Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

India hardy presentation


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

India hardy presentation

  1. 1. Social Media: the Good, the Bad and the UglyThe importance of Information Governance in the digitally networked age<br />India Hardy for Deloitte<br />Ark Conference: Information and Data Governance (Sydney)<br />14 December 2010<br />
  2. 2. How can companies today:1. Exploit the value of collaboration tools such as social media?2. Manage the right balance between ‘need to know’ and ‘obligation to share’?3. Minimise the risk of inappropriate sharing of company information through effective governance? <br />
  3. 3. What’s happening?<br />
  4. 4. Deloitte is one of the leading global strategy consulting firms with a broad international Social Media expertise.<br />Worldwide Presence<br />Leading Global Strategy Consulting Firm*<br /><ul><li>More than 165,000 employees in 140 countries
  5. 5. More than 50% of the world’s biggest companies work with Deloitte
  6. 6. Corporate Finance
  7. 7. Tax</li></ul>Four service areas<br /><ul><li>Audit
  8. 8. Consulting</li></ul>Strategy<br />Operations<br />Implementation<br />Outsourcing<br />McKinsey<br />BCG<br />Bain<br />Roland Berger<br />Booz<br />Oliver Wyman<br />A.T. Kearney<br />Deloitte<br />Accenture<br />CapGemini<br />IBM<br />Bearing Point<br />Uniquely Combining Strategy and Operations<br />Selection of global Enterprise 2.0 and Business 2.0 clients<br />* Global Consulting Marketplace 2009, Kennedy Consulting Research, Statistics based on different fiscal years<br />4<br />
  9. 9. Deloitte walks the talk – by deploying Enterprise 2.0 tools which positively impact collaboration, communication and knowledge sharing.<br />Deloitte Internal Social Media Projects<br />D Street<br />Official social networking sites where practitioners connect with others<br />Social Media Community of Practice<br />Global forum for the contribution and exchange of information, knowledge and experience about Social Media<br />D WikisUsers collaborate on a variety of work from client engagements to internal activities<br />Gartner: D Street Case study<br />Socialcast<br />Unofficial social networking site where global practitioners connect and discuss about trending topics<br />Deloitte Microblogging via YammerDeloitte’s microblogging platform (based on Yammer) grows rapidly in terms of signups and usage, currently containing 1,883 members and 5,812 messages.<br />Deloitte Innovation <br />An innovation portal was established to collect ideas and facilitate cross-department collaboration<br />5<br />
  10. 10. Major trends in a word:<br />‘Clomosoda’<br />Cloud + Mobile + Social + Data<br />
  11. 11. The way we use and interact with the web is in a constant state of change.<br />
  12. 12. Today the web rules our world – from the way we move information, to the way we consume content.<br />The web is social.<br />Global online population is 1.9 billion.<br />Today we carry the internet in our pockets.<br />
  13. 13. The ongoing integration of Enterprise 2.0 into business software demonstrates the increasing role of Social Media in companies.<br />1<br />Increasing social networking use will replace e-mail usage <br />Social networking services will partly substitute e-mail as the primary vehicle for interpersonal business communications, as social networking will prove to be more effective than e-mail for certain business activities such as status updates or internal communication<br />4<br />Enterprise platforms get a social layerA growing number of established software vendors include Enterprise 2.0 features into their product lines, driving the implementation of Social Media tools in large corporations<br />2<br />Employees’ adoption of smart phones will rise constantly<br />Firms can expect and have to react to getting increasing adoption and use from smart phoneapplications by all but especially younger employees<br />5<br />3<br />Social computing policies become increasingly important<br />Multiple options of informal information sharing through Enterprise 2.0 applications include the risk of information leakage and PR disasters requiring strict policies that define the purpose and usage of Enterprise 2.0<br />Intranet is becoming the single entry point to Enterprise 2.0 platforms<br />While the current usage of Social Media tools is often limited to small, disconnected teams without a broader enterprise strategy, the ongoing, integrated implementation of Social Media into corporate organizations will make the intranet the enterprise wide single entry point for Enterprise 2.0 applications, favored also by the growing options for customization of the starting site<br />Source: Deloitte Research, Forrester, Gartner<br />9<br />
  14. 14. Further growth and trends will reshape the importance of Enterprise 2.0 in coming years.<br />6<br />9<br />Increased bundling of Enterprise 2.0 tools<br />Companies benefit from growing Enterprise 2.0 feature-bundlings of vendors, as they reduce implementation, integration and licensing costs<br />Rising need for community management<br />To efficiently manage moderation, administration and participation of social communities as well as to foster in the initial engagement with employees, a centralized community management gets increasingly important<br />7<br />Increasing relevance of social search functions, analytics and filtering<br />To benefit from the growing volume of information available through Enterprise 2.0 tools, search functions and filtering of information becomes the key to make Enterprise 2.0 an efficient working tool<br />10<br />Microblogging will be subsumed as a feature in enterprise social software suites<br />Enterprises will increasingly use activity streams including microbloggingbut prefer integrated software solutions over stand-alone enterprise microblogging services<br />8<br />Automated compliance monitoring as an increasingly important feature of Enterprise 2.0 <br />Especially public companies and regulated industries where the usage of Enterprise 2.0 contains the problem of detecting local and foreign compliance violations, benefit from automated compliance monitoring as a feature of Enterprise 2.0 software solutions<br />Source: Deloitte Research, Forrester, Gartner<br />10<br />
  15. 15. Introduction tosocial media and Gov2.0<br />
  16. 16. Social media refocuses the organisation on to the individual, and can open transparent dialogue across boundaries.<br />“Social media is the use of electronic and Internet tools for the purpose of sharing and discussing information and experiences with other human beings” –<br />Social media shifts focus from the organisation to the users. Social media can be best described as:<br /><ul><li>A paradigm shift to user-generated content: text, images, video or audio created by users of a service and published on that service, such as videos on YouTube. Social media encourages dialogue, and users’ input into these dialogues may take a variety of forms.
  17. 17. Extending the control and flow of information to the users and communities that consume it. Personalisation, customisation and rating and reviewing content are some ways that information is being managed by consumers.
  18. 18. Opening new channels of communication to drive interaction and dialogue. Older models of one-way broadcast communication are being enriched with technologies which encourage dialogues and ongoing communication between parties.
  19. 19. Embracing collaboration and “wisdom of the crowds” for collective value. When presented to a larger audience, complex problems can be approached from a multitude of ways, and group decisions offer improved satisfaction for end users.</li></ul>Amazon encourages users to provide feedback on products being sold, feedback which helps other users make purchasing decisions<br />BigPond uses Twitter to respond to customer concerns and trouble-shoot technical difficulties<br />Source: Deloitte research<br />12<br />
  20. 20. Understanding how social media tools and technologies can be used for different purposes helps structure collaboration.<br />Social media includes an ever-growing range of technologies and tools – and choosing the right platform is crucial to ensuring success.<br />Source: Deloitte research<br />13<br />
  21. 21. The move from traditional media to social media affects the relationship between the content publisher and the audience. The top-down relationship is updated with a collaborative, two-way relationship, characterised by a dynamic, personal experience.<br />Social media<br />“Engage the individual”<br /><ul><li>Flexible
  22. 22. Collaborative
  23. 23. Communities
  24. 24. Engaged users
  25. 25. Top-down, bottom-up, and lateral</li></ul>E.g.: social bookmarking tool, showing popular news articles and allowing commenting on them<br />Traditional Media<br />“Interrupt the mass audience”<br /><ul><li>Structured
  26. 26. Siloed
  27. 27. One size fits all
  28. 28. Passive audience
  29. 29. Top-down, one-directional</li></ul>E.g.: newspaper publishing, providing one structure and content of news for all readers<br />Organisation<br />Organisation<br />Versus<br />Push<br />Pull<br />Provide<br />Push<br />Mass audience<br />Targeted<br />participative <br />audience<br />Power lies with: users, communities, and experiences<br />Power lies with: institutions, platforms, and technology<br />Source: Deloitte research<br />14<br />Shifting from traditional media models to social media models creates a new engagement model. <br />
  30. 30. Understanding Gov 2.0 – adopting a truly collaborative approach.<br />“Government 2.0 involves a public policy shift to create a culture of openness and transparency, where government is willing to engage with and listen to its citizens.” – Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0.<br />Gov 2.0 refers to how governments can use the power of Web 2.0 tools – including social networking, wikis and blogs – to change the way they operate, in three main areas:<br />The relationship with the audience/users is most relevant. Improving engagement through Gov 2.0 provides specific benefits :<br /><ul><li>Integrating dialogue in the task of sharing information with the individuals and communities who consume it, allowing two-way transparency and responsiveness, and helping audience understand information provided.
  31. 31. Offering additional and varied methods of engaging with individuals and communities, driving active participation and engagement in the activities of government, and receiving feedback on effectiveness of these activities.
  32. 32. Opening up public sector information (PSI) for wider usage, identifying data reuse, repurposing and republishing opportunities which can drive new knowledge and insights, and increasing accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness of activities which draw upon PSI.
  33. 33. Creating new and improved opportunities for establishing connections between previously separate entities, leading to opportunities for improved processes, simplification of paths of communication, and increased information sharing and discussion.</li></ul>Source: Deloitte research<br />15<br />
  34. 34. Other government Gov 2.0 engagements.<br />Other governments and organisations around the world are engaging in social media for Gov 2.0 purposes, breaking down barriers to communication and encouraging citizens to share their thoughts and opinions.<br />16<br />
  35. 35. Australian Gov 2.0 documents.<br />The Australian Federal Government has led the world with their ground-breaking research into Gov 2.0, “Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0”. This and other documents are listed below for further reading.<br />17<br />
  36. 36. Case study:Risk Management Framework deployed for the US Intelligence Community<br />
  37. 37. Example: Wikileaks. Behavioural, cultural and technology measures, if implemented, can reduce risk of inappropriate sharing of information.<br />Technology accessing metadata would have provided pattern analysis of who in the ranks was accessing information not relevant to their roles, and could have flagged access to 250,000 leaks sooner than later.<br />Improved whistle-blowingmechanisms internally would have provided a mechanism for matters to be dealt with separately, independently and in a managed way.<br />A culture of transparency should be maintained internally, lead from the top, creating a sense of ‘nothing to hide’. Clearly certain information should remain controlled, such as M&A data, however the leadership team should encourage an open dialogue with employees. Deloitte does this through a number of channels, including Yammer (show examples of usage).<br />Similarly a culture of transparency should be maintained externally. Errors, mistakes, faults should be communicated early with full candour and availability of information. This will help promote positive, open dialogue and will reduce the shock factor or a sense of having something to hide. People want to know, the information is going to find its way out – best companies manage the flow directly. <br />19<br /> © 2010 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu<br />Social Media: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly<br />
  38. 38. Markle Foundation<br />Government<br />Accountability Office<br />WMD Commission<br />Report of the Inquiry intoAustralian IntelligenceAgencies (Flood)<br />9/11 Commission<br /><ul><li>Provide incentives that promote information sharing
  39. 39. Bring the national security institutions into the information revolution
  40. 40. Create decentralized, trusted information networks across the federal government
  41. 41. Build a networked community for homeland security
  42. 42. Reduce gaps across federal agencies and with state and local government and the private sector
  43. 43. Create horizontal information sharing and integration
  44. 44. Need for improved coordination across information sharing initiatives
  45. 45. Acknowledged that information sharing is a ‘High Risk Area’ for the U.S. Government
  46. 46. Improve federal-state-local arrangements
  47. 47. Create a single focal point for information sharing under DNI
  48. 48. Establish uniform standards and break down policy and technical barriers
  49. 49. Expand beyond Intel Reform to share all intelligence, not just terrorist-related data
  50. 50. Communication between agencies is extensive and constructive
  51. 51. Division of effort between assessment agencies needs refinement and contestability better managed</li></ul>Information<br />Sharing<br />Focus<br />Examine failures in uncovering the 9/11 plot owing to poor information sharing across agency boundaries<br />Study the nature of information sharing with an emphasis on decentralized, trusted networks<br />In several reports, assess progress toward improving information sharing in intelligence, HLS, and CIP<br />Analyze the sharing and analysis of intelligence leading up to the second Iraq War<br />Provide advice on the current division of labour among intelligence agencies and communication between them<br />MajorFindings On<br />Information<br />Sharing<br />Quotable<br />“The biggest impediment to all-source analysis is human or systemic resistance…”<br />“Every day our LE and intelligence agencies…and private companies receive information that might be relevant to uncovering a terrorist plot…”<br />“The DNI could take an important, symbolic step of jettisoning the term ‘information sharing’ in favor of information integration or access”<br />“In developing a new architecture, the IC should review architectural principles and seek to maximise the opportunities for collaborative intelligence across the community”<br />“In the absence of comprehensive information sharing plans, many aspects of homeland security information sharing remain ineffective and fragmented”<br />The need for better information sharing across Intel agencies has led to the adoption of a number of information sharing strategies.<br />Source: ODNI/CIO, Joint IC/DoD Data Services: Addressing the Challenge of Transforming Enterprise Information Sharing, 27 May 2008; and Flood Review (July 2004)<br />
  52. 52. Dimensions<br />The US IC has determined that there are a number of constraints that need to be overcome to enable better information sharing.<br />Policy<br /><ul><li>Policy doesn’t exist to enable information sharing through common data and interface standards
  53. 53. Certification and Accreditation are complex and lead to information stove-pipes
  54. 54. Current Security Policies are focused on a “Need to Know” paradigm which provides limited support for the unanticipated user
  55. 55. A complication exists for Commonwealth partners where there is a need to operate in accordance with the policy, legal and technical channels established under agency-agency counterpart arrangements</li></ul>Process<br /><ul><li>Limited governance process in place to ensure IC-wide controls are in place for reusable services and data standards
  56. 56. Current CM processes are based on independent systems and source code with minimal external system dependency tracking
  57. 57. Process gaps exist between the IC and Defence which is impeding information sharing across boundaries</li></ul>Budget<br /><ul><li>IT Portfolio Management and Budget decisions are based on multi-year acquisition programs which are resistant to change
  58. 58. Operations and maintenance costs are a rising percentage of the budget
  59. 59. Duplicate data entry and manual data reconciliation create higher labor costs
  60. 60. Integrating data stovepipes is expensive</li></ul>Technology<br /><ul><li>Differences in architectural platforms make it difficult to re-use existing systems in traditional architectures
  61. 61. Information cannot be securely discovered and consumed outside of the controlling institution, and often cannot be discovered within
  62. 62. Analysts often have no mechanism to search across multiple data sources, aggregating the data to run through applications and other processes</li></li></ul><li>The DNI Information Sharing Strategy articulates a technical vision for closer integration and collaboration across the US IC.<br />“The existing agency-centric IC must evolve into a true Intelligence Enterprise established on a collaborative foundation of shared services, mission-centric operations, and integrated mission management, all enabled by a smooth flow of people, ideas and activities across the boundaries of the IC agency members…This must be built on a robust information infrastructure, based on a culture of information sharing, and supported by a range of common services”<br />“The information sharing strategy is focused on developing a ‘responsibility to provide’ culture in which we unlock intelligence data from a fragmented information technology infrastructure spanning multiple agencies and make it readily discoverable and accessible from the earliest point at which an analyst can add value”<br />Former Director of National IntelligenceMike McConnell<br />VISION: “An integrated intelligence enterprise that anticipates mission needs for information by making the complete spectrum of intelligence information available to support all stages of the intelligence process”<br />
  63. 63. This is a snapshot of some of the Social Media tools currently being deployed across the US IC.<br />National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF)<br />Integrated Collection & Analysis Requirements System (ICARS)<br />Executive Intelligence Summary (EIS)<br /><ul><li>Means to capture issues of critical interest to senior IC customers and communicating those issues to the IC for action
  64. 64. Updated semi-annually providing a common foundation from which IC managers can make collection and analytical resource decisions
  65. 65. Provides a common environment for nominating gaps, researching whether those gaps are already covered by existing requirements, and if not, enabling the creation of new requirements for submission.
  66. 66. Piloted in Aug 08 and made available via a standardised web service
  67. 67. Daily, web-based compendium developed by ODNI on the JWICS to summarise relevant, high-quality finished analytical products from across the IC and organised either by issue or region
  68. 68. Now contains automated ingests from European Command & Central Control, DHS, DIA and CIA</li></ul>A-Space: Enriching analysis<br />Intellipedia: Collaboration through Wikis<br /><ul><li>A common collaborative workspace for IC analysts, providing a shared access to corporate data and to numerous databases maintained by individual IC organisations
  69. 69. Configured as special enclave in JWICS, and accredited to handle HUMINT CS and sensitive COMINT, open to over 9,000 analysts
  70. 70. IC version of Wikipedia available on TS/SI/TK/NOFORN via JWICS, SIPRNet and at unclassified level
  71. 71. Now containing over 40,000 registered users and 349,000 active pages</li></ul>Analytical Resources Catalogue (ARC) and Analyst Yellow Pages<br />Library of National Intelligence (LNI): Making discovery easer<br /><ul><li>ARC is a database on JWICS maintained by ODNI that captures basic contact data on IC analysts as well as information on skills, expertise and experience. Yellow Pages is a classified web-based phonebook derived from the ARC.
  72. 72. ARC has updated data for over 18,000 analysts and is being further developed into an IC Capabilities Catalogue (C3)
  73. 73. Authoritative IC repository for all disseminated product, regardless of classification
  74. 74. Launched in Nov 07, currently holding 750,000 products, growing by 20,000 products per week</li></ul>Catalyst: Linking disparate and dispersed data to aid intelligence discovery, analysis and warning<br /><ul><li>Relies on tagging data entities including such items as time, location, person names, etc in the raw intelligence, and linking this to metadata used by multiple IC agencies
  75. 75. Multi-INT experiment currently underway to address metadata sharing, a common semantic ontology, and linking to indexed content in LNI and A-Space</li></ul>Source: ODNI/CIO, Analytical Transformation, Unleashing the Potential of a Community of Analysts, September 2008<br />
  76. 76. At the heart of this approach is a need to move from a ‘need to know’ culture to one where there is an ‘obligation to provide’.<br />VISION: “An integrated intelligence enterprise that anticipates mission needs for information by making the complete spectrum of intelligence information available to support all stages of the intelligence process”<br />Strategic keystones, goals & objectives<br />Strategic keystones<br /><ul><li>Intelligence retrieval and dissemination moves toward maximizing availability
  77. 77. All intelligence is discoverable and all intelligence is accessible by mission
  78. 78. Sharing requires greater trust and understanding of mission imperatives
  79. 79. Developing a culture that rewards information sharing is central to changing behaviours
  80. 80. Creating a single information environment (SIE) will enable improved information sharing</li></ul>Strategic goals& objectives<br /><ul><li>Institute uniform information sharing policy and governance
  81. 81. Advance universal information discovery and retrieval
  82. 82. Establish a common trust environment
  83. 83. Enhance collaboration across the IC</li></ul>The ‘responsibility to provide’ culture is predicated on managing risks associated with the ‘dynamic tension’ between mission effectiveness and unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information.<br />Source: ODNI United States Intelligence Community Information Sharing Strategy, February 22, 2008<br />
  84. 84. Governance is an important part of the building blocks needed to address the multiple dimensions of the information-sharing challenge. <br />Degree of difficulty:<br />Easy<br />Hard<br />Transformational impact on the IC:<br />None<br />Large<br />Building Blocks<br />Key Questions<br />Description<br /><ul><li>Who are the program stakeholders?
  85. 85. Is there a clear value proposition among partners, i.e., quid pro quo or negotiated trade-offs? Are MOUs or service-level agreements required?
  86. 86. Have common needs and objectives been identified?
  87. 87. What do customers/stakeholders expect of the organization?</li></ul>Oversight and leadership that helps govern information sharing. How managers drive initiatives within organization and in cross-agencies. Standards and guidelines to ensure a consistent approach.<br /><ul><li>Are laws in place that authorize, mandate and/or enable the organization to share?
  88. 88. Do laws/regulations impede or constrain the organization/ people from sharing?
  89. 89. Are privacy and civil liberties sufficiently protected?
  90. 90. Is the organization in compliance with current laws? </li></ul>National policies, internal policies, rules of engagement, standards, and role of players internal and external to the organization.<br /><ul><li>Is there a common language or taxonomy and system for organizing, identifying and searching?
  91. 91. Can participants push and pull data?
  92. 92. Is the system accountable and auditable?
  93. 93. Are tools/mechanisms available to manage identities, authorize and authenticate users, and ensure confidentiality?</li></ul>The technology, systems, and protocols that provide the platform for enabling the sharing of information and that address security and privacy issues.<br /><ul><li>How is the organization structured?
  94. 94. Does the organization communicate across all levels?
  95. 95. How does the organization adapt to change? How responsive is the organization to stresses and opportunities?
  96. 96. How are decisions and conclusions reached? </li></ul>The organizational approach and philosophy around sharing information and its ability to ‘realign’ and adapt as circumstances change.<br /><ul><li>Has sufficient funding been appropriated to support the initiative?
  97. 97. Have incentive structures been developed?
  98. 98. Is the funding reaching the appropriate level within the enterprise to fully implement the sharing program?
  99. 99. Who funds/should fund the initiative, i.e., public, private, or a combination of the two? </li></ul>Ability to obtain and provide resources for information sharing initiatives and external pressures (e.g., budget) that influence how resources are allocated and managed.<br />
  100. 100. Deloitte’s Data and Information Governance Framework<br />
  101. 101. Information Governance – a framework for business aligned information management. <br />Information governance can help organisations to share information securely, in a trusted and considered way, whilst delivering direct business benefit.<br />Implemented successfully, effective Information Governance will enable an organisation to:<br /><ul><li>maximise their ability to exploit information assets – ultimately driving greater fact based decision making and insight
  102. 102. embed effective structures and processes to actively monitor, improve and protect information
  103. 103. promote a common understanding of the enterprise’s assets to enable information to be effectively repurposed
  104. 104. leverage technology to support the monitoring and management of information assets </li></ul>Information governance is not only about technology, it is <br /><ul><li>a business driven initiative to effectively control and manage business information – ultimately focused on quality data
  105. 105. focused on driving accountability across the enterprise from the top down
  106. 106. strategic and therefore linked to continuous improvement programs – it is not a once off project to fix data quality </li></ul>“Many enterprises lack a framework to ensure business alignment with their information management (IM) strategies. Yet sound strategy is critical for prioritizing IM investments. Business issues driving the urgency for a revitalized strategy include a renewed effort to use information as a strategic asset” – R. Karel & J.G. Kobielus, Forrester Research 2009<br />
  107. 107. Information Governance – information moves around an organisation like a currency, creating an economy that requires regulation.<br />The impetus for undertaking information governance initiatives may vary between organisations - from poor data quality, changes to the regulatory landscape, to just “we need a better way to manage our documents” – however, the ultimate benefits delivered are the same. <br /><ul><li>IT initiatives typically spend in the order of 30% - 40% of their effort sourcing and transforming data - effective information governance can halve data management effort
  108. 108. Significant decrease in operational effort to produce accurate reporting across functions
  109. 109. Without a coordinated approach to data,technology platform work remains fragmented and delivers only a fraction of planned benefits
  110. 110. Effective data governance will reduce complexity and increase transparency of data dependencies to better serve customers
  111. 111. Deliver immediate improvement in marketing campaign effectiveness
  112. 112. By combining data governance and integrated branch data, a leading Australian Bank publically claims a doubling of the number of customers served in under two minutes
  113. 113. More effective sharing and reconciliation of data across functions (e.g. Finance, Asset Management) – reducing manual manipulation
  114. 114. A lack of effective governance will propagate resource dependencies ultimately degrading operational efficiencies gained through enterprise application delivery
  115. 115. Link enterprise data to enterprise KPIs – e.g. “How does my department support doubling EBITDA?”
  116. 116. Greater ability to leverage information across multiple business domains to gain enterprise insight
  117. 117. Improved transparency of information will enable effective risk management – all decisions are made on shared facts not interpretation of information </li></li></ul><li>Embedding a culture of ownership and accountability for information isn't simple – success is based on a number of key factors. <br />Embedding an effective Information Governance capability <br />Establish continuous and visible executive support from Information Technology and Business<br />Design a lean and pragmatic governance structure <br />Start conceptually – don’t focus on organisational charts <br />Ensure a strong and continued focus on Communications and Change Management - training is essential <br />Focus on the process and people aspects first – you can’t retrofit your organisation around technology solutions<br />Be prepared to sell the benefits <br />Ensure the right balance of resources – they should span operations, technology and improvement <br />Conduct a phased rollout of Governance Capability<br />
  118. 118. Early and visible support from the executive is essential and will ensure the commitment within the enterprise from the outset.<br /><ul><li>Champion the strategic importance of data governance across senior business and technology stakeholders
  119. 119. Ensure early, sustained and visual buy-in – Information Governance must be driven top-down </li></ul>Establish continuous and visible executive support from Information Technology and Business<br /><ul><li>Focus on defining key governance capabilities and requirements first
  120. 120. Early attempts to depict organisation charts tend to distract people from required practice and behavioural changes necessary for data governance to be effective</li></ul>Start conceptually – don’t focus on organisational charts <br /><ul><li>Technology alone will not solve people and process problems
  121. 121. Focus on the key processes and interaction points of Information Governance and drive the need for technology to enable and automate key activities </li></ul>Focus on the process and people aspects first – you can’t retrofit your organisation around technology solutions<br /><ul><li>Initiatives must bring together a the right mix of operational, technology, continuous improvement and change management resources
  122. 122. Close engagement with IT is necessary to ensure that decisions or strategy are cognisant of information architecture, technology tools and standards, and systems</li></ul>Ensure the right balance of resources – ensure they span operations, technology and improvement <br />
  123. 123. Deploying governance requires tact – change management and quick wins will be critical in building a sustainable capability. <br /><ul><li>Aim for the least number of data owners possible – the more regional and departmental overlays, the greater the complexity
  124. 124. Avoid meetings for the sake of meetings. Engage the right business and technology expertise when the issue or required decision demands it </li></ul>Design a lean and pragmatic governance structure<br /><ul><li>Engage and communicate continually with stakeholders to ensure they understand data governance vision, benefits and key activities
  125. 125. Individuals nominated for governance roles must be equipped with the appropriate concepts, processes and tools to effectively meet their responsibilities. Deliver role-based, rather than generic training</li></ul>Ensure a strong and continued focus on Communications and Change Management - training is essential <br /><ul><li>Ensure that the value of Information Governance can be easily articulated to stakeholders – this cannot be a theoretical exercise in the management of information
  126. 126. Link Information Governance to program outcomes – value of enterprise solutions can’t be maintained without quality & control of data </li></ul>Be prepared to sell the benefits <br /><ul><li>Commence rollout for a single business initiative and/or data domain
  127. 127. Use strategic initiatives to deploy information governance capabilities
  128. 128. Deliver tangible value early and refine structure, roles and mechanisms appropriately before extending more broadly across the organisation</li></ul>Conduct a phased rollout of Governance Capability<br />
  129. 129. A proven structured approach to deploying Information Governance. <br />Defined Structure and Implementation Model <br />Refined model ready for full rollout <br />Agreed Approach <br />4. Extend data governance into BAU operations<br />3. Initial rollout of data governance<br />2. Establish data governance organisation<br />1. Define current information governance <br /><ul><li>Assess data landscape:
  130. 130. information scope
  131. 131. business unit scope
  132. 132. systems scope
  133. 133. existing data practices
  134. 134. Define data governance capabilities and roles
  135. 135. executive sponsorship
  136. 136. ownership
  137. 137. management
  138. 138. stewardship
  139. 139. technology
  140. 140. Assess benefits and develop prioritised roadmap for implementing data governance across the organisation
  141. 141. Define implementation model for prioritised areas
  142. 142. Identify and train staff for data governance roles
  143. 143. Plan for initial rollout of data governance capability
  144. 144. Implement data governance for one (1) subject area / business unit / region
  145. 145. Review outcomes and identify required improvements to the data governance model
  146. 146. Extend refined data governance model to other subject areas / business units / regions
  147. 147. Regularly review data governance performance and implement improvements</li></ul>Deliver communications and change management to build support for data governance<br />Develop supporting data strategy, methods and technology to deliver data governance<br /><ul><li>Data Quality Methods and Tools
  148. 148. Metadata Management
  149. 149. Master Data Management
  150. 150. Metrics & Reporting </li></li></ul><li>Data Governance Maturity Framework<br />The Data Governance Maturity Framework was used as a guideline to assess the current maturity levels of each of the data governance components across the Client X<br />1<br />2<br />3<br />4<br />5<br />Maturity:<br />Reactive<br />Proactive<br />Managed<br />Optimized<br />Aware<br />Components:<br />No information governance policies or standardization outside mandatory external standards<br />Information governance policies, standards & guidelines live in pilot areas<br />Information governance policies, standards & guidelines defined covering external and internal information<br />Information governance policies, standards & guidelines implemented in key LOBs/Functions/ Geographies<br />Implementation of and compliance with defined and implemented policies, standards & guidelines <br />Policies, Principles & Standards<br />Recurring measurement of information governance performance in key LOBs/Functions / Geographies<br />Group measurement of information governance performance linked to continuous improvement<br />No measurement of information governance performance. Need is recognized<br />List of key performance metrics and scorecards for information governance compliance defined<br />Baseline measurement of information governance performance in selected areas<br />Governance <br />Metrics<br />Key information governance processes operational in selected areas<br />Group wide compliance with key information governance processes<br />Fragmented change or quality processes. Process need recognized<br />Key information governance processes defined and drafted<br />Key information governance processes operational in key LOBs/Functions/ Geographies<br />Processes & <br />Practices<br />Data technology blueprinted. Core technology components LIVE<br />Data technology strategy and requirements defined<br />Group wide compliance with technology & data architecture<br />Rudimentary/island solutions only. Technology necessity recognized<br />Core technology LIVE in key LOBs/Functions/ Geographies<br />Tools & <br />Technology<br />Key architectural components and capabilities defined <br />No architectural frameworks available. Recognize importance<br />Data architecture strategy and requirements defined<br />Key capabilities implemented in key LOBs/Functions / Geographies<br />Group wide compliance with architectural capabilities<br />Data Architecture<br />Basic information governance & stewardship steering vehicles operational<br />Need for information governance and stewardship recognized<br />Information governance & stewardship model, key roles & responsibilities defined<br />Information governance & stewardship model operational in key LOBs/Functions<br />Group wide coverage of and compliance with information governance and stewardship model<br />Organization<br />Manage Change<br />
  151. 151. In summary, companies should embrace social media as a strategic tool, managed through information governance and risk management frameworks.<br />Key recommendations to support effective knowledge sharing in the digital age include:<br />Implement an Information Management Framework that will:<br />Include communication, awareness and training.<br />Encourage transparency and collaboration.<br />Clearly set out the policies and platforms for publishing company information.<br />Provide opportunity for employees to surface sensitive information within a trusted environment (e.g. Whistle-blower facilities).<br />Embody a culture of having ‘nothing to hide’.<br />Implement a Risk Management Framework that will:<br />Provide clear mechanisms to enact timely, consistent responses to information leakage.<br />Be reflective of the core company values including honesty and transparency.<br />34<br /> © 2010 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu<br />Social Media: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly<br />
  152. 152. 35<br /> © 2010 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu<br />Social Media: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly<br />As Clint would say ... <br />It’s not about being lucky ... It’s about having good governance. Good luck!<br />Thank you.<br />
  153. 153. About Deloitte<br />Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms.<br />Deloitte provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. With a globally connected network of member firms in more than 140 countries, Deloitte brings world-class capabilities and deep local expertise to help clients succeed wherever they operate. Deloitte's approximately 169,000 professionals are committed to becoming the standard of excellence.<br />About Deloitte Australia<br />In Australia, the member firm is the Australian partnership of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. As one of Australia’s leading professional services firms. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and its affiliates provide audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services through approximately 4,500 people across the country. Focused on the creation of value and growth, and known as an employer of choice for innovative human resources programs, we are dedicated to helping our clients and our people excel. For more information, please visit our web site at<br />Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.<br />Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited<br />General information only<br />This presentation contains general information only, and none of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, Deloitte Global Services Limited, Deloitte Global Services Holdings Limited, the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein, any of their member firms, or any of the foregoing’s affiliates (collectively the “Deloitte Network”) are, by means of this presentation, rendering accounting, business, financial, investment, legal, tax, or other professional advice or services. This presentation is not a substitute for such professional advice or services, nor should it be used as a basis for any decision or action that may affect your finances or your business. Before making any decision or taking any action that may affect your finances or your business, you should consult a qualified professional adviser. No entity in the Deloitte Network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained by any person who relies on this publication.<br />Confidential This document and the information contained in it is confidential and should not be used or disclosed in any way without our prior consent.<br />© 2010 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu<br /> © 2010 <br />Social Media: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly<br />