All or Nothing Approach Some organizations believe that to achieve data architecture success, they must take a the ocean” approach in attempting “boil to resolve all data governance issues in single effort, which often becomes overwhelming and requires a time investment of several years, with costs escalating before any true return is realized. Top-Down Approach The most common approach to statewide data architecture and exchange in other states begins with developing a vision at the statewide level. The support for this effort must come from the very highest levels (Governor, Legislature) and be supported by incorporating it into the priorities of government. Many states have attempted to move in this direction, and without support at the very highest level, the efforts are not successful. Data architecture and exchange must be a priority for the state in order to make sustainable forward movement in this area. States that are seeing positive impacts in this area are driven by a directive or executive order to put the cultural shift into action. The approach takes significant time and cannot be accomplished overnight. Many of the states showing progress have been working on this effort for several years. This approach requires the coordinated efforts of information technology, business management, finance, and other functional units. Examples of states that have in this direction and have years of experience under their belt that can be used as resources are California, Missouri, Connecticut, and Michigan. All have used a phased in approach and their efforts started at the top. While most experts acknowledge the importance and need for enterprise data architecture in state government support from the Governor and Legislators, capacity to undertake this effort at a statewide level, and funding to pay for a major data architecture initiative are essential to be successful. Recommendations The recommended strategy for Washington state government is to take an iterative approach to data architecture with the objective of achieving data sharing using the principles of Master Data Management (MDM) and Customer Data Integration (CDI). The decisive factors contributing to this recommendation arise in the following areas: Authorizing environment, which is likely to be changed substantially and permanently by the shared services initiative currently under way Economic conditions, which are historically poor for the public sector and may well not improve for 2-3 years Maturity level of the state in this area, which we assess as low, despite previous steps toward improved data management and business planning Growth from existing roots, which we feel will occur at a limited level even without a major initiative Adopting and promoting principles and methods from private industry and the federal government Seeking opportunities for external seed funding where and when possible
All or Nothing Approach Some organizations believe that to achieve data architecture success, they must take a “boil the ocean” approach in attempting to resolve all data governance issues in single effort, which often becomes overwhelming and requires a time investment of several years, with costs escalating before any true return is realized. Top-Down Approach The most common approach to statewide data architecture and exchange in other states begins with developing a vision at the statewide level. The support for this effort must come from the very highest levels (Governor, Legislature) and be supported by incorporating it into the priorities of government. Many states have attempted to move in this direction, and without support at the very highest level, the efforts are not successful. Data architecture and exchange must be a priority for the state in order to make sustainable forward movement in this area. States that are seeing positive impacts in this area are driven by a directive or executive order to put the cultural shift into action. The approach takes significant time and cannot be accomplished overnight. Many of the states showing progress have been working on this effort for several years. This approach requires the coordinated efforts of information technology, business management, finance, and other functional units. Examples of states that have in this direction and have years of experience under their belt that can be used as resources are California, Missouri, Connecticut, and Michigan. All have used a phased in approach and their efforts started at the top. While most experts acknowledge the importance and need for enterprise data architecture in state government support from the Governor and Legislators, capacity to undertake this effort at a statewide level, and funding to pay for a major data architecture initiative are essential to be successful. Recommendations The recommended strategy for Washington state government is to take an iterative approach to data architecture with the objective of achieving data sharing using the principles of Master Data Management (MDM) and Customer Data Integration (CDI). The decisive factors contributing to this recommendation arise in the following areas: Authorizing environment, which is likely to be changed substantially and permanently by the shared services initiative currently under way Economic conditions, which are historically poor for the public sector and may well not improve for 2-3 years Maturity level of the state in this area, which we assess as low, despite previous steps toward improved data management and business planning Growth from existing roots, which we feel will occur at a limited level even without a major initiative Adopting and promoting principles and methods from private industry and the federal government Seeking opportunities for external seed funding where and when possible
Statewide_Data_Architecture_and_Exchange.docx