Addressing Duplication Of Data In Enterprise Governance

Problem Overview

Large organizations often face challenges in managing the duplication of data across various systems. This issue is exacerbated by the complexity of multi-system architectures, where data moves through different layers, including ingestion, metadata, lifecycle, and archiving. The presence of data silos, schema drift, and inconsistent lifecycle policies can lead to governance failures, complicating compliance and audit processes. Understanding how data duplication occurs and its implications on data lineage, retention, and compliance is critical for enterprise data practitioners.

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 duplication often results from inadequate lifecycle policies, leading to multiple versions of the same dataset across systems, which complicates data governance.2. Lineage gaps frequently occur when data is transformed or migrated without proper tracking, resulting in a loss of context and accountability.3. Interoperability constraints between systems can hinder the effective management of retention policies, leading to potential compliance risks.4. Retention policy drift is commonly observed, where policies become misaligned with actual data usage and storage practices, increasing costs and complicating audits.5. Compliance-event pressures can expose hidden gaps in data management, revealing discrepancies in archived data versus the system of record.

Strategic Paths to Resolution

1. Implement centralized data governance frameworks to manage data duplication across systems.2. Utilize automated lineage tracking tools to maintain visibility of data movement and transformations.3. Establish clear retention policies that are consistently enforced across all data repositories.4. Conduct regular audits to identify and rectify discrepancies in archived data and system records.5. Foster interoperability between systems to ensure seamless data exchange and compliance adherence.

Comparing Your Resolution Pathways

| Archive Patterns | 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)

Data ingestion processes often introduce duplication when dataset_id is not uniquely managed across systems. For instance, if a lineage_view is not updated during data transformations, it can lead to discrepancies in data lineage. Additionally, schema drift can occur when different systems evolve independently, causing conflicts in data interpretation and usage.Failure modes include:1. Inconsistent dataset_id management leading to multiple entries for the same data.2. Lack of synchronization between ingestion tools and metadata catalogs, resulting in outdated lineage information.Data silos, such as those between SaaS applications and on-premises databases, further complicate the ingestion process, as they may not share a common schema or lineage tracking mechanism.

Lifecycle and Compliance Layer (Retention & Audit)

The lifecycle management of data is critical in preventing duplication. Retention policies, represented by retention_policy_id, must align with event_date during compliance_event audits to ensure that data is retained or disposed of appropriately. Failure to enforce these policies can lead to unnecessary data retention, increasing storage costs and complicating compliance efforts.Failure modes include:1. Inadequate enforcement of retention policies leading to excessive data duplication.2. Misalignment of event_date with retention schedules, resulting in potential compliance violations.Data silos, such as those between compliance platforms and operational databases, can hinder effective lifecycle management, as they may not share retention policies or audit trails.

Archive and Disposal Layer (Cost & Governance)

Archiving practices can diverge from the system of record, leading to data duplication and governance challenges. The management of archive_object must be closely monitored to ensure that archived data aligns with retention policies. Failure to do so can result in increased costs and complicate the disposal of outdated data.Failure modes include:1. Inconsistent archiving practices leading to multiple copies of the same data across different storage solutions.2. Lack of governance over archive_object disposal timelines, resulting in prolonged retention of unnecessary data.Data silos, such as those between cloud storage and on-premises archives, can create challenges in maintaining a unified archiving strategy, leading to potential compliance risks.

Security and Access Control (Identity & Policy)

Effective security and access control mechanisms are essential in managing data duplication. Access profiles must be aligned with data governance policies to prevent unauthorized duplication of sensitive data. Failure to implement robust access controls can lead to data breaches and compliance violations.Failure modes include:1. Inadequate access controls allowing unauthorized users to create duplicate datasets.2. Misalignment of access profiles with data classification policies, leading to potential data exposure.Interoperability constraints between security systems and data repositories can hinder effective access control, complicating compliance efforts.

Decision Framework (Context not Advice)

Organizations must evaluate their data management practices in the context of their specific architectures and operational needs. Key considerations include the alignment of retention policies with actual data usage, the effectiveness of lineage tracking tools, and the governance structures in place to manage data duplication.

System Interoperability and Tooling Examples

Ingestion tools, catalogs, lineage engines, archive platforms, and compliance systems must effectively exchange artifacts such as retention_policy_id, lineage_view, and archive_object. However, interoperability challenges often arise due to differing data formats and schemas, leading to gaps in data management.For example, if a lineage engine cannot access the lineage_view from an ingestion tool, it may result in incomplete lineage tracking. To address these challenges, organizations can explore resources such as Solix enterprise lifecycle resources.

What To Do Next (Self-Inventory Only)

Organizations should conduct a self-inventory of their data management practices, focusing on areas such as data duplication, retention policies, and compliance readiness. Key questions to consider include the effectiveness of current governance structures, the alignment of data lineage tracking with ingestion processes, and the management of archived data.

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 data silos impact the enforcement of retention policies?- What are the implications of schema drift on data duplication across systems?

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 the architecture diagrams promised seamless data flow and integrity checks, yet the reality was starkly different. Upon auditing the environment, I reconstructed the data lineage and discovered that the actual ingestion process was riddled with inconsistencies, primarily due to a human factor: the team responsible for data entry had not adhered to the documented standards. This resulted in a duplication of data that was not only unexpected but also untraceable back to its source, complicating compliance efforts and leading to a cascade of data quality issues that were not anticipated in the initial design phase.

Lineage loss is a critical issue I have observed during handoffs between teams or platforms. In one instance, I found that logs were copied without essential timestamps or identifiers, which rendered them nearly useless for tracing data origins. This became apparent when I attempted to reconcile discrepancies in data reports and found that key evidence was left in personal shares, inaccessible to the broader team. The root cause of this issue was a combination of process breakdown and human shortcuts, as the urgency to deliver results overshadowed the need for thorough documentation. The reconciliation work required involved cross-referencing various data points, which was time-consuming and highlighted the fragility of our governance practices.

Time pressure often exacerbates these issues, leading to gaps in documentation and lineage. During a critical reporting cycle, I witnessed a scenario where the team opted for expedient data handling, resulting in incomplete audit trails. I later reconstructed the history of the data from scattered exports, job logs, and change tickets, revealing a troubling tradeoff: the rush to meet deadlines compromised the quality of our documentation and the defensibility of our data disposal practices. This experience underscored the tension between operational efficiency and the need for meticulous record-keeping, a balance that is often difficult to achieve under tight timelines.

Audit evidence and documentation lineage have consistently emerged as pain points in the environments I have worked with. Fragmented records, overwritten summaries, and unregistered copies made it challenging to connect early design decisions to the later states of the data. In many of the estates I supported, I found that the lack of cohesive documentation led to confusion during audits and compliance checks, as the trail of evidence was often incomplete or obscured. These observations reflect the recurring challenges faced in managing enterprise data governance, emphasizing the need for robust practices that can withstand the pressures of operational demands.

REF: OECD AI Principles (2019)
Source overview: OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence
NOTE: Outlines governance frameworks for AI, addressing data duplication in compliance and lifecycle management, relevant to multi-jurisdictional data sovereignty and FAIR principles in research contexts.

Author:

Jordan King I am a senior data governance practitioner with over ten years of experience focusing on the lifecycle of enterprise data. I have mapped data flows and analyzed audit logs to address duplication of data, revealing gaps such as orphaned archives and incomplete audit trails. My work involves coordinating between compliance and infrastructure teams to ensure governance controls like retention schedules and metadata catalogs are effectively implemented across active and archive stages.

Jordan

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.