Information and Data

Most organisations approach governance information in a familiar way.

Operational systems generate data – finance systems, HR systems, portfolio tools, risk registers and operational platforms. Data engineers integrate these sources and build management information through reporting platforms such as Power BI.

The result is usually a set of dashboards showing:

• financial performance
• project status
• operational metrics
• risk indicators

This approach solves an important problem. It creates visibility of performance, but several deeper governance challenges remain.

• First, much of the information that matters most to governance does not originate in systems. It originates in documents, presentations, board papers and discussions.
• Second, the relationships between things are rarely captured explicitly. Reports may show both a project and a strategy, but they rarely express clearly how the project contributes to the strategy or what dependencies exist across portfolios.
• Third, reporting tools tend to present static snapshots rather than allowing leaders to explore the organisational system dynamically.

The consequence is familiar to anyone who has sat through governance meetings. Leaders review information, yet still struggle to see the system they are responsible for governing.

Part of the difficulty is not technical but cultural.

In many organisations, governance still operates on a simple pattern. Each participant brings their own information to meetings – reports, extracts, presentations or spreadsheets prepared for that particular discussion.

Information flows between individuals rather than being systematically available to the organisation.

Illustration of paths for information ‘send’

BIG takes a different view. The information required for governance, accountability, management and assurance should be identified explicitly and drawn from reliable sources in a consistent and traceable way.

Illustration of information ‘share’

This approach is logical, but it challenges long-standing habits. The phrase “information is power” still shapes behaviour in many organisations. Teams often maintain their own datasets, interpretations and reports rather than contributing to a shared information environment.

The original BIG approach recognised this reality. The aim was not to design a perfect enterprise information architecture from the outset, but to build it incrementally.

The method was simple.

1. Start with governance boards, assurance bodies and functional leaders.
2. Understand the decisions they need to make.
3. Identify the information required to make those decisions well.
4. Then determine where that information should reliably come from.

Over time this creates an information architecture that reflects how the organisation actually governs itself.

Recent advances in technology open the possibility of moving beyond static reporting towards something more powerful.

Governance data integration illustration

Instead of treating information as isolated datasets, organisations can begin to construct connected information models representing the relationships between:

• external drivers and pressures
• strategic objectives
• organisational units and accountable leaders
• programmes, projects and operational work
• risks and uncertainties
• performance measures

When these elements are connected, governance begins to resemble a navigable system rather than a collection of reports.

Several emerging technologies are now making this approach practical.

A large proportion of governance information lives in narrative artefacts:

• strategy papers
• business cases
• board packs
• contracts
• policy documents
• programme documentation

Historically these have been difficult for machines to interpret.

Advances in language processing now allow documents to be analysed and converted into structured information. Objectives, obligations, commitments, risks, stakeholders and dependencies can be identified and linked into an information model.

This begins to bridge a long-standing gap between formal governance artefacts and operational data systems.

Platforms such as x42 are exploring this territory by transforming narrative organisational information into structured models that can be analysed and connected.

An important insight emerging from this work is that organisational behaviour is often shaped less by operational data than by obligations.

Contracts, regulatory duties, internal governance commitments, policies and operational responsibilities define what must happen within the enterprise.

When these obligations are extracted and connected, they reveal the structural relationships that determine how strategy, delivery, risk and performance interact.

For governance purposes, obligations frequently provide a clearer map of organisational behaviour than operational metrics alone.

Governance information is not only about data. It is also about how decisions are framed, recorded and acted upon.

Governance processes generate important information:

• decisions taken
• responsibilities assigned
• evidence considered
• risks accepted

Tools that structure governance workflows help ensure these elements are captured consistently.

This both improves the quality of decision making and creates reliable governance data that can feed the wider information system.

Once governance information is connected, the next challenge is making it understandable to leaders.

Traditional dashboards work well for metrics but are less effective at showing relationships and dependencies.

Visual exploration platforms allow leaders to see how strategy, delivery, risks and capabilities interact across the organisation. Rather than reviewing isolated reports, they can navigate the system and investigate questions interactively.

Platforms such as Integreli and SharpCloud demonstrate how complex portfolios, strategic roadmaps and risk relationships can be explored visually rather than simply reported.

The rapid development of artificial intelligence adds a new dimension to this landscape.

Large language models make it possible to interrogate documents, extract meaning from unstructured information and explore relationships between organisational artefacts in ways that were previously difficult.

However, these capabilities depend on something more fundamental: reliable and well-structured information.

Where data quality is poor, documents are scattered and metadata is inconsistent, AI simply amplifies confusion. Where information is structured and traceable, AI becomes a powerful tool for identifying patterns, relationships and implications that may otherwise remain hidden.

In that sense, the rise of AI strengthens rather than weakens the original BIG argument.

If organisations wish to benefit from advanced analytics and intelligent systems, they must first establish disciplined information foundations.

Within BIG, the backbone for this approach is the Strategy Information Model.

This provides a logical structure connecting the information associated with objectives across the organisation. Rather than allowing information to remain fragmented in local systems, shared structures and metadata allow it to be connected.

This implies practical changes in how organisations manage information:

• shared information locations rather than isolated document stores
• consistent metadata rather than local naming conventions
• structured capture of decisions and commitments
• reliable integration between operational systems
• disciplined data hygiene across the organisation

When this foundation exists, new capabilities become possible.

• Artificial intelligence can help extract relationships hidden across documents.
• System users can be guided to capture information in structured ways that improve data quality.
• Data integration becomes easier and more reliable.
• Dependencies and emerging risks become visible earlier.

In short, the organisation begins to understand its own strategy system more clearly.

When these capabilities are combined, a different model of governance information begins to emerge.

At the foundation sits the integrated data infrastructure organisations already understand – connecting operational systems and maintaining reliable datasets.

Above that, new capabilities extend the information model:

• document analysis converts narrative artefacts into structured knowledge
• governance workflow tools capture decisions and accountability
• relationship modelling connects strategy, delivery, risk and performance
• visual exploration tools allow leaders to navigate the system

The result is not simply a better dashboard.

It is the beginnings of a navigable representation of the organisation’s strategy system.

This is where information starts to support genuinely informed governance.

As part of the continuing development of the BIG Body of Knowledge, we are updating the Information and Data component to reflect these emerging possibilities.

In early April the BIG CIC will discuss this topic in one of our Book Club sessions.

The aim is not to replace the original principles. Integration, clarity of information and disciplined management information remain essential foundations.

What is changing is the opportunity to extend those foundations with technologies that allow governance information to become richer, more connected and easier to explore.

To examine this evolution in practice, we will invite several technology providers working in this space to demonstrate how their platforms support Business Integrated Governance, including:

• x42
• Integreli
• SharpCloud

Each approaches the challenge from a different angle. Together they illustrate how the governance information landscape is evolving.

The ambition is simple.

If organisations are to govern strategy, delivery, risk and performance as an integrated system, the information supporting those decisions must also be integrated and intelligible.

For many years that goal seemed technically difficult.

It no longer is.