Eliminate Data Silos To Enhance Data Governance And Compliance

Application Retirement

aaron-rivera

Problem Overview

Large organizations often face challenges in managing data across multiple systems, leading to the creation of data silos. These silos hinder the flow of information, complicate compliance efforts, and obscure data lineage. As data moves across various system layers, lifecycle controls may fail, resulting in gaps in data governance and compliance. The divergence of archives from the system-of-record can further complicate the ability to maintain accurate and complete data lineage, exposing organizations to potential compliance risks.

Mention of any specific tool, platform, or vendor is for illustrative purposes only and does not constitute compliance advice, engineering guidance, or a recommendation. Organizations must validate against internal policies, regulatory obligations, and platform documentation.

Expert Diagnostics: Why the System Fails

1. Data silos often emerge from disparate systems, leading to inconsistent retention policies that can drift over time, complicating compliance efforts.2. Lineage gaps frequently occur when data is transformed or migrated between systems, resulting in incomplete visibility of data origins and modifications.3. Interoperability constraints between systems can prevent effective data sharing, leading to increased latency and costs associated with data retrieval and processing.4. Compliance-event pressures can disrupt established disposal timelines, causing organizations to retain data longer than necessary, which may conflict with retention policies.5. Schema drift can lead to misalignment between archived data and the current system-of-record, complicating data retrieval and analysis.

Strategic Paths to Resolution

1. Implementing centralized data governance frameworks to standardize retention policies across systems.2. Utilizing data lineage tools to enhance visibility and traceability of data movement across platforms.3. Establishing interoperability standards to facilitate data exchange between disparate systems.4. Regularly auditing compliance events to identify and address gaps in data management practices.

Comparing Your Resolution Pathways

| Archive Pattern | Lakehouse | Object Store | Compliance Platform ||——————|———–|————–|———————|| Governance Strength | Moderate | High | High || Cost Scaling | Low | Moderate | High || Policy Enforcement | Low | Moderate | High || Lineage Visibility | Low | High | Moderate || Portability (cloud/region) | Moderate | High | Low || AI/ML Readiness | Low | High | Moderate |Counterintuitive tradeoff: While lakehouses offer high lineage visibility, they may incur higher costs compared to traditional archive patterns.

Ingestion and Metadata Layer (Schema & Lineage)

Ingestion processes often introduce failure modes when dataset_id does not align with lineage_view, leading to incomplete lineage tracking. For instance, when data is ingested from a SaaS application into an ERP system, discrepancies in schema can create silos that obscure data origins. Additionally, retention_policy_id must be consistently applied across systems to ensure compliance with lifecycle policies, yet variances in policy implementation can lead to governance failures.

Lifecycle and Compliance Layer (Retention & Audit)

Lifecycle management can fail when compliance_event triggers do not align with event_date, resulting in improper data retention. For example, if an audit cycle does not account for the disposal window of certain data, organizations may inadvertently retain data longer than necessary. This is particularly problematic when data is stored in silos, such as between an ERP system and an archive, where differing retention policies can lead to compliance risks.

Archive and Disposal Layer (Cost & Governance)

The divergence of archived data from the system-of-record can create governance challenges, especially when archive_object does not reflect the current state of data in the source system. This can lead to increased storage costs and complicate disposal processes. For instance, if an organization fails to reconcile archive_object with workload_id, it may face challenges in justifying data retention during compliance audits, leading to potential governance failures.

Security and Access Control (Identity & Policy)

Access control mechanisms must be robust to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive data across systems. Variances in access_profile can lead to security gaps, particularly when data is shared between systems with differing security protocols. This is critical in environments where data residency and sovereignty policies are enforced, as non-compliance can expose organizations to significant risks.

Decision Framework (Context not Advice)

Organizations should assess their data management practices by evaluating the alignment of retention_policy_id with operational needs and compliance requirements. Understanding the dependencies between systems, such as how region_code affects data residency, is essential for informed decision-making. Additionally, organizations must consider the implications of schema drift on data integrity and lineage.

System Interoperability and Tooling Examples

Ingestion tools, catalogs, lineage engines, archive platforms, and compliance systems must effectively exchange artifacts like retention_policy_id and lineage_view to maintain data integrity. However, interoperability failures can occur when systems lack standardized protocols for data exchange. For instance, if an archive platform cannot access archive_object from a compliance system, it may hinder the ability to perform audits effectively. For more information on enterprise lifecycle resources, visit Solix enterprise lifecycle resources.

What To Do Next (Self-Inventory Only)

Organizations should conduct a self-inventory of their data management practices, focusing on the alignment of retention policies, data lineage, and compliance mechanisms. Identifying potential data silos and assessing the interoperability of systems can help uncover gaps in governance and compliance.

FAQ (Complex Friction Points)

– What happens to lineage_view during decommissioning?- How does region_code affect retention_policy_id for cross-border workloads?- Why does compliance_event pressure disrupt archive_object disposal timelines?- How can schema drift impact data retrieval from an archive?- What are the implications of differing access_profile settings across systems?

Safety & Scope

This material describes how enterprise systems manage data, metadata, and lifecycle policies for topics related to eliminate data silos. It is informational and operational in nature, does not provide legal, regulatory, or engineering advice, and must be validated against an organization’s current architecture, policies, and applicable regulations before use.

Operational Scope and Context

Organizations that treat eliminate data silos as a first class governance concept typically track how datasets, records, and policies move across Ingestion, Metadata, Lifecycle, Storage, and downstream analytics or AI systems. Operational friction often appears where retention rules, access controls, and lineage views are defined differently in source applications, archives, and analytic platforms, forcing teams to reconcile multiple versions of truth during audits, application retirement, or cloud migrations.

Concept Glossary (LLM and Architect Reference)

  • Keyword_Context: how eliminate data silos is represented in catalogs, policies, and dashboards, including the labels used to group datasets, environments, or workloads for governance and lifecycle decisions.
  • Data_Lifecycle: how data moves from creation through Ingestion, active use, Lifecycle transition, long term archiving, and defensible disposal, often spanning multiple on premises and cloud platforms.
  • Archive_Object: a logically grouped set of records, files, and metadata associated with a dataset_id, system_code, or business_object_id that is managed under a specific retention policy.
  • Retention_Policy: rules defining how long particular classes of data remain in active systems and archives, misaligned policies across platforms can drive silent over retention or premature deletion.
  • Access_Profile: the role, group, or entitlement set that governs which identities can view, change, or export specific datasets, inconsistent profiles increase both exposure risk and operational friction.
  • Compliance_Event: an audit, inquiry, investigation, or reporting cycle that requires rapid access to historical data and lineage, gaps here expose differences between theoretical and actual lifecycle enforcement.
  • Lineage_View: a representation of how data flows across ingestion pipelines, integration layers, and analytics or AI platforms, missing or outdated lineage forces teams to trace flows manually during change or decommissioning.
  • System_Of_Record: the authoritative source for a given domain, disagreements between system_of_record, archival sources, and reporting feeds drive reconciliation projects and governance exceptions.
  • Data_Silo: an environment where critical data, logs, or policies remain isolated in one platform, tool, or region and are not visible to central governance, increasing the chance of fragmented retention, incomplete lineage, and inconsistent policy execution.

Operational Landscape Practitioner Insights

In multi system estates, teams often discover that retention policies for eliminate data silos are implemented differently in ERP exports, cloud object stores, and archive platforms. A common pattern is that a single Retention_Policy identifier covers multiple storage tiers, but only some tiers have enforcement tied to event_date or compliance_event triggers, leaving copies that quietly exceed intended retention windows. A second recurring insight is that Lineage_View coverage for legacy interfaces is frequently incomplete, so when applications are retired or archives re platformed, organizations cannot confidently identify which Archive_Object instances or Access_Profile mappings are still in use, this increases the effort needed to decommission systems safely and can delay modernization initiatives that depend on clean, well governed historical data. Where eliminate data silos is used to drive AI or analytics workloads, practitioners also note that schema drift and uncataloged copies of training data in notebooks, file shares, or lab environments can break audit trails, forcing reconstruction work that would have been avoidable if all datasets had consistent System_Of_Record and lifecycle metadata at the time of ingestion.

Architecture Archetypes and Tradeoffs

Enterprises addressing topics related to eliminate data silos commonly evaluate a small set of recurring architecture archetypes. None of these patterns is universally optimal, their suitability depends on regulatory exposure, cost constraints, modernization timelines, and the degree of analytics or AI re use required from historical data.

Archetype Governance vs Risk Data Portability
Legacy Application Centric Archives Governance depends on application teams and historical processes, with higher risk of undocumented retention logic and limited observability. Low portability, schemas and logic are tightly bound to aging platforms and often require bespoke migration projects.
Lift and Shift Cloud Storage Centralizes data but can leave policies and access control fragmented across services, governance improves only when catalogs and policy engines are applied consistently. Medium portability, storage is flexible, but metadata and lineage must be rebuilt to move between providers or architectures.
Policy Driven Archive Platform Provides strong, centralized retention, access, and audit policies when configured correctly, reducing variance across systems at the cost of up front design effort. High portability, well defined schemas and governance make it easier to integrate with analytics platforms and move data as requirements change.
Hybrid Lakehouse with Governance Overlay Offers powerful control when catalogs, lineage, and quality checks are enforced, but demands mature operational discipline to avoid uncontrolled data sprawl. High portability, separating compute from storage supports flexible movement of data and workloads across services.

LLM Retrieval Metadata

Title: Eliminate Data Silos to Enhance Data Governance and Compliance

Primary Keyword: eliminate data silos

Classifier Context: This Informational keyword focuses on Regulated Data in the Governance layer with High regulatory sensitivity for enterprise environments, highlighting risks from fragmented archives.

System Layers: Ingestion Metadata Lifecycle Storage Analytics AI and ML Access Control

Audience: enterprise data, platform, infrastructure, and compliance teams seeking concrete patterns about governance, lifecycle, and cross system behavior for topics related to eliminate data silos.

Practice Window: examples and patterns are intended to reflect post 2020 practice and may need refinement as regulations, platforms, and reference architectures evolve.

Operational Landscape Expert Context

In my experience, the divergence between early design documents and the actual behavior of data in production systems often leads to significant operational challenges. For instance, I once encountered a situation where a retention policy was meticulously documented to ensure compliance with regulatory standards, yet the actual data flows revealed a different story. The logs indicated that certain datasets were archived without the necessary metadata, which was a clear violation of the established governance framework. This discrepancy stemmed from a human factor, the team responsible for implementing the policy overlooked critical steps during the archiving process. Such failures not only hinder efforts to eliminate data silos but also create a ripple effect of confusion and mistrust in the data governance framework.

Lineage loss is another critical issue I have observed, particularly during handoffs between teams or platforms. In one instance, I found that logs were copied from one system to another without retaining essential timestamps or identifiers, which rendered the lineage of the data nearly impossible to trace. This became evident when I attempted to reconcile the data flows during an audit, requiring extensive cross-referencing of disparate sources to piece together the complete picture. The root cause of this issue was primarily a process breakdown, where the lack of standardized procedures for data transfer led to significant gaps in documentation and accountability.

Time pressure often exacerbates these challenges, as I have seen firsthand during critical reporting cycles. In one case, a looming audit deadline prompted the team to expedite data migrations, resulting in incomplete lineage documentation and gaps in the audit trail. I later reconstructed the history of the data by sifting through scattered exports, job logs, and change tickets, which was a labor-intensive process. This scenario highlighted the tradeoff between meeting tight deadlines and maintaining thorough documentation, ultimately compromising the defensibility of data disposal practices.

Audit evidence and documentation lineage have consistently emerged as pain points across many of the estates I have worked with. Fragmented records, overwritten summaries, and unregistered copies made it increasingly difficult to connect early design decisions to the current state of the data. I often found myself tracing back through layers of documentation to validate compliance controls, only to discover that key pieces of evidence were missing or misaligned. These observations reflect the complexities inherent in managing enterprise data governance, where the interplay of human factors, process limitations, and system constraints can lead to significant operational inefficiencies.

REF: OECD AI Principles (2019)
Source overview: OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence
NOTE: Outlines governance frameworks for AI that address data silos in enterprise environments, emphasizing interoperability and compliance across jurisdictions, relevant to data management and lifecycle governance.

Author:

Aaron Rivera I am a senior data governance strategist with over ten years of experience focusing on enterprise data governance and lifecycle management. I designed retention schedules and analyzed audit logs to eliminate data silos, addressing issues like orphaned archives that hinder compliance. My work involves mapping data flows between systems, ensuring governance controls are applied consistently across active and archive stages, and facilitating coordination between data and compliance teams.

Aaron

Blog Writer

DISCLAIMER: THE CONTENT, VIEWS, AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR(S) AND DO NOT REFLECT THE OFFICIAL POLICY OR POSITION OF SOLIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ITS AFFILIATES, OR PARTNERS. THIS BLOG IS OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY AND IS NOT REVIEWED OR ENDORSED BY SOLIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY. ALL THIRD-PARTY TRADEMARKS, LOGOS, AND COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS REFERENCED HEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS. ANY USE IS STRICTLY FOR IDENTIFICATION, COMMENTARY, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FAIR USE (U.S. COPYRIGHT ACT § 107 AND INTERNATIONAL EQUIVALENTS). NO SPONSORSHIP, ENDORSEMENT, OR AFFILIATION WITH SOLIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IS IMPLIED. CONTENT IS PROVIDED "AS-IS" WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. SOLIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. DISCLAIMS ALL LIABILITY FOR ACTIONS TAKEN BASED ON THIS MATERIAL. READERS ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR USE OF THIS INFORMATION. SOLIX RESPECTS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. TO SUBMIT A DMCA TAKEDOWN REQUEST, EMAIL INFO@SOLIX.COM WITH: (1) IDENTIFICATION OF THE WORK, (2) THE INFRINGING MATERIAL’S URL, (3) YOUR CONTACT DETAILS, AND (4) A STATEMENT OF GOOD FAITH. VALID CLAIMS WILL RECEIVE PROMPT ATTENTION. BY ACCESSING THIS BLOG, YOU AGREE TO THIS DISCLAIMER AND OUR TERMS OF USE. THIS AGREEMENT IS GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA.

What you can do with Solix

Request A Demo
Sign up for free trial Amex Gift Card

Enter to win a $100 Amex Gift Card