Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 8:52 pm
TL;DR: Fragmented governance and data silos slow decisions, erode trust, and block legitimate access, while unified governance and data sharing improve agility, insight reuse, and operational efficiency, according to Collibra. The underlying issue is not just access friction, but governance that remains tied to platforms instead of to the full lifecycle of data use.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Collibra: The organizational immune system, how data sharing cures internal silos
By the numbers:
- 75% of CDOs say improving data culture and addressing legacy systems are top priorities.
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, 46% confirmed and 26% suspected.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations reduce data silos without losing governance control?
A: Start by centralising ownership, policy, and metadata for high-value datasets, then apply those controls consistently across platforms.
Q: Why do siloed data environments make governance slower and less reliable?
A: Because the same dataset ends up governed differently in each platform, which creates inconsistent ownership, duplicated policy decisions, and fragmented audit evidence.
Q: What do teams get wrong about data sharing in regulated environments?
A: They often treat data sharing as a permission problem when it is really a governance design problem.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory data ownership across platforms Create a single stewardship view for high-value datasets, including business owner, technical owner, and approval path.
- Decouple access policy from storage platform Define policy once at the enterprise level, then apply it consistently across cloud, legacy, and analytics systems.
- Track trust signals, not only access counts Measure whether users can find, understand, and reuse data without additional manual intervention.
What's in the full article
Collibra's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Examples of how unified governance is applied across business and technical teams in practice
- The specific workflow steps for improving discoverability, ownership, and access consistency
- How the vendor frames data sharing, metadata, and self-service in its own platform model
- The planning workbook and ebook referenced at the end of the article
👉 Read Collibra's analysis of how data sharing breaks internal silos →
Data sharing and silo removal: what it means for IAM teams?
Explore further
25/06/2026 5:43 am
Fragmented data governance is a lifecycle problem, not a tooling problem. The article describes a common failure mode where ownership, policy, and access are split across platforms, so no one can govern the full path from producer to consumer. That is the same structural weakness that appears in identity programmes when lifecycle controls are tied to systems instead of subjects. Practitioners should treat governance fragmentation as an operating model defect, not a feature gap.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, 46% confirmed and 26% suspected, according to The 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
- Two-thirds of enterprises have endured a successful cyberattack resulting from compromised non-human identities, with a quarter encountering multiple attacks, which shows how quickly unmanaged access becomes operational risk.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can security and data teams tell whether governance is improving data confidence?
A: Look for faster legitimate access, fewer manual exceptions, clearer dataset ownership, and lower dependence on ad hoc interpretation. If users can discover and reuse governed data without repeated clarification, the programme is improving trust rather than just moving records around.
👉 Read our full editorial: Data sharing governance is breaking down silos and speeding decisions
