If this data isn't being collected to meet the requirements of a business data owner, then it could easily be argued that IT own that data.
This often isn't being done for any direct business purpose, but rather to protect the business as a whole.
One such example is maybe your data security or information security team who may be monitoring telephone calls or internet activity. However, recently, I have come across circumstances where IT might own some data. They might own meta data, or performance data around the systems, but nothing more than that. These have usually been smaller organisations, where there is only one subject matter expert for each system and that person has been named as the data custodian.Īnother frequent question is whether IT is ever a data owner? Now this is an interesting questions as generally, I would say, no. I've worked with a number of clients where they have named their data custodians. That said, it's not impossible to have named custodians. However, I use that more loosely as a collective term for all of the IT department who are supporting your infrastructure.
However, once you have a data governance framework in place, the business usually gets much better at articulating data requirements and IT’s job gets easier.Īnother difference between the roles is that for data owners, I'm looking for named individuals who own one or more data sets. I think the confusion between the roles and who should be making decisions about data is rooted in a long term lack of data governance.īefore a company has data governance in place, it's common that the business has not been trained in articulating their data requirements and therefore it is often down to IT to interpret or make decisions in order to help the business. They are responsible for maintaining data on the IT infrastructure in accordance with business requirements. Data custodians are very much an IT role.
0 kommentar(er)
