Search Results (2)

In today’s volatile digital environments, conventional data governance practices fail to adequately address the dynamic, context-sensitive, and risk-hazardous nature of data use. This paper introduces DRADG (Dynamic Risk-Adaptive Data Governance), a new paradigm that unites risk-aware decision-making with adaptive data governance mechanisms to enhance resilience, compliance, and trust in complex data environments. Drawing on the convergence of existing data governance models, best practice risk management (DAMA-DMBOK, NIST, and ISO 31000), and real-world enterprise experience, this framework provides a modular, expandable approach to dynamically aligning governance strategy with evolving contextual factors and threats in data management. The contribution is in the form of a multi-layered paradigm combining static policy with dynamic risk indicator through application of data sensitivity categorization, contextual risk scoring, and use of feedback loops to continuously adapt. The technical contribution is in the governance-risk matrix formulated, mapping data lifecycle stages (acquisition, storage, use, sharing, and archival) to corresponding risk mitigation mechanisms. This is embedded through a semi-automated rules-based engine capable of modifying governance controls based on predetermined thresholds and evolving data contexts. Validation was obtained through simulation-based training in cross-border data sharing, regulatory adherence, and cloud-based data management. Findings indicate that DRADG enhances governance responsiveness, reduces exposure to compliance risks, and provides a basis for sustainable data accountability. The research concludes by providing guidelines for implementation and avenues for future research in AI-driven governance automation and policy learning. DRADG sets a precedent for imbuing intelligence and responsiveness at the heart of data governance operations of modern-day digital enterprises. Full article

This study reviews various data quality frameworks that have some form of regulatory backing. The aim is to identify how these frameworks define, measure, and apply data quality dimensions. This review identified generalisable frameworks, such as TDQM, ISO 8000, and ISO 25012, and specialised frameworks, such as IMF’s DQAF, BCBS 239, WHO’s DQA, and ALCOA+. A standardised data quality model was employed to map the dimensions of the data from each framework to a common vocabulary. This mapping enabled a gap analysis that highlights the presence or absence of specific data quality dimensions across the examined frameworks. The analysis revealed that core data quality dimensions such as “accuracy”, “completeness”, “consistency”, and “timeliness” are equally and well represented across all frameworks. In contrast, dimensions such as “semantics” and “quantity” were found to be overlooked by most frameworks, despite their growing impact for data practitioners as tools such as knowledge graphs become more common. Frameworks tailored to specific domains were also found to include fewer overall data quality dimensions but contained dimensions that were absent from more general frameworks, highlighting the need for a standardised approach that incorporates both established and emerging data quality dimensions. This work condenses information on commonly used and regulation-backed data quality frameworks, allowing practitioners to develop tools and applications to apply these frameworks that are compliant with standards and regulations. The bibliometric analysis from this review emphasises the importance of adopting a comprehensive quality framework to enhance governance, ensure regulatory compliance, and improve decision-making processes in data-rich environments. Full article