Institutionalizing Data Accountability: Automation Patterns for Governance, Lineage, and Compliance in Enterprise Platforms
Abstract
Regulatory expectations and digital transaction volumes have expanded at a pace that traditional data governance models were never designed to sustain. Organizations operating large enterprise data platforms increasingly face the challenge of ensuring that accountability, traceability, and compliance controls are continuously enforced rather than retrospectively validated. This research presents a structured framework for institutionalizing data accountability by embedding automated governance services, lineage intelligence, and compliance monitoring directly into operational data pipelines and integration architectures. The study explains how metadata-driven controls, stewardship workflows, and policy execution engines can function as an integrated operational layer, enabling continuous oversight without interrupting analytical or transactional processing. Architectural patterns derived from large-scale enterprise environments demonstrate how automated validation, exception routing, and evidence generation mechanisms reduce operational risk and strengthen regulatory readiness. The proposed approach also evaluates how lineage transparency and standardized control orchestration improve confidence in reporting, auditing, and cross-system reconciliation processes. Findings indicate that embedding governance capabilities within platform architecture significantly improves control reliability, shortens audit preparation cycles, and enhances organizational trust in shared data assets. The framework provides a practical foundation for designing enterprise data platforms that support sustained compliance, measurable accountability, and resilient governance operations in complex, distributed technology ecosystems.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Carretero, A. G., Gualo, F., Caballero, I., & Piattini, M. (2017). MAMD 2.0: Environment for data quality processes implantation based on ISO 8000-6X and ISO/IEC 33000. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 54(P3), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.11.008
Bouzeghoub, M. (2002). Quality in Data Warehousing. In Quality Measures in Data Mining (pp. 1–15). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0831-1_8
Winkler, W. E. (2009). Data Quality in Data Warehouses. In Encyclopedia of Data Warehousing and Mining (pp. 625–630). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-010-3.ch086
Peng, G., Privette, J. L., Kearns, E. J., Ritchey, N. A., & Ansari, S. (2015). A unified framework for measuring stewardship practices applied to digital environmental datasets. Data Science Journal, 13, 231–253. https://doi.org/10.2481/dsj.14-049
Dunn, R. J. H., Lief, C., Peng, G., Wright, W., Baddour, O., Donat, M., Dubuisson, B., Legeais, J.-F., Siegmund, P., Silveira, R., Wang, X. L., & Ziese, M. (2021). Stewardship Maturity Assessment Tools for Modernization of Climate Data Management. Data Science Journal, 20(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-007
Abraham, R., Schneider, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2019). Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.008
Alhassan, I., Sammon, D., & Daly, M. (2016). Data governance activities: An analysis of the literature. Journal of Decision Systems, 25(sup1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2016.1187397
Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L. S., & Janowski, T. (2020). Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101493
Morabito, V. (2015). Big Data Governance. In Big Data and Analytics: Strategic and Organizational Impacts (pp. 83–104). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10665-6_5
Pipino, L. L., Lee, Y. W., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). Data quality assessment. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1145/505248.506010
Cai, L., & Zhu, Y. (2015). The Challenges of Data Quality and Data Quality Assessment in the Big Data Era. Data Science Journal, 14(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2015-002
Simmhan, Y. L., Plale, B., & Gannon, D. (2005). A survey of data provenance in e-science. SIGMOD Record, 34(3), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1084805.1084812
Buneman, P., Khanna, S., & Tan, W.-C. (2001). Why and Where: A characterization of data provenance. In Database Theory (ICDT) (pp. 316–330). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44503-X_20
Green, T. J., Karvounarakis, G., & Tannen, V. (2007). Provenance semirings. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS) (pp. 31–40). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1265530.1265535
Karvounarakis, G., Ives, Z. G., & Tannen, V. (2010). Querying data provenance. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (pp. 951–962). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1807167.1807269
Herschel, M., Diestelkämper, R., & Ben Lahmar, H. (2017). A survey on provenance: What for, what form, and what from. The VLDB Journal, 26(6), 881–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-017-0486-1
Moreau, L., Groth, P., Cheney, J., Lebo, T., & Miles, S. (2015). The rationale of PROV. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 35, 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2015.04.001
Gehani, A., Kim, M., & Malik, T. (2010). Efficient querying of distributed provenance stores. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC) (pp. 613–621). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1851476.1851567
Park, J., & Sandhu, R. (2004). The UCONABC usage control model. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 7(1), 128–174. https://doi.org/10.1145/984334.984339
Sandhu, R., Park, J., & Zhang, K. (2003). Usage Control: A vision for next generation access control. In Computer Network Security (pp. 17–31). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45215-7_2
Accorsi, R. (2013). A secure log architecture to support remote auditing. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 57(7–8), 1578–1591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2012.06.035
Williams, P. A. H. (2007). Information Governance: A model for security in medical practice. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.15394/jdfsl.2007.1017
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Machine Learning for Sustainable Development

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Impact Factor :
JCR Impact Factor: 5.9 (2020)
JCR Impact Factor: 6.1 (2021)
JCR Impact Factor: 6.7 (2022)
JCR Impact Factor: 7.6 (2023)
JCR Impact Factor: 8.6 (2024)
JCR Impact Factor: Under Evaluation (2025)
A Double-Blind Peer-Reviewed Refereed Journal