In many organisations, everything feels important when it comes to data — which is exactly the problem. This EDM Council best practice paper tackles a simple but critical question: how do you decide which data really matters most, and what should be prioritised first?
Interviews across global financial institutions revealed consistent challenges: no shared definition of what a CDE actually is, inconsistent processes for identifying them, and little agreement on what “critical” truly means in practice. Attempts to quantify criticality through rigid scoring models largely failed; in reality, determining what is critical requires informed judgement grounded in business context.
The core message is practical and business-led. CDEs exist to help organisations focus — to identify the data that has the greatest material impact on business outcomes and apply a heightened level of control where it genuinely matters. Criticality is defined from the perspective of the business process consuming the data, and is agreed through negotiation between data producers and data consumers, with governance oversight where needed.
The guidance introduces a clear distinction between business elements and technical data elements, explains how derived data should be decomposed and assessed at the atomic level, and shows how prioritisation prevents data management efforts from becoming overwhelming. Designating data as critical is not a label — it triggers stronger expectations around governance, metadata, lineage, quality, and accountability.
While rooted in financial services and aligned to DCAM, the principles apply to any industry wrestling with complex data estates.
By reading this paper, leaders and practitioners gain a structured way to define, negotiate, and operationalise criticality — helping teams stop treating all data the same, and start managing what truly matters.
