Robert S Seiner
Interesting post William. I think that, rather than seeing it as Big vs Little data governance, organizations are focusing on "right-sizing" their initiatives. Right sizing might mean to start small, with a limited Critical Data Element (CDE) focus, and then expand the "amount of governance" into other areas (ex. more CDE, documentation, protection, quality and such). Organizations should consider starting by defining some of the basics (roles, process, communications) and then validate and assess how well these thing work via a pilot or two (or five) … and learn, adjust and grow from there. I find it effective to grow from Little Data Governance (the way you defined it) to Big (or Bigger) Data Governance over time and lessons learned. Hey everybody … Please feel free to share how you'd grow.
Thanks for the response, Bob. While I certainly see the
need for controlled evolutionary growth along the lines that you
describe, I think "little data governance" and "big data
governance" are fundamentally different functions. I see the
evolutionary path of "little data governance" as maturing into Data
Architecture management, not "big data governance.".
And I'm going to complicate matters because as I'm thinking about "big data governance", another ambiguity is coming up - but I'll save that for another thread.
I like the idea on „Big Data Governance“ and „Little Data Governance“. It seems to me that „Little Data Governance“ covers more the bottom-up approach because the addressed topics are more tangible. In addition the delivery of some quick wins is easier with „Little Data Governance“. Once „Little Data Governance“ is established and the quick wins show the added value to the company, it might be much easier to get management support and resources for big data governance activities.