There are multiple maturity models and associated assessments for Data Governance on the market. Some are from software vendors, or from consulting companies, which use these as the basis for selling services. Others are from professional groups like the one from the Data Governance Council.
They are all good – but frankly not adequate for the data economy many companies are entering into. I think it is useful to reshuffle some too well established ideas...
Maturity models in general are attractive because:
- Using a maturity model is nearly a ‘no-brainer’ exercise. You run an assessment and determine your current maturity level. Then you can make a list of the actions which will drive you to the next level. You do not need to ask your business for advice, nor involve too many people for interviews.
- Most data governance maturity models are modeled on the very well known CMMI. That means that they are similar at least in terms of structure/levels. So the debate between the advantages of one vs another is limited to its level of detail.
But as firms move into the data economy – with what this means for their sourcing, analyzing and leveraging data, I think that today’s maturity models for data governance are becoming less relevant – and even an impediment:
As a trend spotter for most of my career, one of the things I look for is the announcement of “newly created roles” at companies and agencies. The latest of this to hit my radar is “VP, content creation,” “VP, digital content,” or even “editor” for a brand marketer. It's part of a series of interesting comments made by brands and their agencies about building newsrooms to contribute content as frequently and as tactically as media properties would. And like those media, this content includes text and video, long and short form for both, as well as a desire for that content to be readily shared with friends and other acquaintances.
As my colleague Tracy Stokes pointed out in a recent blog post, the interest in branded content is based on the realization that old-school push communications have lost impact with consumers. And we’re not just talking TV and print here. Forrester’s Technographics® data shows that digital ads such as banner ads, text, and mobile apps are the least trusted form of advertising communications; only 10% of US online adults trust banner ads on websites. With multiple connected devices at their fingertips, today’s perpetually connected consumers can opt in or out of content on a whim, behavior that is exacerbated by those whose mind shift is such that their mobile device is the core of all digital activity. Branded content offers an opportunity to truly engage with consumers in a way that marketers have never done before.
It's just one more week before Forrester's Forum For Marketing Leaders EMEA (May 21st to 22nd) in London kicks off. Our analysts are excited to unveil the latest Forrester ideas such as the mobile mind shift in Europe, the database of affinity (in which we expect Google to win platform of choice over Facebook), and the latest in mobile marketing and engagement. Our analysts will combine forces with industry keynote speakers such as Frank Boulben, chief marketing officer at Blackberry; Markus Kramer, global marketing director at Aston Martin Lagonda; Pete Blackshaw, global head of digital and social media at Nestlé; Greg Williams, executive editor at Wired; Yannick Grecourt, COO, head of strategy and marketing at Deutsche Bank Belgium; and Micke Paqvalen, founder and chairman of the innovative startup Kiosked.
As we make our final preparations for the event, I caught up with Markus Kramer, global marketing director at Aston Martin Lagonda, about the opportunities and challenges specific to luxury brand marketing. Here's what he had to say:
Q: Based on your experiences at Aston Martin, and before that at Harley-Davidson, what in your view makes marketing for luxury brands different?
EMC's Project Bourne morphed into ViPR at the EMC World 2013 event at Las Vegas last week. It seems like everyone has a different take on what should be included in SDS, and my definition and implementation guidelines can be found in this report. Like other vendors, EMC is promising to revolutionize the way customers will provision, manage and create storage resources using ViPR, which will become a key component in the vendor's Software Defined Data Center strategy for virtualizing compute, networking, and storage resources. Unlike other years, where EMC bombarded its attendees with dozens of product launches, this year's show focused almost entirely on ViPR, which makes sense given the importance of this technology. ViPR is expected to become generally available in the latter half of 2013, and like all other SDS implementations, ViPR is designed to reduce the number of administrators it takes to manage rapidly growing data repositories by using automation and self-service provisioning. So what's under ViPR's covers?
The Wall Street Journal published a point-counterpoint article on cloud-hosted file sync/share solutions like Dropbox, Google Docs, and myriad others. They chose a title I wouldn't have used myself, but there you have it.
I took the pro side. You can read the whole article here.
My side of the argument is here:
Yes: Employees Are Doing What's Best for the Company
By Ted Schadler
Why do employees use cloud-based solutions like Dropbox, Box and SugarSync to sync and share files? As well over 100 million Dropbox customers have learned, it's because these services make it a cinch to move files from a computer to a tablet to a smartphone to another computer and back again. And it's a much better solution than email for sharing a bucket of files with others.
These services began life with a focus on home scenarios. But it didn't take savvy employees long to realize that these services also solve three big productivity problems at work: 1) getting all your work files on every device you use for work; 2) sharing files with colleagues; and 3) sharing files with trusted partners and customers.
So, should IT organizations allow employees to use these cloud-based services? That question is patently absurd. Why should an IT organization dictate what employees do to get their work done? Who made IT responsible for policing employee behavior and tools?
When you hear the words “end user computing”, what do you think of? If you’re in infrastructure & operations (I&O), you might think about the corporate standard laptop or desktop you’ve just selected that over the next couple of years you’ll provision to most of your employees. Or your corporate standard OS image that you stamp on those systems; locked-down, loaded with the management & security agents and corporate apps you think those employees need. Or perhaps even the corporate standard smartphone that you’ve handed out to the employees who needed mobile email access. You might think of these things because they all help I&O organizations deliver and support technology for employees more efficiently. These techniques help you address the historical “ask” from your colleagues outside of IT: “Give us technology while absolutely minimizing the impact you have on our bottom line”
Andras Cser probed a sore spot in IAM last week with his post, “XACML Is Dead.” It’s a necessary conversation (though I did see a glint in his eye at the Forrester BT Forum after he pressed Publish!). Our Q3 2012 Identity Standards TechRadar showed that XACML has already crested the peak of its moderate success trajectory, heading for decline. We haven’t seen its business value-add or ecosystem grow since then, despite the publication of XACML 3.0 and a few other bright spots, such as Axiomatics’ recent funding round.
It’s not that we don’t need an interoperable solution for finer-grained access control. But the world’s demands for loosely coupled identity and access systems have gotten...well, more demanding. The solution needs to be friendly to open web API security and management. It needs to be friendly to mobile developers. And it most certainly needs to be prepared to tackle the hard parts of integrating authorization with truly heterogeneous cloud services and applications, where business partners aren’t just enterprise clones, but may be tiny and resource-strapped. This admittedly gets into business rather than technical challenges, but every ounce of technical friction makes success in the business realm less likely.
Having had several related discussions this past week while in Washington DC, it is obvious that the question of how to use and manage the growing wealth of data, and incorporate it into an existing information governance organization and infrastructure (however mature or not), is top of mind in the public sector as well. These questions are particularly timely for the federal government with the publication of the new Executive Order on Open Data and accompanying Memorandum on Open Data Policy – Managing Information as an Asset. Do government agencies need a CDO in order to do this?
If they did, what functions does the new role take on? Does the new role take on new uses of data for business strategy? Who has responsibility for existing functions of information management and data governance? Then from the organizational perspective, where does this new role sit? Who reports to the CDO? Gene discusses these questions in his blog. With the increasing importance of data and the information they generate, organizations need to get their heads around the new assets they have – both for internal use and both partners external to the organization. But the proliferation of “chiefs” doesn’t seem to be the answer. Information is an asset to the company, yes. And it needs to be managed. But not all assets have their own chief, nor should they.
I’m currently finishing up my presentation for the Internet Retailer Conference & Expo in June: I’ll be presenting on the non-US marketplace options for brands as part of the global eCommerce track. In preparation for the session, I’ve had a chance to catch up with a number of established global online marketplaces for brands as well as agencies helping to develop some of the marketplace storefronts.
While many North American and European brands are familiar with local marketplace players, it’s worthwhile highlighting just a few key marketplace options originating outside of these two regions:
Channel partners are bullish about their growth prospects. In fact, in a recently conducted Forrester survey in North America (NA) and Europe, 59% of channel partners expect to grow by more than 10% in each of the next two years. However, partners will need help and handholding as they aim for greater sophistication and higher growth targets, especially around cloud based services. Forrester research indicates that three-quarters of channel partners in NA and Europe now sell cloud-based solutions (up dramatically from two years ago). These solutions now make up 26% of their overall revenue, a percentage they expect to increase in coming years.
In my recent report, Seeding the Cloud Channel, I highlight three key areas where the partners will need support from both their tech vendors and their distributors:
Diagnostic tools and services to assess current maturity and set a transformation road map. Partners will first have to collaborate with their principal vendors to gauge the fitness of their organizations for an annuity-based business model — and whether they can sustain that model in long run. Vendors need to create assessment tools to evaluate their partners' business model transformation potential. For example, Cisco Systems built its OnPlus ROI Tool expressly for partners to model the myriad business model options and scenario decisions they face. This will not only help partners identify their pertinent strengths and weaknesses, but will also help them plan their future growth strategy.