Exploring the SME quandary: data governance in practise in the small to medium-sized enterprise sector

The purpose of this paper is to explore how small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perceive data and data governance and investigates whether current data governance frameworks are applicable to SMEs. Enterprises of all sizes and complexity have had to learn how to operate in an increasingly digital business environment. Such an environment demands that an enterprise equips itself with the ability to use its data effectively both internally and when dealing with external partners such as suppliers and customers. Enterprises now recognise that both their survival and success requires taking control of all aspects of their data as a critical business resource. In recognition of the demands placed on enterprises in this digital age, a discipline has emerged called data governance. Although the definition of data governance is still evolving, current usage describes this discipline as being a facilitator for enterprises to take control over all aspects of their data resource from the setting of integrity constraints for data quality to the creation of enterprise-wide policies on data access and security. Large enterprises are often better placed to absorb the necessary demands that data governance places on resources. However, for the resource-poor SME, the investment in data governance is far more challenging but nevertheless critical in the digital business environment. This paper reviews examples of published data governance frameworks to establish whether these frameworks are applicable to SMEs. A data governance framework (Khatri & Brown, 2010) is assessed using ten SMEs that have differing data requirements. This research is further enhanced by reviewing the results of a project which audited technology use in SMEs. This paper finds that although many data governance frameworks claim to be adaptable and scalable, there is little published evidence by industry or academics on the application of data governance to SMEs. Furthermore, our research revealed that the optimal use of data governance frameworks requires that those with authority and responsibility over enterprise data must have knowledge and some understanding of the terminology that describes data, data-related issues, and data-based technology and this requirement may not be met for many SMEs. The initial reflections on the reality of data governance for SMEs reveal that they do not recognise the inherent value of their data nor view their data as having an independent existence from the systems that support their business processes. The paper concludes, amongst other things, that SMEs are poorly served by the data governance community and that further research is required to fully appreciate their data governance needs.

[1]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  Comparing Two Business Model Ontologies for Designing e-Business Models and Value Constellations , 2005, Bled eConference.

[2]  Sherry D. Ryan,et al.  Considering Social Subsystem Costs and Benefits in Information Technology Investment Decisions: A View from the Field on Anticipated Payoffs , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  Christopher L. Tucci,et al.  Building Internet Generation Companies: Lessons from the Front Lines of the Old Economy , 2003 .

[4]  John M. Ward,et al.  A portfolio approach to evaluating information systems investments and setting priorities , 1990, J. Inf. Technol..

[5]  Peter Weill,et al.  What IT Infrastructure Capabilities are Needed to Implement E-Business Models? , 2002, MIS Q. Executive.

[6]  Yves Pigneur,et al.  Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[7]  T. Hess,et al.  Die Softwareindustrie: ökonomische Prinzipien, Strategien, Perspektiven , 2008 .

[8]  Paul Bambury,et al.  A Taxonomy of Internet Commerce , 1998, First Monday.

[9]  J. Ross,et al.  Beyond the Business Case: New Approaches to IT Investment , 2002 .

[10]  Luis Rodero-Merino,et al.  Cloud economics: dynamic business models for business on demand , 2010, Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Boris Otto,et al.  One Size Does Not Fit All---A Contingency Approach to Data Governance , 2009, JDIQ.

[12]  John M. Ward,et al.  Building Better Business Cases for IT Investments , 2008, MIS Q. Executive.

[13]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  Towards a Reference Ontology for Business Models , 2006, ER.

[14]  Mary C. Jones,et al.  Towards the development of measures of perceived benefits and compatibility of EDI: a comparative assessment of competing first order factor models , 1998 .

[15]  Bernabé Escobar-Pérez,et al.  Information systems investment decisions in business practice: the Spanish case , 1998 .

[16]  Carol V. Brown,et al.  Designing data governance , 2010, CACM.

[17]  Peter Weill,et al.  Don't Just Lead, Govern: How Top-Performing Firms Govern IT , 2004, MIS Q. Executive.

[18]  Daniel J. Abadi,et al.  Data Management in the Cloud: Limitations and Opportunities , 2009, IEEE Data Eng. Bull..

[19]  Valerie L. Vaccaro,et al.  The Evolution of Business Models and Marketing Strategies in the Music Industry , 2004 .

[20]  P. Weill,et al.  IT Governance , 2017 .

[21]  Paul Timmers,et al.  Business Models for Electronic Markets , 1998, Electron. Mark..

[22]  H. Bouwman,et al.  What Drives Business Model Dynamics? A Case Survey , 2007, Eighth World Congress on the Management of eBusiness (WCMeB 2007).

[23]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[24]  C. James Bacon,et al.  The Use of Decision Criteria in Selecting Information Systems/Technology Investments , 1992, MIS Q..

[25]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Reinventing Your Business Model , 2008 .

[26]  B. Mahadevan Business Models for Internet-Based E-Commerce: An Anatomy , 2000 .

[27]  Christopher L. Tucci,et al.  Internet Business Models and Strategies , 2000 .

[28]  Ian MacInnes,et al.  Dynamic business model framework for emerging technologies , 2005, Int. J. Serv. Technol. Manag..

[29]  David Targett,et al.  IS evaluation: a process for bringing together benefits, costs and risks , 1999 .

[30]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Evaluating IT/IS investments: A fuzzy multi-criteria decision model approach , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[31]  Michael H. Morris,et al.  The entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified perspective , 2005 .

[32]  Somendra Pant,et al.  Development of a framework to assess and guide IT investments: An analysis based on a discretionary-mandatory classification , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[33]  R. Amit,et al.  Value creation in E‐business , 2001 .

[34]  Neil F. Doherty,et al.  The stakeholder dimension in information systems evaluation , 2002, J. Inf. Technol..

[35]  Ramon Casadesus-Masanell,et al.  From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics , 2010 .

[36]  Frank F. Land,et al.  Moving IS evaluation forward: learning themes and research issues , 1999, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[37]  A. Lederer,et al.  An Instrument for Assessing the Organizational Benefits of IS Projects , 1998 .

[38]  Knowledge Transfer in Action within the SME Sector , 2009 .

[39]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  Value-based requirements engineering: exploring innovative e-commerce ideas , 2003, Requirements Engineering.

[40]  Markus Jakobsson,et al.  Controlling data in the cloud: outsourcing computation without outsourcing control , 2009, CCSW '09.

[41]  Mutaz M. Al-Debei,et al.  Developing a unified framework of the business model concept , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[42]  Frank Land,et al.  How to Assess Your It Investment: A Study of Methods and Practice , 1993 .

[43]  Ian Gambles Making the Business Case: Proposals that Succeed for Projects that Work , 2009 .

[44]  Zahir Irani,et al.  Information systems evaluation: navigating through the problem domain , 2002, Inf. Manag..

[45]  K. Popovic,et al.  Cloud computing security issues and challenges , 2010, The 33rd International Convention MIPRO.

[46]  Xavier Lecocq,et al.  Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic Consistency , 2010 .