On the Evolution of Data Governance in Firms: The Case of Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products North America

  • Boris OttoEmail author


Data Governance defines decision-making rights for company-wide use of data. The topic has received increased attention both in the scientific and in the practitioners’ community, as the quality of data meanwhile is increasingly being considered a key prerequisite for companies for being able to meet a number of strategic business requirements, such as compliance with a growing number of legal provisions or pursuit of a customer-centric business model. While first results can be found in literature addressing Data Governance arrangements, no studies have been published so far investigating the evolution of Data Governance over time. Drawing on theory about organizational capabilities, the chapter assumes that Data Governance can be considered a dynamic capability and that the concept of capability lifecycles can be applied. A single-case study conducted at Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, North America, is presented to explore the research question as to how Data Governance effectiveness can be measured as the ratio of the number of preventive data quality management (DQM) measures to the total number of DQM measures in order to trace the evolution of Data Governance over time. The findings suggest that Data Governance can in fact be seen as a dynamic capability and that its effectiveness evolves according to a lifecycle curve. Furthermore, the chapter discusses a maturity model which can be used as an instrument to manage and monitor this evolution.


Business Process Dynamic Capability Organizational Capability Executive Management Master Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Weber K, Otto B, Österle H (2009) One size does not fit all—a contingency approach to data governance. ACM J Data Inf Qual 1(1):Article 4Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khatri V, Brown CV (2010) Designing data governance. Commun ACM 53(1):148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    IBM (2011) IBM Forms Data Governance Council 2005, February 9, 2011.
  4. 4.
    AFNOR (2009) General principles for an environmental communication on mass market products. 2009, AFNOR Groupe: La Plaine Saint-Denis, FranceGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deloitte (2009) Telecommunications Predictions: TMT Trends 2009. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Otto B (2011) A morphology of the organisation of data governance. In: 19th European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pierce E, Dismute WS, Yonke CL (2008) The state of information and data governance—understanding how organizations govern their information and data assets. IAIDQ and UALR-IQ, Little Rock, ARGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Badenoch D et al (1994) The value of information. In: Feeney M, Grieves M (eds) The value and impact of information. Bowker-Saur, London, pp 9–75Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boisot M, Canals A (2004) Data, information and knowledge: have we got it right? J Evol Econ 14(1):43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oppenheim C, Stenson J, Wilson RMS (2003) Studies on information as an asset I: definitions. J Inf Sci 29(3):159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van den Hoven J (1999) Information resource management: Stewards of data. Inf Syst Manag 16(1):88–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holtham C (1995) Resolving the imbalance between information and technology. In: Best D (ed) The fourth resource: information and its management. Aslib/Gower, Aldershot, UK, pp 41–58Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang RY (1998) A product perspective on total data quality management. Commun ACM 41(2):58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olson J (2003) Data quality—the accuracy dimension. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Redman TC (2001) Data quality. The field guide. Digital Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang RY, Strong DM (1996) Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manag Inf Syst 12(4):5–34zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horne NW (1995) Information as an asset—the board agenda. Comput Audit Update 1995(9):5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Even A, Shankaranarayanan G (2007) Utility-driven assessment of data quality. ACM SIGMIS Database 38(2):75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DAMA (2009) The DAMA guide to the data management body of knowledge. Technics Publications, Bradley BeachGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Helfert M (2002) Proaktives Datenqualitätsmanagement in Data-Warehouse-Systemen: Qualitätsplanung und Qualitätslenkung (Germ.: Proactive data quality management in data warehouse systems: Quality planning and controlling). Logos, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Batini C et al (2009) Methodologies for data quality assessment and improvement. ACM Comput Surv 41(3):1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang RY et al (1998) Manage your information as a product. Sloan Manag Rev 39(4):95–105Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ISO/IEC (2008) ISO/IEC 38500: corporate governance of information technology. ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) and IEC (the International Electrotechnical Commission), Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sadiq S, Yeganeh K, Indulska M (2011) Cross-disciplinary collaborations in data quality research. In: 19th European Conference on Information Systems, Helsinki, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kooper M, Maes R, Lindgreen ER (2009) Information governance: in search of the forgotten grail. In: PrimaVera Working Paper Series. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cragg P, Caldeira M, Ward J (2011) Organizational information systems competences in small and medium-sized enterprises. Inf Manag 48(8):353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lucas A (2010) Corporate data quality management in context. In: 15th International Conference on Information Quality, Little Rock, ARGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Otto B (2011) Organizing data governance: findings from the telecommunications industry and consequences for large service providers. Commun AIS 29(1):45–66Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wende K, Otto B (2007) A contingency approach to data governance. In: 12th International Conference on Information Quality, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cheong LK, Chang V (2007) The need for data governance: a case study. In: Toleman M, Cater-Steel A, Roberts D (eds) 18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems. The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia, pp 999–1008Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vaygan JA et al (2007) The internal information transformation of IBM. IBM Syst J 46(4):669–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beynon-Davies P (2005) Personal identification in the information age: the case of the national identity card in the UK. In: 13th European Conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Delbaere M, Ferreira R (2007) Addressing the data aspects of compliance with industry models. IBM Syst J 46(2):319–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ramakrishnan T, Jones MC, Sidorova A (2012) Factors influencing business intelligence (BI) data collection strategies: an empirical investigation. Decis Support Syst 52(2):486–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith HA, McKeen JD (2008) Developments in practice XXX: master data management: salvation or snake oil? Commun AIS 23:63–72Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Williams CB, Fedorowicz J, Tomasino AP (2010) Governmental factors associated with state-wide interagency collaboration initiatives. In: 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Puebla, Mexico, pp 14–22Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Panian Z (2010) Some practical experiences in data governance. World Acad Sci Eng Technol Manag (62):939–946Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ardagna CA et al (2009) An XACML-based privacy-centered access control system. In: 1st ACM Workshop on Information Security Governance, Chicago, IL, pp 49–57Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dan A, Johnson R, Arsanjan A (2007) Information as a service: modeling and realization. In: International Workshop on Systems Development in SOA EnvironmentsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gates C, Bishop M (2010) The security and privacy implications of using social networks to deliver healthcare. In: 3rd International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, Samos, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kerschbaum F, Schaad A (2008) Privacy-preserving social network analysis for criminal investigations. In: 7th ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, Alexandria, VA, pp 9–13Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pearson S (2009) Taking account of privacy when designing cloud computing services. In: ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering Challenges of Cloud Computing, Vancouver, Canada, pp 44–52Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Stell A, Sinnott R, Ajayi O (2008) Supporting UK-wide e-clinical trials and studies. In: 15th ACM Mardi Gras Conference, Baton Rouge, LAGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rifaie M, Alhajj R, Ridley M (2009) Data governance strategy: a key issue in building enterprise data warehouse. In: 11th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp 587–591Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gillies A, Howard J (2005) An international comparison of information in adverse events. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 18(5):343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rosenbaum S (2010) Governance data and stewardship, designing data stewardship entities and advancing data access. Health Serv Res 45(5):1442–1455MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5(2):171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Helfat CE, Peteraf MA (2003) The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strateg Manag J 24(10):997–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dierickx I, Cool K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Manag Sci 35(12):1504–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cepeda G, Vera D (2007) Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities. J Bus Res 60(5):426–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strateg Manag J 21(10–11):1105–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wang CL, Ahmed PK (2007) Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda. Int J Manag Rev 9(1):31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Österle H (1996) Business engineering: transition to the networked enterprise. Electron Mark 6(2):14–16Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Österle H, Blessing D (2003) Business engineering modell. In: Österle H, Winter R (eds) Business Engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hüner K, Ofner M, Otto B (2009) Towards a maturity model for corporate data quality management. In: Shin D (ed) 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. Honolulu, HI, pp 231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ofner M, Hüner K, Otto B (2009) Dealing with complexity: a method to adapt and implement a maturity model for corporate data quality management. In: 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yin RK (2002) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Benbasat I, Goldstein DK, Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q 11(3):369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Senger E, Österle H (2004) PROMET Business Engineering Case Studies (BECS) Version 2.0. University of St. Gallen, Institute of Information Management, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weill P, Ross J (2005) A matrixed approach to designing IT governance. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 46(2):25–34Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sambamurthy V, Zmud RW (1999) Arrangements for information technology governance: a theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Q 23(2):261–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Teo TSH, King WR (1997) Integration between business planning and information systems planning: an evolutionary-contingency perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 14(1):185–214Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Nolan RL (1973) Managing the computer resource: a stage hypothesis. Commun ACM 16(7):399–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gibson CF, Nolan RL (1974) Managing the four stages of EDP growth. Harv Bus Rev 52(1):76–88Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Crosby PB (1980) Quality is free: the art of making quality certain. Mentor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fraser P, Moultrie J, Gregory M (2002) The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing product development capability. In: IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    SEI (2006) Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI[SM]) A, Version 1.2: Method Definition Document. Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lee YW et al (2002) AIMQ: a methodology for information quality assessment. Inf Manag 40:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    DataFlux (2007) The Data Governance Maturity Model. DataFlux Corporation, CaryGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bitterer A (2007) Gartner’s Data Quality Maturity Model. Gartner, StamfordGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ryu K-S, Park J-S, Park J-H (2006) A data quality management maturity model. Electron Telecommun Res Inst J 28(2):191–204MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Baskarada S, Gao J, Koronios A (2006) Agile maturity model approach to assessing and enhancing the quality of asset information in engineering asset management information systems. In: Abramowicz W, Mayr HC (eds) 9th International Conference on Business Information Systems, Klagenfurt, Austria, pp 486–500Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    SEI (2006) CMMI for Development, Version 1.2. Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    EFQM (2012) EFQM Framework for Corporate Data Quality Management. EFQM, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    OMG (2006) Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification—Version 2.0, 1 November 2011.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations