Anyone have sample Enterprise Data Governance Consulting RFPs they are willing to share? Thank you! Jasen
Are you looking for an RFP for a GRC-type tool? Or services?
We respond to these all the time (domestically, US) not sure the details you are looking for but email or pm me and I can get you in touch with folks that can help. Cheers,
IQ Business Group, Inc.
Sharing sample RFP’s is simple, but entirely useless unless your requirements are the same as the organization who provided the sample. The RFP must match the mandatory and optional requirements and MANY other sections that are critical to selecting the right solution to address the agreed upon issue/challenge along with sufficient information allowing vendors to provide detailed proposals are more than generalizations.
It is always recommended that you have someone who has experience developing these types of RFPs and assisting with vendor selection and oversight as spending a large amount of $’s without guidance from those who understand all the technologies rarely ends well. Usually a few years later everyone starts to realize they spent a large $ amount and it wasn’t what everyone actually needed, or there was no implementable rollout plan and everything just stalls out after initial rollout to the ‘sample group’.
Have you done an ANSI 25 (or ISO 18759) assessment yet? If you look at all the info and content that goes into those documents you willl get an excellent idea as to the various areas that need to be discussed and shared before expecting any realistic proposals from vendors.
i hope this helps. Doing this by trial and error or trying to make one organization function like a different one has always ended the same way, with many frustrated people and large amounts of money being spent without getting the anticiapted results.
Have someone help you who does this type of work and has a consistent track record with experience following these industry standards and best practices. We developed them learning from typical industry mistakes we have seen over the past 30+ years, and have found that while they are conservative, the results are predictable and provide MUCH greater control over what is implemented and how and when
Before jumping into an RFP, consider conducting a Request For Information (RFI) first. In public sector, issuing an RFI, you can openingly talk with vendors about needs, capabilities, & prices. That is not so with a RFP.
To Robert’s points, is your organization ready to do full blown enterprise data governance? That may be an organizational lift too far. Is the org more likely just dip their toe into this stew? An RFI will help you both learn the marketplace and find out what your organization is really wiling to do at this time. If the RFP is too ahead of where the organization really is, it will fail in implementation, potentially taking those responsible for the RFP w/it.
Finding the line between an aspirational and a pragmatic RFP is a challenge.
New York State – Office of Technology
Consider having a compiant ISO 18829 Records Assesment completed. That will have all the informatoin that you will need to make the appropriate decisions. But it is imporatnat that you have a compliant assesment completed as they are very thorough and help seperate those areas that require non-technology change vs. technology change. Feel free to contact me as i was the ISO project editor of that document and can share some information that might help you see the value of the assessment before trying to figure out what you need in your RFP.
There can be confusion in our industry between “data governance” and “information governance”. Data governance is usually focused on structured data (databases) and defining common metadata fields, ownership of data, meta models, and so forth. Information governance is usually focused on unstructured content (documents) and making good content focused policy based decisions about RIM, ECM, Risk, Compliance and so forth.
Which are you looking for? It may help focus the replies you get.
While the distinction between “data” and “information” may prevail today, it becomes a false dichotomy as we move up the Capability Maturity Model. See
Chair, StratML Working Group
Bottom line, Information and Data are the same. Period. It would not make sense for folks to try and define them differently.
I respectfully disagree. I hold that data is atomic and has little to no meaning in and by itself (ex. “Iris” – which could be a persons name, or referring to part of the eye, or the flower, etc.) while information is concatanitive and has intrinsic meaning (ex. “the Iris of the eye”). Call me a purist ;))
I like to segregate it as shown in the below simple image where the atomic “data” (structured and unstructured) comprises the foundation level, and, together, form the body of “information”, which, together with experiential enrichment, forms “knowledge” at the top of the hierarchy.
The hierarchy proposed in your contribution is from Robert K. Logan in “What is Information? – Propagating Organization in the Biosphere, Symbolosphere, Technosphere and Econosphere” (Logan, 2012), and respectfully I don’t agree with due to I think that all is information – mostly if we’re talking about business.
If I write something like “…—…”, at what moment I can say that it is data or information? Exactly in a moment when someone knows about Morse code and he or she will know that this nine sign means “S.O.S.”, a help request. And before this, what was that sign? Dot, dot, dot, trace, trace, trace, dot, dot, dot – and it is information too just because they have a reader, someone who can identify them as a “dot, dot, dot, trace, trace, trace, dot, dot, dot”.
It is an interesting field of research, and I really think that a usefulness information taxonomy is about its vehicle or vector that goes from oral to digital and many others ways that the humans can record information and transmit it.
Just for the sake of discussion.
Please count me in the “information and data are different” camp. I will go further and say that there is a spectrum, as shown below.
Data: A single kernel of meaning
Information: A collection of data whose interrelation substantiates a higher order of meaning – a more complex and complete idea.
Knowledge: The transformation of information into human cognition and awareness for potential use.
Action: The application of knowledge to achieve productivity, results, and change.
At each higher level in this spectrum, interrelation, applicability, and meaning increase.
Hi Ronald, as you stated: information is a collection of data; so, you don’t consider a simple “.” as an information? Don’t a simple dot transmits the idea (information?) that a sentence has finished? Is it an information or not?
Please, it is not a challenge where someone must win: it is just a field where just the ideas must fight.
Indeed. A single datum or a symbol (such as “.”) can convey an enormous amount of information – and even reflect knowledge – implicitly. I agree that this is not a battle that anyone will, can, or even should win. My point is that there is at least semantic reasons to differentiate data, information, and knowledge. Beyond that, there are very practical reasons to do so. Data tends to be more easily structures and managed in systems. It is more challenging to codify and manage information (which can be data but can also be more amorphic and elusive). It is increasingly more difficult to codify and manage knowledge, whether it is explicit (written) or tacit (locked in people’s heads). We use different tools and approaches for each of these, even when the categories overlap and distinctions are blurry.
I too fall into the “information and data are different” camp and agree with Roland that these are part of a spectrum. Wesley, your example of a period (“.”) and the question — is a “.” data or information — got me thinking. I would answer – it is data, until the “.” has context — in the context of numbers, it is a decimal point which conveys one type of information, in the context of letters, it conveys information for the end of sentence, or missing words in a quote when used with two other periods, “…” or menu options on a website, etc. In each case, the “.” provides information in context, which transmits knowledge, in order to take action. This goes back to Roland’s comment “of a spectrum”.
Amitabh VP, Operations & Governance HELUX
We are working on a similar project. As stated by Brian conceptually, data governance and information governance belongs to different areas. However, we’re trying to treat this in just one field: information governance, as the information is (we think) what really matters for business decision making. Under information governance, we are separating the information source – physical (documents containing information), digital (databases, front-end information systems, voice captured information, and so forth). Our top-level taxonomy is based on our process architecture (referred by APQC Framework). I think that we’re doing well as a comprehensive information governance.