Why are CDOs Challenged?

I think this is an interesting conversation. When I think of the difference between Data and Information, data is more granular and specific and very closely aligned with systems. Information is higher level, more aligned with business and typically more strategic. But the CIO title was already taken by someone not typically managing Information but instead managing IT, with a technology bent. Regardless of what they are called, I do think your point is valid around what two of the key pitfalls are. Nicely done and thanks for sharing.

@John, I see value in a single, language neutral, domain independent, and technology agnostic protocol. While this might be helpful in the initial stages of setting up the office of the CDO, I believe the maturity and the value of the CDO’s office comes when there is a "technical" component/flavour in their deliverables. However those technical components can’t be all the technologies in the enterprise, but should definitely address the technology aspects systems of record (SoR) where the reference data and master data are managed and this includes data dictionary, interfaces, governance etc. Also one the reasons, I see IT and business teams (CDO?) have struggled to bridge the gap between themselves due to differences in objectives, culture, incentives and non-appreciation of each other group's body of knowledge. This rift has often resulted in expensive and complex IT systems with high total cost of ownership (TCO) and poor return on investment (ROI) for the enterprise.

I would add a third item to your list, Prashanth: Abscence of a foundational EIM protocol. It matters little how empowered you are or which of the three species of data you focus on, without a strong understanding of the nature of the disconnects between the three realms of information management and how to remedy them you are a target. CDOs need to recognize for example, how the language of the business (not necessarily digital) is substantially different from the methods used to abstract that language. and how both the natureal language of business and the concepts used to 'organize' them are both in turn different from the way digital technologies subvert them both to make it fit into applications. Enterprises are tibal places, and while each tribe is connected in some way to the common, corporate languages (accounting, human resources, health and safety) they also have dialects, traditions and politics of their own. In addition to having a global EIM protocol in her/his back pocket, a CDO must be willing and able to use a stick on the Corporate side and carrots on the tribal side. Confidently reduce ambiguity while demonstrating what the tribes have in common while they go about their uniquely valuable contributions is critical.

Completely agree Naveen. I believe if the CDO is the vital cog in the company's strategy, he should be part of the CEO's staff; period. But the issue is not reporting structure per-se, but it is how the company values data. Companies in Health care, Retail, and Financial services have traditionally treated data as an important element in their business operations. So the CDO reporting to the CEO might look as a natural choice in these companies. However Oil/Gas companies have recently started to see realize the value of data (thanks to the low oil prices) and positioning the CDO's office as part of the company's strategy will take time.

These are good points - I think a key challenge is to find a clear link to the company's strategy - Marketers grow the business, Finance controls costs and enables investment choices, Sales directly generates the top line, Regulatory/Safety provides the protection - what does the office of the CDO do? Unless the link to strategy and business results is clearly articulated - and more importantly - widely accepted across the organization, the CDO's role will face this dilemma. I think the type of industry also plays a role - if data is the product, or is the engine behind revenue generation, it would be easier.