# EnterpriseGovernance — Starter BRD > **What this is**: A starter BRD. Sections 1–3 are filled in to the level a real stakeholder might hand to an analyst. Sections 4–8 are intentionally underspecified — they are the exercise. This BRD includes an optional Section 9 (Governance Maturity Model) appropriate to its domain. > > **How to use it**: Apply the [eight-section template](brd-template.md) and the transcript-driven elicitation loop (Appendix E § Section 2) to complete it. Compare your completed BRD against the [EnterpriseGovernance completed exemplar](enterprisegovernance-completed.md) (same domain, includes the optional Section 9) or the [AIRS exemplar](airs-exemplar.md) (different domain, shows the eight-section shape holds across contexts). --- ## Business Requirements Document ### Enterprise Data Governance — Capability Roadmap Dashboard - **Project**: Cross-organization data-governance capability dashboard supporting the CDO's annual governance roadmap and quarterly investment-decision cadence - **Stakeholder**: Chief Data Officer - **Date**: 2026-06-03 - **Priority**: High ### 1. Executive Summary The Chief Data Officer (CDO) owns the enterprise data-governance program across the organization's twelve business units. The dashboard supports two decision cadences: the annual governance-capability roadmap (the budget request and capability sequencing for the next fiscal year) and the quarterly governance investment review (the in-year reallocation of governance budget across the twelve business units based on observed capability progress). The dashboard replaces a yearly slide-deck assembly process that has consistently understated the governance gaps in the business units that did not have a dedicated data steward at the time of the survey, biasing the roadmap toward the units that complain the loudest rather than the units with the largest gap-to-target. ### 2. Business Context The current state has the CDO's office running an annual self-assessment survey across the twelve business-unit data stewards (where they exist) and the business-unit IT directors (where the steward role is unfilled). The survey returns inconsistent data: stewards who exist tend to self-assess generously to justify continued investment; IT directors filling in for absent stewards tend to self-assess minimally to surface that the gap exists. The resulting roadmap has, for three years running, allocated the largest governance investments to the business units with the most-vocal stewards rather than the units with the largest measurable capability gaps. The dashboard replaces the self-assessment survey with a triangulated view that pulls from operational signals (catalog coverage, lineage completeness, data-quality monitoring uptime, access-review compliance) alongside the self-assessment for context, with the operational signals weighted higher in the roadmap-recommendation logic. ### 3. Key Business Questions ***Capability assessment*** 1. What is each business unit's current capability level against the eight governance capabilities in the enterprise model (catalog, lineage, quality, access, retention, classification, stewardship, literacy)? 2. What is the gap between each business unit's current capability level and its target capability level, by capability? 3. Which business units have the largest aggregate gap-to-target weighted by the business criticality of their data domains? ***Trajectory*** 1. Which business units have made the most capability progress in the trailing twelve months, and which have stalled or regressed? 2. Which capabilities (across all business units) have the most aggregate progress, and which have stalled at the enterprise level? 3. For business units with stalled progress, what are the operational-signal indicators (catalog coverage, lineage completeness, etc.) showing as the bottleneck? ***Investment allocation*** 1. Given the gap-to-target ranking and the trajectory data, which business units would produce the largest measurable capability improvement per dollar of incremental investment in the next quarter? 2. Which capabilities (across all business units) would benefit most from a cross-business-unit shared-services investment versus per-business-unit funding? ### 4. Success Criteria [PLACEHOLDER: The roadmap-bias correction is the foundational success criterion (allocation reflects measurable gap rather than self-assessment loudness). Other criteria need elicitation: how the CDO and the twelve business-unit stewards interact with the dashboard, how the dashboard's recommendations feed into the actual annual budget cycle, what the audit trail needs to look like for the CFO's office reviewing the budget request.] ### 5. Stakeholder Requirements [PLACEHOLDER: The CDO is the request stakeholder. The twelve business-unit data stewards (or their IT-director substitutes) are likely primary users — each views their own business unit's surface. The CDO's office staff (likely 2–4 people) operate the dashboard during the quarterly review. The CFO's office may need view access during budget season. Confirm the role-based-access design.] ### 6. Data Requirements [PLACEHOLDER: Operational signals come from the enterprise data catalog (catalog coverage and lineage), the data-quality monitoring platform (DQ uptime and incident rate), the identity-and-access platform (access-review compliance), and the data-classification tool (classification coverage). The self-assessment survey is the secondary source for the capability-level context. Refresh frequency is likely monthly for operational signals, annual for the survey. Historical horizon at least 24 months for trajectory analysis. Document the data-classification handling — the dashboard surfaces governance-program data, but the underlying systems may include classified-data signals that need redaction.] ### 7. Deliverables [PLACEHOLDER: Power BI workspace with role-based access (CDO sees all twelve business units; each business-unit steward sees their own unit plus enterprise comparisons; CFO's office sees the aggregate budget-relevant surfaces). Target go-live should align with the annual budget cycle (the dashboard needs to be live before the roadmap drafting begins). Review cadence is at minimum quarterly, more frequently during budget season.] ### 8. Constraints & Assumptions [PLACEHOLDER: The operational-signal weighting versus self-assessment weighting is a constraint (must be agreed with the CDO and ideally the business-unit stewards before deployment, to avoid the roadmap-recommendation being contested at the budget meeting). The dashboard cannot expose underlying classified-data signals (data-classification compliance). Assumptions include the operational systems will continue to provide the signal-level access the dashboard depends on; name the dependency.] ### 9. Governance Maturity Model (study-specific extension) [PLACEHOLDER: Document the eight-capability maturity model the dashboard scores against. The model is enterprise-specific — the eight capabilities (catalog, lineage, quality, access, retention, classification, stewardship, literacy) are common but the level-definitions (e.g., Initial / Managed / Defined / Quantitatively Managed / Optimizing) vary across enterprises. Pull the model definition from your organization's published governance framework if one exists; if not, the elicitation conversation with the CDO is the place to confirm it.] ### Approval | Role | Name | Date | Signature | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Stakeholder (Chief Data Officer) | | | | | Data Owner (Enterprise Data Office) | | | | | Analyst | | | | --- **Practice prompt**: This BRD has the highest cross-stakeholder coordination cost of the four starters. Compose or use a transcript from a CDO + business-unit-stewards working session. Run the loop. Note where the contradiction-log prompt becomes essential — the business-unit stewards will disagree with each other about capability levels, and that disagreement is itself the dashboard's reason for existing.