Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Data Governance as a Collective Action Problem

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While governing data as an organizational asset has clear benefits, mobilizing an organization to implement data governance remains elusive for practitioners. On that account, this paper examines why governing data is difficult in local government organizations. Based on a literature review and an empirical case study, we establish the inherent challenges and build on the notion of collective action to theorize the problem of data governance. Following an engaged scholarship approach, we collect empirical material through six group interviews with 34 representatives from 13 different Danish municipalities. We extend existing data governance research with our problem triangle that identifies and explicates the complex relations between six distinct challenges: value, collaboration, capabilities, overview, practices, and politics. We demonstrate the value in theorizing data governance as a collective action problem and argue for the necessity of ensuring researchers and practitioners achieve a common understanding of the inherent challenges, as a first step towards developing data governance solutions that are viable in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Collecting personal data without a consented purpose is illegal according to GDPR but local government organizations also have vast amounts of non-personal data.

References

  • Agency for Digitisation. (2018). IT architecture. Danish Agency for Digitisation. https://digst.dk/data/it-arkitektur/. Accessed 27 September 2018.

  • Alhassan, I., Sammon, D., & Daly, M. (2016). Data governance activities: An analysis of the literature. Journal of Decision Systems, 25, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2016.1187397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alhassan, I., Sammon, D., & Daly, M. (2018). Data governance activities: A comparison between scientific and practice-oriented literature. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(2), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2017-0007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Ruithe, M., Benkhelifa, E., & Hameed, K. (2018). A systematic literature review of data governance and cloud data governance. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1104-3.

  • Baškarada, S., & Koronios, A. (2013). Data, information, knowledge, wisdom (DIKW): A semiotic theoretical and empirical exploration of the hierarchy and its quality dimension. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 18(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v18i1.748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg, C., & Caira, T. (2011). Data governance in practice: The SME quandary reflections on the reality of data governance in the small to medium Enterprise (SME) sector. 5th European Conference on Information Management and Evaluation (ECIME), 75–83.

  • Begg, C., & Caira, T. (2012). Exploring the SME quandary: Data governance in Practise in the small to medium-sized Enterprise sector. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 15(1), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benfeldt Nielsen, O. (2017). A comprehensive review of data governance literature. In Selected Papers of the IRIS (Vol. 8).

  • Beynon-Davies, P. (2009). The “language” of informatics: The nature of information systems. International Journal of Information Management, 29(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beynon-Davies, P. (2011). In-formation on the prairie: Signs, patterns, systems and prairie dogs. International Journal of Information Management, 31(4), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brous, P., Janssen, M., & Vilminko-Heikkinen, R. (2016). Coordinating decision-making in data management activities: A systematic review of data governance principles. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44421-5_9.

  • Cheong, L., & Chang, V. (2007). The need for data governance: A case study. ACIS 2007 Proceedings, 99–1008.

  • Coleman, D. W., Hughes, A. A., & Perry, W. D. (2009). The role of data governance to relieve information sharing impairments in the federal government. 2009 WRI world congress on computer science and information engineering, CSIE 2009, 4, 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSIE.2009.630.

  • Constantinides, P., & Barrett, M. (2015). Information infrastructure development and governance as collective action. Information Systems Research, 26(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DalleMule, L., & Davenport, T. H. (2017). What’s your data strategy? Harvard Business Review, 11.

  • Danish Ministry of Finance. (2016). A stronger and more secure Denmark: Digital strategy 2016–2020. Danish Government.

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: H. Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, Y. K., Janssen, M., Slade, E. L., Rana, N. P., Weerakkody, V., Millard, J., Hidders, J., & Snijders, D. (2017). Driving innovation through big open linked data (BOLD): Exploring antecedents using interpretive structural modelling. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9675-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elbanna, A., Bunker, D., Levine, L., & Sleigh, A. (2019). Emergency management in the changing world of social media: Framing the research agenda with the stakeholders through engaged scholarship. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 112–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2017). Europe’s digital Progress report - the digital economy and society index.

  • European Commission. (2018). 2018 reform of EU data protection rules. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/justice-and-fundamental-rights/data-protection/2018-reform-eu-data-protection-rules_en. Accessed 7 January 2019.

  • European Union. (2016). General data protection regulation. Official Journal of the European Union, L119, 1–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1994). Interviewing: The arts of science. Handbook of Qualitative Research, i, 120-121, 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2010.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. J., & Myers, M. D. (1995). Scholarship and practice: The contribution of ethnographic research methods to bridging the gap. Information Technology & People, 8(3), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593849510098244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holahan, R., & Lubell, M. (2016). Collective Action Theory. In J. Torfing & C. K. Ansell (Eds.), Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 21–31). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juell-Skielse, G., Lönn, C.-M., & Päivärinta, T. (2017). Modes of collaboration and expected benefits of inter-organizational E-government initiatives: A multi-case study. Government Information Quarterly, 34(4), 578–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khatri, V., & Brown, C. V. (2010). Designing data governance. Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 148. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629175.1629210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D., & Grant, G. (2010). E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 12(3), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/13287261011070858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiron, D. (2016). Lessons from becoming a data-driven organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(2).

  • Klievink, B., Romijn, B.-J., Cunningham, S., & de Bruijn, H. (2017). Big data in the public sector: Uncertainties and readiness. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9686-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladley, J. (2012). Data governance: How to design, deploy, and sustain an effective data governance program. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. W., Madnick, S. E., Wang, R. Y., Wang, F. L., & Zhang, H. (2014). A cubic framework for the chief data officer: Succeeding in a world of big data. MIS Quarterly Executive, 13(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Local Government Denmark. (2018). Municipal Responsibilities. Local Government Denmark. http://www.kl.dk/English/Municipal-Responsibilities/. Accessed 27 September 2018.

  • Marchand, D. A., & Peppard, J. (2013). Why IT fumbles analytics. Harvard Business Review, 91(1), 104–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L., Steinfield, C. W., & Wigand, R. T. (2006). Industry-Wide Information Systems Standardization as Collective Action: The Case of the U.S. Residential Mortgage Industry. MIS Quarterly, 30, 439. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathiassen, L. (2002). Collaborative practice research. Information Technology & People, 15(4), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841111182250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medaglia, R., Hedman, J., & Eaton, B. (2017). Public-private collaboration in the emergence of a National Electronic Identification Policy: The case of NemID in Denmark. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2782–2791.

  • Mindel, V., Mathiassen, L., & Rai, A. (2018). The sustainability of polycentric information commons. MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 607–631. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2018/14015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Willcocks, L. (2014). An integrative semiotic framework for information systems: The social, personal and material worlds. Information and Organization, 24(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monge, P. R., Fulk, J., Kalman, M. E., Flanagin, A. J., Parnassa, C., & Rumsey, S. (1998). Production of collective action in Alliance-based Interorganizational communication and information systems. Organization Science, 9(3), 411–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. D., & Newman, M. (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining the craft. Information and Organization, 17(1), 2–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, P. A., & Persson, J. S. (2016). Engaged problem formulation in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 38(1), 720–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, O. B., Persson, J. S., & Madsen, S. (2019). Why governing data is difficult: Findings from Danish local government. In A. Elbanna, Y. K. Dwivedi, D. Bunker, & D. Wastell (Eds.), Smart Working, Living and Organising: IFIP WG 8.6 International Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, TDIT 2018, Portsmouth, UK, June 25, 2018, Proceedings (Vol. 533, pp. 15–29). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04315-5.

  • Olphert, W., & Damodaran, L. (2007). Citizen participation and engagement in the design of e-government services: The missing link in effective ICT design and delivery. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(9), 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups (21. Printing.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Ostrom, V. (1972). Polycentricity. Presented at the 1972 Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. In Cambridge. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2010). Analyzing collective action. Agricultural Economics, 41, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00497.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, B. (2011a). Organizing data governance: Findings from the telecommunications industry and consequences for large service providers. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 29(1), 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, B. (2011b). Data governance. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 3(4), 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-011-0162-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, B. (2011c). A Morphology of the Organisation of Data Governance. ECIS 2011 Proceedings, 272. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8348-9953-8.

  • Pereira, G. V., Macadar, M. A., Luciano, E. M., & Testa, M. G. (2017). Delivering public value through open government data initiatives in a Smart City context. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9673-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, J. S., Kaldahl, A., Skorve, E., & Nielsen, P. A. (2017). Value positions in E-government strategies: Something is (not) changing in the state of Denmark. Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems, 904–917.

  • Pierce, E., Dismute, W. S., & Yonke, C. L. (2008). The state of information and data governance - understanding how organizations govern their information and data assets.

  • Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2015). How smart, connected products are transforming companies. Harvard Business Review, 93(10), 96–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ransbotham, S., & Kiron, D. (2017). Analytics as a source of business innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 19.

  • Ransbotham, S., Kiron, D., & Prentice, P. K. (2016). Beyond the hype: The hard work behind analytics success. MIT Sloan Management Review, 19.

  • Rose, J., Persson, J. S., Kræmmergaard, P., & Nielsen, P. A. (2012). IT Management in Local Government: The DISIMIT project.

  • Rose, J., Persson, J. S., & Heeager, L. T. (2015a). How e-government managers prioritise rival value positions: The efficiency imperative. Information polity, 20(1), 35–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J., Persson, J. S., Heeager, L. T., & Irani, Z. (2015b). Managing e-government: Value positions and relationships. Information Systems Journal, 25(5), 531–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soares, S. (2010). The IBM data governance unified process. USA: IBM Corporation.

  • Thompson, N., Ravindran, R., & Nicosia, S. (2015). Government data does not mean data governance: Lessons learned from a public sector application audit. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J. (Ed.). (2012). Interactive governance: advancing the paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., & Ansell, C. K. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook on theories of governance. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press on Demand.

  • Vilminko-Heikkinen, R. (2017). Data, technology, and people. Demystifying Master Data Management. Tampere University of Technology.

  • Vilminko-Heikkinen, R., Brous, P., & Pekkola, S. (2016). Paradoxes, conflicts and tensions in establishing master data management function. In 24th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2016.

  • Volkema, R. J. (1995). Creativity in MS/OR: Managing the process of formulating the problem. Interfaces, 25(3), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.25.3.81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, R. Y., & Strong, D. M. (1996). Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, K., Otto, B., & Osterle, H. (2009). One size does not fit all — A contingency approach to data governance. ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality, 1(1), 4 :1–4:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1515693.1515696.http.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT governance on one page. CISR Working Paper, (349).

  • Winter, J. S., & Davidson, E. (2018). The healthcare AI juggernaut: Is PHI data governance possible? In Living with Monsters? Social Implications of Algorithmic Phenomena, Hybrid Agency and the Performativity of Technology. Presented at the IFIP WG 8.2 working conference 2018, San Francisco State University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aalborg University, Fibigerstræde 3, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark

    Olivia Benfeldt & Sabine Madsen

  2. Aalborg University, Selma Lagerlöfsvej 300, 9220, Aalborg, Denmark

    Olivia Benfeldt & John Stouby Persson

Authors
  1. Olivia Benfeldt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Stouby Persson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sabine Madsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivia Benfeldt.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 4 Note: This data is mandatory. Please provide
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benfeldt, O., Persson, J.S. & Madsen, S. Data Governance as a Collective Action Problem. Inf Syst Front 22, 299–313 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09923-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09923-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation