Information governance, why now?

A colleague asked me why information governance is more on everyone's mind now, compared to before. From my point of view, there are three reasons for this, but I would like to give some background information first.

When I begin my career as a programmer the mid 80's, I quickly learned the concept of garbage in, garbage out. Fast forward to the early 2000 when I begun using IAF v3, and modelling the information aspect in architecture. We already then talked about quality attributes for information and information ownership, but these topics were not prioritized.

Digitalization is the first main reason for increased need for information governance. With less people, and more integrations between systems, flaws in data quality will have more impact now, than when humans fixed the errors.

The second reason is regulations. More and more regulations are addressing data quality issues, from GDPR to DORA and everything related to cybersecurity.

Third, ever heard of AI? Without data quality, you are lucky if you get garbage out from your newfangled AI-solution, as it could get even worse, fast.

Here is the catch-22, try to do information governance without a proper information architecture? You appoint persons in your organization to have information ownership, without defining what this is. What you get is still garbage in, garbage out.

Learning from failures

If you work with EA, you could do a stellar job and but a strategy or transformation program would fail regardless of your effort. As an EA you don't walk alone, you work with teams in an organization. This role is not a one man/woman show.

Done more than 100 different assignments as an Enterprise Architect since 1998. Some shorter and some of them longer.

I have only a few really successful examples, but more grand failures. Mostly positive results when I have recommended stakeholders to close down large programs, or done due diligence to keep them confident to continue.

Learning from the failures is part of life as an architect. As a consultant, you often get those assignments nobody else would take, making it even harder to succed.

I often have a role as an external advisor, to give recommendations, and say what would go wrong if they don't follow my advice. If they neglect the advices, and the program fails, is this an EA failure or not?

If you don't have direct access to major stakeholders, CxO level or Business units in global organizations, then it's a bad sign from the start. Another mission impossible scenario is when all stakeholders have very different priorities.

Not invented here is another syndrome, especially when comming from the outside. A bad situation, becomming even worse if the chief architect is utterly incompetent.

In large transformation programs, failures are mostly related to the classic triangle of love. Budget, time and quality. As lead architect, you can recommend to close down, or help the program manager with prioritization and hopefully have the stakeholders to improve the pre-conditions.

If you want to do a career as an Enterprise Architect, expect huge challenges in your profession, and falling flat on the ground at regular intervals. If not your cup of tea, don't jump into the saddle.

Same when riding horses. You need to understand why you fall off, and learn from that.

Happy New Year to all of you.

Same, but different

When is a business capability too different to be treated in the same way between business units?

We start with supply-chain to see how different the capability is between film production, film distribution and provide crew & equipment.

Film distribution

To sell a film, you need a few type of resources

• Rights for distribution

• Media to distribute

• Promotional material

• Optional subtitles

Provide crew & equipment

To provide crew & equipment to customers, you don't need much more, but different type of resources.

• Crew

• Film equipment

• Promotional material

Film production

Then compare these two business units to film production where we need much more to purchase or rent for the actual production, and everything needs to be just-in-time.

• Script / synopsis with rights

• Actors & extras

• Crew

• Props

• Makeup & wardrobe

• Set design

• Locations

• Music / score (rights)

• Archive media

• Film equipment

Summary

Film distribution resources differs very much from resources for Film production and Provide crew & equipment. Provide crew & equipment is a subset of Film production, and use the same resources. The assumption is no overlap between production and distribution, except when we do live events.

Process fit

Our supply-chain process have not been prioritized so far, as we have been concentrating on film production per se. However, better supply-chain for film production lower the costs and delays in production. Thus, we need to improve in this area. Both for allocation of cast and crew, but also for everything else needed in productions, including logistics.

Working assumption is to start with supply-chain in standard APQC, but also using APQC Broadcast as reference, when defining a proper supply chain process for all business units.

Application support

Yamdu supports managing crew & cast, props, set design, media, etc, in production, but not the supply-chain part of ordering from suppliers. What we need is a system that manages items and stock levels, in interaction with Yamdu, as well as purchase orders.

This will work well for film production and provide crew & equipment. However, film distribution uses different data, processes are not the same and you different skills as an employee to manage distribution. From a business perspective, there are no benefits of using the same system as for film production, more of concerns as it's getting more complicated and with higher license costs.

Conclusion

From a supply-chain perspective, keep film distribution autonomous.

Business model update

As part of the sixth article in the autonomous architecture series have I’ve updated the business model canvas to reflect how it relates to the different business units & value propositions.

For me, the business model is always the starting point to the enterprise architecture documentation.

The next step is then to collect relevant information to create a high level architecture (as-is and to-be), such as:

• Business vision

• Market trends

• Organisation

• Business capabilities

• Architecture principles

• High-level processes

• Information objects

• Main applications & infrastructure

• Integrations

and how all the above things fit together. Then we we can talk about scenarios and evaluate them.

Yes, I use a framework and different tools to create the documentation.

Where the film business is going

This article in the autonomous architecture series focus on the answer to the why question.

To select the best scenario for a future IT-landscape, we need to have a probable idea of where the industry is heading, not where it has been.

High-level trends in film business

When asking Copilot about the future of the film business, this is the answer I got today. Take it with a pinch of salt, but probably not so far off.

Hollywood is pivoting toward globalized storytelling and tech-driven workflows but faces structural decline in mid-tier productions.

Independent producers in both regions must embrace innovation—AI, blockchain, immersive formats—while navigating funding volatility and distribution fragmentation.

Europe emphasizes cultural sovereignty and sustainability, while the U.S. indie sector leans into decentralized financing and niche streaming strategies.

Next question is about the future for independent film makers.

Independent filmmakers face a rapidly evolving industry shaped by streaming dominance, tech disruption, and fragmented financing models. Based on the latest insights and internal resources, here are strategies to adapt and thrive:

1. Embrace digital distribution & streaming.

2. Leverage technology (AI and blockchain).

3. Innovative financing models.

4. Strengthen marketing & audience engagement.

5. Optimize production costs.

6. Build strategic networks.

The key takeaway is "Adaptability is non-negotiable. Independent filmmakers who combine creative integrity with business acumen and tech fluency will lead the next wave of cinema."

A documentary filmmakers viewpoint

Luc Forsyth who is a documentary cinematographer and YouTuber predicts the future filmbusiness (Q4 2025).

1. Money is looming away from broadcast.

2. Traditional filmjobb will be harder to get.

3. Gear will get meaningless.

4. AI will automate entry film jobs.

5. The indie film industry.

To survive, you need to change, unless you already have a very high profile in the business.

Conclusions for our business model

Film production will be a key component also in the future. Storytelling with an European perspective will be a value proposition even in the future.

Provide crew and equipment will be more difficult and have less margin in the future, but it's still close to film production. Self-service and automation with AI is key, together with strategic networks.

Film distribution will be more important in the future and we need to rely more on different platforms for content publishing. Marketing is the key area. Revenue streams will be both from ads on social media, pay per view on platforms as well as selling rights.

Impact on IT-landscape

We foresee an impact on IT, based on the adjustments of our current business model.

We use Yamdu for planning film productions today, and the assumption is that it will evolve to support AI features in a very near future. (Beta testing is ongoing).

We have Spiris for finance & accounting, and it's good enough for the purpose, so no need for changes.

Severa is our current CRM and project planning tool, with integration to Spiris. Good features for allocation of resources to projects, but lacking markering and not so much customization available.

We have the ability to publish film and get revenue from pay-per view on Vimeo. They provide the platform and have customer interaction. We get statistics and monthly payments. For cinemas in Sweden, we have the same approach.

Yamdu is adding more and more functionality for project planning, and as Severa doesn't prioritize film business, or marketing, this CRM is not a long term solution.

Autonomous architecture approach

“Adaptability is non-negotiable” is a key message for independent film makers, and it suits the autonomous architecture like a hand in a leather glove.

If we design our IT-landscape to be more autonomous based on the differences in the business model, it will be easier to change. I.e. autonomy between the core cababilites, but use shared systems for supporting capabilities.

Film production is alredy autonomous, and well supported by Yamdu. The challenge is integration with supply chain, HR and Finance.

Film distribution need to be focused on distributing own content and content from close collaborators, to national and international festivals, cinemas in the Nordics, broadcasting in Europe and different global streaming platforms. We will not build our own platforms for distribution of content. For this, we need to be very flexible and adapt.

Marketing and selling for film distribution need to be separated from provide crew and equipment and film production as customer segments, channels and value propositions differ to much.

We need self service to provide crew and equipment and film distribution, but the platforms, Vimeo and others provide self service for the film viewers. Self service to film productions are not needed, but we should have much more support for AI to support sales processes.

Supply chain and inventory for all types of products as actives, crew, equipment, costumes, set design and props for film production and provide equipment should be autonomous. This capability differs from supply chain for film distribution, e.g. two autonomous systems.

Finally we need a case management system for all businesses units and internal purposes.

Answer to the question

The question was what we should do?

• Keep existing systems and modify if possible

• Get a new standard system that can be customized

• Build a new system from scratch

Based on the business model and information architecture, it’s very clear that we need to do all three scenarios.

The prioritizing order for what to is:

1. Keep Spiris, Yamdu and Vimeo as main systems as they are focused on specific capabilities.

2. Add YouTube and other platforms.

3. New standard system for CRM for film distribution

4. Investigate in a case management system that supports all customers, and internal users.

5. Investigate self service options for provide crew and equipment and supply-chain and inventory.

6. Decommission Severa and find a new solution for film distribution and provide crew and equipment. Time reporting is a key functionality.

7. Build master data platform for physical and non-physical products, cast and crew that integrates with Yamdu, Spiris and self-service portal.

Next step, update the documentation and start a few new internal projects as soon as possible before end of year.