Month: February 2018

One of the big IT catch phrases over the last several years has been the term “Big Data”. As in BIG data. REALLY BIG data. So, what is meant by “Big Data”? According to Google, “extremely large data sets that may be analyzed computationally to reveal patterns, trends, and associations, especially relating to human behavior and interactions.” If you’re like me, this conjures up images of voluminous spreadsheets, covered over by vague word clouds. And if you’ve ever seen the old Tracy and Hepburn movie “Desk Set”, you know the hazards of overloading complex systems with never-ending data. That’s right, lots of explosions and blown fuses.

An infographic from this week’s readings, prepared by IBM, aims to make Big Data a little less elusive by breaking it into 4 dimensions: Volume, Velocity, Variety and Veracity. First, Volume. Volume is what puts the BIG in data. Put plainly, there is a ton of data being created and stored every instant. Second, Velocity. Think of velocity as the speed of data and how it is being processed. Third, Variety. All this data that is being created and stored is coming from a plethora of sources. From Social Media, to Protected Health Information, to GPS, data about we the people, along with our habits and patterns, is being recorded and sent. Finally, Veracity. This is what puts the DATA in Big. This is how the data is analyzed and determined if it is fit for use.

So – what does any of this have to do with EA? In a word, plenty. Enterprise Data Architecture is the development of models and processes which manage the volume of data, the speed at which it is processed, and the variety of sources from which it is coming, so that folks who enjoy statistics and analysis can make sense of it all. A poorly conceived EDA can lead to redundancy, inconsistency, and a lack of understanding of where an organization is and where they want to get to.

Source:

Edjlali, R. (2011, January 28). Data Modeling and Data Architecture; A Required Strategy for Enterprise Information Architecture.

As a follow up to my question in post 1, on whether a lack of business involvement results in information being managed for information’s sake, I was drawn to a slide prepared by Gartner, which discusses how to determine the scope of Information Architecture governance in the organization. Assuming that we’re living in a perfect world and that the business is involved in the scope creation, this list seems like a perfect conversation starter.

It seems that once the scope is identified, the prioritization process would then be initiated. Paraphrasing Gartner, priorities should focus on the right information, with the right characteristics, the right interfaces, the right roles, and the right practices, providing the organization with the information that’s of the highest business value.

Sources:

Gartner for IT Leaders: How to Develop an Enterprise Information Architecture. (n.d.).

Scenario Toolkit: How to Develop a Big Data Strategy Using Outcome-Driven Enterprise Architecture. (2012, August 27).

Enterprise Information Architecture refers to how organizations “coordinate information management disciplines and activities”. Information Architecture Governance refers to the overall strategy for how the information is used and disseminated. Typically, Information Architecture Governance is considered the purview of IT. However, as we’ve learned already during our Enterprise Architecture courses, EA, and at another level, EIA, should be the responsibility of the entire enterprise.

One of this week’s readings specifically calls out that Information governance should be a “business-led and managed set of tasks”. This intrigued me. Also intriguing was an accompanying graphic which measures the alignment between IT and the Business.

One of the concerns I have with my current organization is the general lack of strategic alignment between the two. It follows then that if there is little strategic alignment between IT and the Business, there is little in the way of business-led information governance. Once again, it follows that if there is little in the way of business-led information governance, that any current information governance is being led by IT, and therefore there is little strategic alignment with the business of how to govern and manage access to information.

The same article gives another graphic, highlighting the process for how information should be prioritized.

This speaks to the same concern. If Information governance is owned by IT, and the business is not part of this prioritization process, who is to say that the governance rules will be found useful by any of the stakeholders. Care should be taken to align and to prioritize correctly, otherwise information will be maintained for information’s sake, rather than if the information will eventually prove valuable to the organization.

Source:

Gartner for IT Leaders: Information Governance Project Toolkit. (2009, April).