Introduction Organizations are becoming increasingly serious about the notion of "data as an asset" as they face increasing pressure for reporting a "single version of the truth." In a 2006 survey of 359 North American organizations that had deployed business intelligence and analytic systems, a program for the governance of data was reported to be one of the five success "practices" for deriving business value from data assets. In light of the opportunities to leverage data assets as well ensure legislative compliance to mandates such as the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act and Basel II, data governance has also recently been given significant prominence in practitioners' conferences, such as TDWI (The Data Warehousing Institute) World Conference and DAMA (Data Management Association) International Symposium. The objective of this article is to provide an overall framework for data governance that can be used by researchers to focus on important data governance issues, and by practitioners to develop an effective data governance approach, strategy and design. Designing data governance requires stepping back from day-to-day decision making and focusing on identifying the fundamental decisions that need to be made and who should be making them. Based on Weill and Ross, we also differentiate between governance and management as follows: • Governance refers to what decisions must be made to ensure effective management and use of IT ( decision domains ) and who makes the decisions ( locus of accountability for decision-making ). • Management involves making and implementing decisions. For example, governance includes establishing who in the organization holds decision rights for determining standards for data quality. Management involves determining the actual metrics employed for data quality. Here, we focus on the former. Corporate governance has been defined as a set of relationships between a company's management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders that provide a structure for determining organizational objectives and monitoring performance, thereby ensuring that corporate objectives are attained. Considering the synergy between macroeconomic and structural policies, corporate governance is a key element in not only improving economic efficiency and growth, but also enhancing corporate confidence. A framework for linking corporate and IT governance (see Figure 1) has been proposed by Weill and Ross. Unlike these authors, however, we differentiate between IT assets and information assets: IT assets refers to technologies (computers, communication and databases) that help support the automation of well-defined tasks, while information assets (or data) are defined as facts having value or potential value that are documented. Note that in the context of this article, we do not differentiate between data and information. Next, we use the Weill and Ross framework for IT governance as a starting point for our own framework for data governance. We then propose a set of five data decision domains, why they are important, and guidelines for what governance is needed for each decision domain. By operationalizing the locus of accountability of decision making (the "who") for each decision domain, we create a data governance matrix, which can be used by practitioners to design their data governance. The insights presented here have been informed by field research, and address an area that is of growing interest to the information systems (IS) research and practice community.

An important prerequisite for the success of any online service is ensuring that customers' experience-via the interface-satisfies both sensory and functional needs. Developing interfaces that are responsive to customers' needs requires a perspective on interface design as well as a deep understanding of the customers themselves. Drawing upon research in consumer behavior concerning consumer beliefs about technology, we deploy an alternative way to describe customers based on psychographic characteristics. Technology readiness (TR), a multidimensional psychographic construct, offers a way to segment online customers based upon underlying positive and negative technology beliefs. The core premise of this study is that the beliefs form the foundation for expectations of how things should work and how specific online service interfaces are evaluated by customers. At the same time, usability evaluations of specific online services might be contingent on contextual factors, specifically the type of site (hedonic vs. utilitarian) and access method (Web vs. wireless Web). The aspects of usability examined here are those incorporated into the usability metric and instrument based on the Microsoft Usability Guidelines (MUG). The results of an empirical study with 160 participants indicate that (i) TR customer segments vary in usability requirements and (ii) usability evaluations of specific online service interfaces are influenced by complex interactions among site type, access method, and TR segment membership. As organizations continue to expand their online service offerings, managers must recognize that the interface exists to serve the customers, so their design must be matched to market needs and TR.

Although information systems (IS) problem solving involves knowledge of both the IS and application domains, little attention has been paid to the role of application domain knowledge. In this study, which is set in the context of conceptual modeling, we examine the effects of both IS and application domain knowledge on different types of schema understanding tasks: syntactic and semantic comprehension tasks and schema-based problem-solving tasks. Our thesis was that while IS domain knowledge is important in solving all such tasks, the role of application domain knowledge is contingent upon the type of understanding task under investigation. We use the theory of cognitive fit to establish theoretical differences in the role of application domain knowledge among the different types of schema understanding tasks. We hypothesize that application domain knowledge does not influence the solution of syntactic and semantic comprehension tasks for which cognitive fit exists, but does influence the solution of schema-based problem-solving tasks for which cognitive fit does not exist. To assess performance on different types of conceptual schema understanding tasks, we conducted a laboratory experiment in which participants with high- and low-IS domain knowledge responded to two equivalent conceptual schemas that represented high and low levels of application knowledge (familiar and unfamiliar application domains). As expected, we found that IS domain knowledge is important in the solution of all types of conceptual schema understanding tasks in both familiar and unfamiliar applications domains, and that the effect of application domain knowledge is contingent on task type. Our findings for the EER model were similar to those for the ER model. Given the differential effects of application domain knowledge on different types of tasks, this study highlights the importance of considering more than one application domain in designing future studies on conceptual modeling.

No abstract