDF
MATURITY MODEL
This document and the tools included herein are largely adapted from the University of Stanford’s Data Governance Maturity
Model and the October 17, 2011, Data Governance at Stanford Newsletter published by the University of Stanford. Additionally,
the maturity levels were borrowed from “The IBM Data Governance Council Maturity Model: Building a roadmap for effective
data governance.”
Contents
Purpose of a Data Governance Maturity Model ............................................................................ 2
Overview of the Data Governance Maturity Model ....................................................................... 3
The Maturity Levels .................................................................................................................... 3
The Component-Dimensions ...................................................................................................... 4
The Data Governance Maturity Model ........................................................................................... 6
Guiding Questions for Each Component-Dimension .................................................................. 6
The Stanford Data Governance Maturity Measurement Tool ................................................... 6
The Stanford Data Governance Quantitative Measurement Tool ............................................. 8
Data Governance Maturity Model Qualitative Score Card....................................................... 12
Using the Maturity Model to Plot for Success .......................................................................... 12
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix A. The Basic Maturity Assessment................................................................................ 15
References .................................................................................................................................... 18
This publication is issued by the Office of Management and Enterprise Services as authorized by Title 62, Section
34. Copies have not been printed but are available through the agency website. This work is licensed under a
Creative Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
1
Purpose of a Data Governance Maturity Model
A maturity model is one of the most valuable tools available for planning and sustaining a new
strategic program. Like the data governance (DG) program itself, the DG maturity model should
be customized around the unique goals, priorities and competencies of the organization. The
model included below is the model developed by Stanford University’s Data Governance Office.
It can be customized to meet the needs of your organization.
A maturity model is a tool that is used to develop, assess and refine an expansive program.
Because measurement of performance simply through return on investment (ROI) or reduction
of cost is inappropriate for data governance programs, another method must be constructed to
assess effectiveness. The Stanford Maturity Measurement Tool offers a robust qualitative
assessment along with quantitative measures to ensure a thorough DG assessment is possible.
A significant benefit of utilizing a maturity model is that it can consistently measure the state of
a program over time. A DG program crosses functional boundaries and has a life span measured
in years rather than months. Stable metrics facilitate presentation of the DG program’s
accomplishments to the sponsors, ensuring the sustainability of the program and
demonstration to the participants that their efforts are driving organizational change.
The design of the maturity model also influences the strategic direction of the program. A
maturity model is made up of levels describing possible states of the organization where the
highest levels define a vision of the optimal future state.
Because the full implementation and maturation of a DG program is a multiyear effort, the
intermediate maturity states can be used to construct a program roadmap. The model not only
facilitates assessment of the DG program, but also focuses attention on specific areas where
actionable opportunities can be addressed rapidly (Stanford, 2011).
2
Overview of the Data Governance Maturity Model
The Stanford Maturity Measurement Tool contains both qualitative and quantitative metrics to
track the growth of the DG practice throughout the organization.
Each component-dimension’s (more on this below) qualitative scale ranges from level one,
representing the initial state of a data governance program, to level five, representing the
objective of DG in that area of focus. An in-depth description of each qualitative maturity level
is provided in the next section. The quantitative metrics are numeric measures that become
applicable at each level of maturity and may be used at all maturity levels moving forward.
Advancement through qualitative maturity levels can take place over a long time; quantitative
metrics provide the ability to monitor intrastage growth through more granular measures
(Stanford, 2011).
3
At Maturity Level 1 (Initial), processes are usually ad hoc, and the environment is not stable.
Success reflects the competence of individuals within the organization, rather than the use of
proven processes. While Maturity Level 1 organizations often produce products and services
that work, they frequently exceed the budget and schedule of their projects (IBM, 2007).
At Maturity Level 2 (Managed), successes are repeatable, but the processes may not repeat for
all the projects in the organization. Basic project management helps track costs and schedules,
while process discipline helps ensure that existing practices are retained. When these practices
are in place, projects are performed and managed according to their documented plans, yet
there is still a risk for exceeding cost and time estimates (IBM, 2007).
At Maturity Level 3 (Defined), the organization’s set of standard processes are used to
establish consistency across the organization. The standards, process descriptions and
procedures for a project are tailored from the organization’s set of standard processes to suit a
particular project or organizational unit (IBM, 2007).
At Maturity Level 4 (Quantitatively Managed), organizations set quantitative quality goals for
both process and maintenance. Selected sub-processes significantly contribute to overall
process performance and are controlled using statistical and other quantitative techniques
(IBM, 2007).
The Component-Dimensions
The Stanford Maturity Measurement Tool focuses both on foundational and project aspects of
DG. The foundational components (Awareness, Formalization and Metadata) of the maturity
model focus on measuring core DG competencies and development of critical program
resources.
• Awareness: The extent to which individuals within the organization have knowledge of
the roles, rules, and technologies associated with the data governance program.
• Formalization: The extent to which roles are structured in an organization and the
activities of the employees are governed by rules and procedures.
• Metadata: Data that 1) describes other data and IT assets (such as databases, tables and
applications) by relating essential business and technical information and 2) facilitates
the consistent understanding of the characteristics and usage of data. Technical
metadata describes data elements and other IT assets as well as their use,
representation, context and interrelations. Business metadata answers who, what,
where, when, why and how for users of the data and other IT assets.
4
The project components (Stewardship, Data Quality and Master Data) measure how effectively
DG concepts are applied in the course of funded projects (Stanford, 2011).
• Stewardship: The formalization of accountability for the definition, usage, and quality
standards of specific data assets within a defined organizational scope.
• Data Quality: The continuous process for defining the parameters for specifying
acceptable levels of data quality to meet business needs, and for ensuring that data
quality meets these levels. (DMBOK, DAMA)
• Master Data: Business-critical data that is highly shared across the organization. Master
data are often codified data, data describing the structure of the organization or key
data entities (such as “employee”).
Three dimensions (People, Policies and Capabilities) further subdivide each of the six maturity
components, focusing on specific aspects of component maturation.
It is imperative that the maturity model is finalized and adopted early in the rollout of the DG
program and remains stable throughout its life. Thoughtful input from across the organization
will help assure the model’s long-term fitness (Stanford, 2011).
5
The Data Governance Maturity Model
Guiding Questions for Each Component-Dimension
(Stanford, 2013)
Foundational People Policies Capabilities
What awareness do What awareness is What awareness is
people have about there of data there of data
their role within the governance policies, governance enabling
Awareness
data governance standards and best capabilities that have
program? practices? been purchased or
developed?
How developed is the To what degree are How developed is the
data governance data governance toolset that supports
organization and which policies formally data governance
Formalization
roles are filled to defined, implemented activities and how
support data and enforced? consistently is that
governance activities? toolset utilized?
What level of cross- To what degree are What capabilities are in
functional participation metadata creation and place to actively
is there in the maintenance policies manage metadata at
Metadata
development and formally defined, various levels of
maintenance of implemented and maturity?
metadata? enforced?
6
The Stanford Data Governance Maturity Measurement Tool
Data Governance Foundational Component Maturity
Awareness Formalization Metadata
People Policies Capabilities People Policies Capabilities People Policies Capabilities
Most existing data
policies are
Metadata is inconsistently
Limited awareness of undocumented and there Little awareness of DG Classes of DG Limited understanding
No defined roles No metadata related collected and rarely
1 purpose or value of DG may be inconsistent capabilities and 1 No formal DG policies. capabilities are not 1 of types and value of
related to DG. policies. consolidated outside of
program. understanding of data technologies. defined. metadata.
project artifacts.
policies within a
department.
Metadata templates are
adopted to provide some
Classes of DG Metadata best
A small subset of the Roles responsible for consistency in content and
Executives are aware of Existing policies are DG roles and capabilities are defined practices are produced
organization production of technical format of captured
existence of program. Little documented but not responsibilities have High-level DG meta- and homegrown and made available.
understands the metadata on metadata. Metadata is
2 knowledge of program consistently maintained, 2 been defined and policies are defined technical solutions are 2 Most best-practices are
general classes of DG structured data are consolidated and available
outside upper available or consistent vetted with program and distributed. used within some focused on the
capabilities and defined during system from a single portal.
management. between departments. sponsors. organizational metadata associated
technologies. design. Capabilities focus on
functions. with structured data.
capture of metadata of
structured content.
The responsibility for
Executives understand how Common data policies Policies requiring the
Some roles are filled Homegrown technical developing institutional
DG benefits/impacts their are documented and A small subset of the development of new
to support DG needs Data policies around solutions are adopted business definitions The collection of metadata
portion of the organization, available through a organization is aware metadata as part of
and participants the governance of as best practices for and storing them in a on structured content is
knowledge workers are common portal. Most of the specific DG system development
3 3 clearly understand specific data are some classes of 3 central repository is automated and scheduled
aware of program. stakeholders are aware capabilities that are (usually focused on
responsibilities defined and distributed capabilities and made assigned to and extracts are performed for
Executives actively of existence of data available at the structured data) are
associated with their as best practices. available throughout continually performed selected systems.
promote DG within their policies that may impact organization. adopted as official data
roles. the institution. by subject matter
groups. them. policies.
experts.
Policies requiring the
Executives understand DG roles are organized A centralized metadata
A targeted audience regular auditing of
long-term DG strategy and All data policies are into reusable schemas store becomes the
has been identified Data policies become Metadata collection/ metadata in specified
their part in it. Knowledge available through a which are designed to primary location for all
and a significant official organization validation systems are adopted as
workers understand how common portal and support specific data All defined classes of institutional metadata.
portion of that data policies and responsibilities official organization
4 DG impacts/benefits their stakeholders are actively 4 and functional DG capabilities have an 4 Metadata is automatically
audience is aware of compliance with assigned to named data policies and
portion of the organization. notified whenever characteristics. There available solution. collected from most
the DG capabilities approved data policies individuals for all metadata development
Executives actively policies are added, is broad (but relational database
that are available at is audited. projects. as part of system
promote DG beyond the updated or modified. inconsistent) management systems and
the organization. development is
immediate group. participation in DG. vendor packaged systems.
enforced.
A significant portion A dedicated metadata
Both executives and A history of all data A metadata solution
of the targeted DG organizational Compliance with management group is Metadata policy covers
knowledge workers policies are maintained All defined classes of provides a single point of
audience understands schemas are filled as official organization created to strategically both structured and
understand their role in the through a common portal DG capabilities are access to federated
5 how to utilize relevant 5 defined, meet data policies is actively 5 advance metadata unstructured (non-
long-term evolution of DG. and all stakeholders are mandatory for assigned metadata resources
DG capabilities that regularly and enforced by a capabilities and more tabular) data and is
Knowledge workers made part of the policy systems or critical data. including both structured
are available at the document activities. governing body. effectively leverage enforced.
actively promote DG. development process. and unstructured data.
organization. existing metadata.
6
Data Governance Project Component Maturity
Stewardship Data Quality Master Data
People Policies Capabilities People Policies Capabilities People Policies Capabilities
Individuals perform ad
Almost no well-
hoc data quality Data quality efforts are
defined DG or
efforts as needed and infrequent and driven Inconsistent
stewardship roles or No formal policies
Limited stewardship manually fix identified by specific business Data quality is done on understanding of There is limited
responsibilities. Data Limited stewardship defining what data are
1 capabilities are 1 data issues. needs. These efforts an ad hoc basis usually 1 concepts and benefits of management of master
requirements are policies documented. considered institutional
available. Identification of data are usually large one- using SQL and Excel. Master Data data.
driven by the master data.
issues is based off its time data cleansing Management.
application
usability for a specific efforts.
development team.
business task.
A small group of
individuals are trained
in and perform Institutional master data
Business analysts drive
profiling to assess Stakeholders for specific domains are defined and
data requirements A centralized location Best practices have Basic data profiling tools Master data are identified
data quality of existing master data domains the systems storing
during design process. Policies around exists for consolidation been defined for some are adopted and and manually managed
systems to establish a are identified and master data are
2 Definition of stewardship defined of and/or access to 2 data quality related available for use 2 and provisioned via
baseline or justify a consulted to develop documented. Usage of
stewardship roles and within a functional area. stewardship related activities and followed anywhere in the system extracts, file transfers or
data quality project. basic definition and master data in these
responsibilities is documentation. inconsistently. development lifecycle. manual uploads.
Downstream usage of model of master data. systems is actively being
limited.
the data is considered documented.
Maturity Level
in issue identification
process.
Owners of institutional
Workflow capabilities Profiling and
master data are
are implemented for development of data
identified and drive
All stewardship roles the vetting and quality standards are Master data are
People are assigned to Data quality reporting resolution of various
and structures are Stewardship policies are approval of adopted as part of the Institutional master data provisioned through
assess and ensure capabilities are perspectives of master
3 defined and filled but consistent between institutional definition, 3 standard application 3 perspectives are resolved services but management
data quality within the implemented and data. Owners establish
are still functionally functions and areas. business metadata and development lifecycle and documented. capabilities are still largely
scope of each project. available to any system. and run master data
siloed. approval of other and become scheduled manual.
boards to support
stewardship related activities on project
maintenance and data
documentation. plans.
issue mediation.
Stewardship Data quality experts Master Data Compliance with master
The stewardship dashboards report data are identified Management boards data usage policies and Multiple single domain
Data quality best Data quality issue
structures include Stewardship teams self- quality levels and data throughout the take responsibility for standards is enforced. master data hubs handle
practices are adopted remediation is
4 representatives from audit compliance with exceptions to support 4 organization and are 4 reviewing the use of Synchronization provisioning and
as official organization integrated into quality
multiple business policies. the auditing of engaged in all data their master data in the frequency with master management of master
data policies. reporting platform.
functions. stewardship quality improvement application data hub at system data.
effectiveness. projects. development process. owner’s discretion.
A data quality Data quality
A common stewardship Master Data
competency center is remediation is
The stewardship board dashboard enables Compliance with Management boards Multidomain master data
Compliance with funded and charged implemented on both
includes managed issue official organization take responsibility for Compliance with master hub handles all
stewardship policies are with continually data at rest (in
5 representatives from remediation as part of 5 data quality is tracked 5 enforcing master data data synchronization provisioning and
enforced for key assessing and databases) and data in
all relevant institutional data quality reporting and reported on policies around their policy is enforced. management of master
institutional data. improving data quality flight (in ETL and as
functions. and data exception centrally. own master data across data.
outside of the system messages between
reporting. the organization.
development lifecycle. systems).
7
The Stanford Data Governance Quantitative Measurement Tool
benefits/impacts their portion of the documented and available Hits on Policy Management Content.
aware of the specific DG capabilities
3 organization, knowledge workers are Newsletters*recipients 3 through a common portal. Most Unique visitors on Policy 3
that are available at the
aware of program. Executives actively stakeholders are aware of data Management Content.
organization.
promote DG within their groups. policies that may impact them.
Executives understand long-term DG
strategy and their part in it. All data policies are available A targeted audience has been
Knowledge workers understand how through a common portal and Number of stakeholders on RACI identified and a significant portion
Hits on DG website.
4 DG impacts/benefits their portion of 4 stakeholders are actively notified matrices by functional area, subject 4 of that audience is aware of the DG
Unique visitors on DG website.
the organization. Executives actively whenever policies are added, area. capabilities that are available at the
promote DG beyond the immediate updated or modified. organization.
group.
Both executives and knowledge A history of all data policies are
A significant portion of the targeted
workers understand their role in the maintained through a common Training sessions on usage of DG
Non-executive leadership audience understands how to utilize
5 long-term evolution of DG. 5 portal and all stakeholders are 5 technologies and capabilities
participants in policy development. relevant DG capabilities that are
Knowledge workers actively promote made part of the policy (person*tech trained).
available at the organization.
DG. development process.
People Policies Capabilities
Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative
Classes of DG capabilities are not
1 No defined roles related to DG. 1 No formal DG policies 1
defined.
Classes of DG capabilities are DG capabilities with solutions by
DG roles and responsibilities have
High-level DG meta-policies are Meta-policies defined, documented defined and homegrown technical functional area.
2 been defined and vetted with 2 2
defined and distributed. and approved. solutions are used within some Reuse of technical solutions by
program sponsors.
Formalization
8
People Policies Capabilities
Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative
Classes of DG capabilities are not
1 No defined roles related to DG. 1 No formal DG policies 1
defined.
Classes of DG capabilities are DG capabilities with solutions by
DG roles and responsibilities have
High-level DG meta-policies are Meta-policies defined, documented defined and homegrown technical functional area.
2 been defined and vetted with 2 2
defined and distributed. and approved. solutions are used within some Reuse of technical solutions by
program sponsors.
organizational functions. functional area.
Some roles are filled to support DG Data policies around the Homegrown technical solutions are
Best practices/standards/policies
needs and participants clearly governance of specific data are adopted as best practices for some Capabilities approved as organization
3 Participants in approved roles. 3 identified, documented and 3
understand responsibilities defined and distributed as best classes of capabilities and made recommended solutions.
approved.
Metadata
9
Data Governance Project Components
People Policies Capabilities
Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative
1 Few well-defined stewardship roles 1 Limited stewardship policies 1 Limited stewardship capabilities are
or responsibilities. Data requirements
documented. available.
driven by the development team.
2 Business analysts drive data Projects with explicit data design. 2 Functional areas with policy. 2 A centralized location exists for Count of policies (by status) in registry.
requirements during design process. Policies around stewardship Functional data entities with policy.
consolidation of and/or access to
Definition of stewardship roles and defined within a functional area.
stewardship related documentation.
responsibilities is limited.
Stewardship
3 Stewards, participants in stewardship 3 Organizational data entities with 3 Workflow capabilities are Organizational definitions through
All stewardship roles and structures boards, stewardship board meetings. Stewardship policies are policy. implemented for the vetting and process (completed, in progress).
are defined and filled but are still consistent between functions and approval of institutional definition,
functionally siloed. areas. business metadata and stewardship
related documentation.
4 The stewardship structures include Functional areas represented on 4 Audits and audit compliance are in 4 Stewardship dashboards report data Dashboards by function program area.
stewardship boards. Stewardship teams self-audit place. quality levels and data exceptions to Qualitative score included on
representatives from multiple
compliance with policies. support the auditing of stewardship dashboard.
business functions.
effectiveness.
5 The stewardship board includes Boards with AS and business 5 Compliance with stewardship Key organizational data without 5 A common stewardship dashboard Data issues are reported and resolved.
representation. stewardship policies (lower is better). enables managed issue remediation Time it takes to resolve data issues.
representatives from all relevant policies are enforced for key
as part of data quality reporting and
institutional functions. institutional data.
data exception reporting.
People Policies Capabilities
Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative
1 Individuals perform ad hoc data 1 Data quality efforts are infrequent 1
quality efforts as needed and
Data quality implies quality in terms of and driven by specific business
manually fix identified data issues. Data cleansing efforts identified, in Data quality is done on an ad hoc
formally defined definitions of fit-for- needs. These efforts are usually
Identification of data issues is based progress or completed. basis usually using SQL and Excel.
use data. large one-time data cleansing
off its usability for a specific business
efforts.
task.
2 A small group of individuals are 2 2
trained in and perform profiling to
Individuals trained in profiling, systems
assess data quality of existing Best practices have been defined Basic data profiling tools are
Data Quality
10
5 A data quality competency center is 5 5 Data quality remediation is Systems without data quality reporting,
funded and charged with continually Return on Investment of data quality Compliance with official implemented on both data at rest
Exceptions to official data quality and/or remediation (lower is better).
assessing and improving data quality competency center. organization data quality is (in databases) and data in flight (in
policies (lower is better). Interfaces without reporting and/or
outside of the system development System team endorsements. tracked and reported on centrally. ETL and as messages between
remediation (lower is better).
lifecycle. systems).
People Policies Capabilities
Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative
1 Inconsistent understanding of 1 No formal policies defining what 1 There is limited management of
concepts and benefits of Master Data data are considered institutional
master data.
Management. master data.
2 2 Institutional master data domains 2
Stakeholders for specific master data are defined and the systems Master data are identified and
Master data entities identified.
domains are identified and consulted Stakeholders identified. storing master data are manually managed and provisioned Systems using master data by transport
Functions consulted.
to develop basic definition and model Stakeholders’ agreements in place. documented. Usage of master via extracts, file transfers or manual method.
Perspectives identified.
of master data. data in these systems is actively uploads.
being documented.
Master Data
11
Data Governance Maturity Model Qualitative Score Card
To gauge the maturity of the qualitative aspects of an organization’s data governance program,
use the table below to record your score in each Component-Dimension then calculate the
average of each row and column. The average attained across each Component and Dimension
is the maturity level of your organization in each respective area.
Awareness 2 2 2 2
Formalization 1 2 1 1.3
Metadata 2 1 1 1.3
Stewardship 2 1 1 1.3
Master Data 1 1 1 1
At the time of the initial assessment, the organization’s executive leadership and/or data
governance board should set maturity goals. These goals should be a mix of short- and long-
term and they should be aligned with the DG program’s maturity assessment schedule.
12
Depending on the needs and maturity level of the organization’s DG program, the goals may
focus on one particular Component-Dimension, or they may span all Component-Dimensions.
In order to ensure the DG program continues to mature over time, goals should be actionable
and measurable.
To create the roadmap, create a scatter chart similar to the example shown below. Plot the
baseline maturity levels of each component, which are based on the results of the initial
maturity assessment, and the maturity goals for each component established by the executive
leadership and/or data governance board. According to the schedule agreed upon at the initial
assessment, use the maturity model tool again to assess the data governance program and plot
those scores to see how close the program is to meeting its goals, or if the goals have been met
and new ones need to be established.
13
Summary
A maturity model is a valuable tool to establish, sustain and gain support for the data
governance program. Establishing a maturity model during the planning or initiation phase of
the program and reassessing the program on a regular schedule makes creating goals and
tracking progress toward them simple.
Because the data needs and associated structures of organizations vary so greatly, it is
important to customize the maturity model to meet the specific needs of your organization.
Not all organizations will need or have adequate resources to complete a maturity model as in-
depth as the Stanford Maturity Measurement Tool. In Appendix A we have provided the Basic
Maturity Assessment which is a boiled down version of the Stanford model. This tool uses the
same score card and works on the same premise of identifying maturity levels based on existing
processes and structures, however, there is one metric for each component-dimension that
should be scored on a sliding scale of 1-5, rather than a single metric for each maturity level in
each component-dimension.
Choosing and customizing a maturity model and then using it regularly are key to establishing a
successful, long-lasting DG program.
14
Appendix A. The Basic Maturity Assessment
The Basic Maturity Assessment is a condensed version of the Stanford Maturity Measurement
Tool which uses the same 1-5 maturity scale and score card. An organization with limited
resources or that is very early in the design phase of building an IT and data governance
program may find this assessment tool more appropriate to start the program building process.
Like the Stanford Tool, this model focuses both on foundational and project aspects of DG. The
foundational components (Awareness, Formalization and Metadata) of the maturity model
focus on measuring core DG competencies and development of critical program resources. The
project components (Stewardship, Data Quality and Master Data) measure how effectively DG
concepts are applied in the course of funded projects.
Additionally, it includes the three dimensions (People, Policies and Capabilities) which further
subdivide each of the six maturity components, focusing on specific aspects of component
maturation.
Whether your organization uses the Stanford Maturity Measurement Tool or the Basic Maturity
Assessment, it is imperative that the maturity model you choose is finalized and adopted early
in the rollout of the DG program. Depending on where your organization is in the process of
standing up the data governance program, it may be most appropriate to use the Basic
Maturity Assessment to measure the baseline maturity of and resources available to the
organization. Then, as the data governance program is fleshed out, perhaps you will find that a
more robust maturity assessment is needed. In that case, because they are both based on the
same component-dimensions, you can easily transition from using the Basic Maturity
Assessment to using the full Stanford Maturity Measurement Tool.
Regardless of which tool you choose to use, or if you choose to use a combination of both,
thoughtful input from across the organization will help assure the model’s usefulness and long-
term fitness.
15
Data Governance Foundational Components Maturity
Component: Awareness - The extent to which individuals within the organization have knowledge
of the roles, rules and technologies associated with the data governance program.
Dimension Objective Rating
Are executives, employees and stakeholders aware of the purpose or
People 1 2 3 4 5
value of the DG program?
Are existing data policies documented, consistently maintained and
Policies 1 2 3 4 5
available to stakeholders?
Are stakeholders aware of the specific DG capabilities that are available at
Capabilities 1 2 3 4 5
the organization?
Component: Formalization - The extent to which roles are structured in an organization and the
activities of the employees are governed by rules and procedures.
Dimension Objective Rating
Have DG roles and responsibilities been defined and vetted with program
People 1 2 3 4 5
sponsors?
Are data polices around the governance of specific data defined as best
Policies 1 2 3 4 5
practices?
Capabilities Are classes of DG capabilities defined and is there an available solution? 1 2 3 4 5
Component: Metadata - Technical metadata describes data elements and other IT assets as well as
their use, representation, context and interrelations. Business metadata answers who, what, where,
when, why and how for users of the data and other IT assets.
Dimension Objective Rating
Do executives, employees or stakeholders have understanding of types
People 1 2 3 4 5
and values of metadata?
Policies Are metadata best practices produced and made available? 1 2 3 4 5
Is metadata consistently collected, consolidated and available from a
Capabilities 1 2 3 4 5
single portal?
Data Governance Project Components Maturity
Component: Stewardship - The formalization of accountability for the definition, usage and quality
standards of specific data assets within a defined organizational scope.
Dimension Objective Rating
Have DG or stewardship roles and responsibilities been defined within the
People 1 2 3 4 5
organization?
Have policies around data stewardship been defined within a functional
Policies 1 2 3 4 5
area?
Does a centralized location exist for consolidation of and/or access to
Capabilities 1 2 3 4 5
stewardship related documentation?
Component: Data Quality - The continuous process for defining the parameters for specifying
acceptable levels of data quality to meet business needs, and for ensuring that data quality
meets these levels.
Dimension Objective Rating
Are people assigned to assess and ensure data quality within the scope of
People 1 2 3 4 5
each project?
16
Have data quality best practices been defined and adopted as official
Policies 1 2 3 4 5
organizational data policies?
Have basic data profiling tools been made available for use anywhere in
Capabilities 1 2 3 4 5
the system development lifecycle?
Component: Master Data - Business-critical data that is highly shared across the organization. Master
data are often codified data, data describing the structure of the organization or key data entities.
Dimension Objective Rating
Is there consistent understanding among stakeholders of the concepts
People 1 2 3 4 5
and benefits of master data?
Are there formal policies that define what data are considered
Policies 1 2 3 4 5
institutional master data?
Capabilities Are master data identified, managed and provisioned? 1 2 3 4 5
17
References
IBM Data Governance Council. (October 2007). The IBM Data Governance Council Maturity
Model: Building a roadmap for effective data governance. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from
https://www-
935.ibm.com/services/uk/cio/pdf/leverage_wp_data_gov_council_maturity_model.pdf
Stanford University. (Oct. 22, 2013). Stanford Data Governance Maturity Model. Retrieved April
19, 2016, from http://web.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/cgi-bin/dg/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2011/11/StanfordDataGovernanceMaturityModel.pdf
Stanford University. (Oct. 17, 2011). The Stanford DG Maturity Model. Data Governance at
Stanford. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://web.stanford.edu/dept/pres-
provost/cgi-bin/dg/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DG-News002.pdf
18