skip to main content
research-article

Experience: Data and Information Quality Challenges in Governance, Risk, and Compliance Management

Published:08 March 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) managers often struggle to document the current state of their organizations. This is due to the complexity of their IS landscape, the complex regulatory and organizational environment, and the frequent changes to both. GRC tools seek to support them by integrating existing information sources. However, a comprehensive analysis of how the data is managed in such tools, as well as the impact of data quality, is still missing. To build a basis of empirical data, we conducted a series of interviews with information security managers responsible for GRC management activities in their organizations. The results of a qualitative content analysis of these interviews suggest that decision makers largely depend on high-quality documentation but struggle to maintain their documentation at the required level for long periods of time. This work discusses factors affecting the quality of GRC data and information and provides insights into approaches implemented by organizations to analyze, improve, and maintain the quality of their GRC data and information.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Latif Al-Hakim. 2007. Information Quality Management: Theory and Applications. IGI Global, Hershey, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Donald P. Ballou and Giri Kumar Tayi. 1999. Enhancing data quality in data warehouse environments. Communications of the ACM 42, 1 (1999), 73--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Neera Bhansali. 2013. Data Governance: Creating Value From Information Assets. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. John L. Campbell, Charles Quincy, Jordan Osserman, and Ove K. Pedersen. 2013. Coding in-depth semistructured interviews problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods and Research 42, 3 (2013), 294--320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. T. C. Chieu, M. Singh, C. Tang, M. Viswanathan, and A. Gupta. 2012. Automation system for validation of configuration and security compliance in managed cloud services. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 9th International Conference on e-Business Engineering (ICEBE’12). 285--291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Steven De Haes, Wim Van Grembergen, and Roger S. Debreceny. 2013. COBIT 5 and enterprise governance of information technology: Building blocks and research opportunities. Journal of Information Systems 27, 1 (2013), 307--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. James Robert Evans and William M. Lindsay. 1999. The Management and Control of Quality. South-Western College Publishers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Craig Fisher, Eite Lauría, and Shobha Chengalur-Smith. 2012. Introduction to Information Quality. AuthorHouse. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ronan Fitzpatrick. 1996. Software Quality: Definitions and Strategic Issues. Reports. Paper 1. Available at http://arrow.dit.ie/scschcomrep/1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Uwe Flick. 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Catherine Hardy and Jenny Leonard. 2011. Governance, risk and compliance (GRC): Conceptual muddle and technological tangle. In ACIS 2011 Proceedings. 42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. David G. Hill. 2009. Data Protection: Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E. Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15, 9 (2005), 1277--1288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. ISACA. 2012. COBIT 5: A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT. Retrieved February 9, 2019 from http://www.isaca.org/COBIT/Pages/COBIT-5.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO 27000 Directory. 2005. An Introduction to ISO 27001 (ISO27001). Retrieved February 9, 2019 from http://www.27000.org/iso-27001.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Mari Kert, Javier Lopez, Evangelos Markatos, and Bart Preneel. 2014. State-of-the-Art of Secure ICT Landscape. Technical Report. NIS Platform WG3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Vijay Khatri and Carol V. Brown. 2010. Designing data governance. Communications of the ACM 53, 1 (2010), 148--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Yang W. Lee, Diane M. Strong, Beverly K. Kahn, and Richard Y. Wang. 2002. AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment. Information and Management 40, 2 (2002), 133--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Anja M. Maier, James Moultrie, and P. John Clarkson. 2012. Assessing organizational capabilities: Reviewing and guiding the development of maturity grids. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59, 1 (2012), 138--159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Ghazwa Malak, Linda Badri, Mourad Badri, and Houari Sahraoui. 2004. Towards a multidimensional model for web-based applications quality assessment. In E-Commerce and Web Technologies. Springer, 316--327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Matthew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Michael D. Myers. 1997. Qualitative research in information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly 21 (1997), 241--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Cabinet Office. 2011. ITIL Service Strategy 2011 Edition. The Stationery Office. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. PCI Security Standards Council. 2014. Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard Requirements and Security Assessment Procedures Version 3.2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Michael Quinn Patton. 2005. Qualitative Research. Wiley Online Library.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. Pettigrew and J. J. C. Ryan. 2012. Making successful security decisions: A qualitative evaluation. IEEE Security and Privacy 10, 1 (Jan. 2012), 60--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Leo L. Pipino, Yang W. Lee, and Richard Y. Wang. 2002. Data quality assessment. Communications of the ACM 45, 4 (April 2002), 211--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. P. Puhakainen and M. Siponen. 2010. Improving employees’ compliance through information systems security training: An action research study. MIS Quarterly 34, 4 (2010), 757--778. http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=29338 context=misq. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Nicolas Racz, Johannes Panitz, Michael Amberg, Edgar Weippl, and Andreas Seufert. 2010. Governance, risk 8 compliance (grc) status quo and software use: Results from a survey among large enterprises. Governance 1 (2010), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicolas Racz, Edgar Weippl, and Riccardo Bonazzi. 2011a. IT governance, risk 8 compliance (GRC) status quo and integration: An explorative industry case study. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE World Congress on Services (SERVICES’11). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 429--436. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Nicolas Racz, Edgar Weippl, and Andreas Seufert. 2011b. Governance, risk 8 compliance (GRC) software-an exploratory study of software vendor and market research perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’11). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Adnan Rawashdeh and Bassem Matalkah. 2006. A new software quality model for evaluating COTS components. Journal of Computer Science 2, 4 (2006), 373--381.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Thomas C. Redman. 1995. Improve data quality for competitive advantage. MIT Sloan Management Review 36, 2 (1995), 99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sascha Roth, Matheus Hauder, Matthias Farwick, Ruth Breu, and Florian Matthes. 2013a. Enterprise architecture documentation: Current practices and future directions. In WirtschaftsinformatikProceedings 2013. 58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Sascha Roth, Matheus Hauder, Felix Michel, Dominik Münch, and Florian Matthes. 2013b. Facilitating conflict resolution of models for automated enterprise architecture documentation. In Proceedings of the 19th Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jennifer Rowley. 2012. Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review 35, 3--4 (2012), 260--271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. SANS. 2014. Critical Security Controls. Retrieved February 2, 2019 from https://www.cisecurity.org/critical-controls/documents/CSC-MASTER-VER61-FINAL.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Mikko Siponen and Harri Oinas-Kukkonen. 2007. A review of information security issues and respective research contributions. ACM SIGMIS Database 38, 1 (2007), 60--80. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1216224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Janine L. Spears and Henri Barki. 2010. User participation in information systems security risk management. MIS Quarterly 34, 3 (2010), 503--522. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Stefan Thalmann, Daniel Bachlechner, Lukas Demetz, and Ronald Maier. 2012. Challenges in cross-organizational security management. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 5480--5489. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Eileen M. Trauth. 2001. The choice of qualitative methods in IS research. In Qualitative Research in IS: Issues and Trends. IGI Publishing, Hershey, PA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Hennie Van Greuning and Sonja Brajovic-Bratanovic. 2009. Analyzing Banking Risk: A Framework for Assessing Corporate Governance and Risk Management. World Bank Publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Richard Y. Wang. 1998. A product perspective on total data quality management. Communications of the ACM 41, 2 (1998), 58--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Richard Y. Wang and Diane M. Strong. 1996. Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems 12, 4 (1996), 5--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. K. Krasnow Waterman and Jim Hendler. 2013. Getting the dirt on big data. Big Data 1, 3 (2013), 137--140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Andreas Witzel. 2000. The problem-centered interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 1, 1, Article 22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Experience: Data and Information Quality Challenges in Governance, Risk, and Compliance Management

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in

              Full Access

              • Published in

                cover image Journal of Data and Information Quality
                Journal of Data and Information Quality  Volume 11, Issue 2
                On the Horizon, Experience Paper and Regular Papers
                June 2019
                66 pages
                ISSN:1936-1955
                EISSN:1936-1963
                DOI:10.1145/3317030
                Issue’s Table of Contents

                Copyright © 2019 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 8 March 2019
                • Accepted: 1 November 2018
                • Revised: 1 September 2018
                • Received: 1 May 2007
                Published in jdiq Volume 11, Issue 2

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article
                • Research
                • Refereed

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader

              HTML Format

              View this article in HTML Format .

              View HTML Format