A scientific and reasonable indicator system is the key to measuring the level of data governance in manufacturing enterprises (DGME). The study analyzes documents and policy analysis to classify manufacturing enterprise data governance into five dimensions and constructs a manufacturing enterprise data governance indicator system with 5 primary indicators and 23 secondary indicators. Study 1 utilized Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) analysis to determine that the data governance indicator system of manufacturing companies presents a five-factor structure; Study 2 used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) to determine that the overall fitness of the model and the reliability and validity of each level of the indicator measurement items were at the desired level. The proposed indicator system can provide a reference for data governance in manufacturing enterprises.
SongRZGaoXNanHA, et al.Ecological restoration for mega-infrastructure projects: a study based on multi-source heterogeneous data. Eng Construct Architect Manag2024; 31(9): 3653–3678.
2.
NadalSJovanovicPBilalliB, et al.Operationalizing and automating data governance. J Big Data2022; 9(1): 117.
3.
LiZLiangFHHuHA. Blockchain-based and value-driven enterprise data governance: a collaborative framework. Sustainability2023; 15(11): 8578.
4.
JanssenMBrousPEstevezE, et al.Data governance: organizing data for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Gov Inf Q2020; 37(3): 101493.
5.
BozkurtYRossmannAKonanahalliA, et al.Toward urban data governance: status-quo, challenges, and success factors. IEEE Access2023; 11: 85656–85677.
6.
MercuriMEmersonC. Normative challenges in data governance: insights from global health research. Adv Health Sci Educ2024; 29(4): 1453–1461.
7.
AbrahamRSchneiderJvom BrockeJ. Data governance: a conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. Int J Inf Manag2019; 49: 424–438.
8.
WeiJYXiXPYangX, et al.Blockchain-based design of a government incentive mechanism for manufacturing supply chain data governance. Sustainability-Basel2023; 15(8): 6968.
9.
ZorrillaMYebenesJ. A reference framework for the implementation of data governance systems for industry 4.0. Comput Stand Interfac2022; 81: 103595.
10.
MaoZJWuJYQiaoYL, et al.Government data governance framework based on a data middle platform. Aslib J Inf Manag2022; 74(2): 289–310.
11.
ZhangQQSunXBZhangMC. Data matters: a strategic action framework for data governance. Inform Manage-Amster2022; 59(4): 103642.
12.
AbueedRAIAgaM. Sustainable knowledge creation and corporate outcomes: does corporate data governance matter?Sustainability2019; 11(20): 5575.
13.
RussoDStolKJ. PLS-SEM for software engineering research: an introduction and survey. ACM Comput Surv2021; 54(4): 78.
14.
YinJHLiCC. Data governance and green technological innovation performance: a curvilinear relationship. J Clean Prod2022; 379: 134441.
15.
GegenhuberTMairJLührsenR, et al.Orchestrating distributed data governance in open social innovation. Inform Organ-UK2023; 33(1): 100453.
16.
SmaniaGSAyalaNFCoreynenW, et al.Data-related tensions in digital servitization ecosystems: a systematic literature review. Ind Mark Manag2024; 123: 31–48.
17.
GötzAle GallEKonradU, et al.LEAPS data strategy. Eur Phys J Plus2023; 138(7): 617.
18.
Van LooyA. A quantitative and qualitative study of the link between business process management and digital innovation. Inform Manage-Amster2021; 58(2): 103413.
19.
XieXMPengYX. Data asset management and visualization based on intelligent algorithm: taking power equipment data as an example. Teh Vjesn2022; 29(4): 1109–1119.
20.
KhalidHZimányiE. Repairing raw metadata for metadata management. Inf Syst2024; 122: 102344.
21.
GualoFCaballeroIRodríguezM, et al.A data quality model for master data repositories. Informatica-Lithuan2023; 34(4): 795–824.
22.
ZhangLNJeongDLeeS. Data quality management in the internet of things. Sensors-Basel2021; 21(17): 5834.
23.
ChenZJChoeCCongJJ, et al.Data-driven mergers and personalization. Rand J Econ2022; 53(1): 3–31.
24.
YuHFGaoYBLuYY. Company data sharing, product innovation and competitive strategies. Expert Syst Appl2023; 234: 121083.
25.
ChenBLiuYJ. Promotion and advancement of data security governance in China. Electronics-Switz2024; 13(10): 1905.
26.
KooJKangGLKimYG. Security and privacy in big data life cycle: a survey and open challenges. Sustainability2020; 12(24): 10571.
27.
ClutterbuckJ. Data infrastructures and the governance of their accompanying narratives. Br J Sociol Educ2022; 43(1): 120–139.
28.
BonnardRArantesMDLorbieskiR, et al.Big data/analytics platform for Industry 4.0 implementation in advanced manufacturing context. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2021; 117(5): 1959–1973.
29.
GarouaniMAhmadABouneffaM, et al.Towards big industrial data mining through explainable automated machine learning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2022; 120(1-2): 1169–1188.
30.
XiangFYinQWangZH, et al.Systematic method for big manufacturing data integration and sharing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2018; 94(9-12): 3345–3358.
31.
BridouxFStoelhorstJW. Stakeholder theory, strategy, and organization: past, present, and future. Strateg Organ2022; 20(4): 797–809.
32.
StaudtPHoffmannR. How a utility company established a corporate data culture for data-driven decision making. MIS Q Exec2024; 23(1): 3.
33.
LyuBChenH. Effect of founder control on equity financing and corporate performance-based on moderation of radical strategy. Sage Open2022; 12(2): 21582440221085013.
34.
HuangBJYongGZhaoJ, et al.Review of the development of China's Eco-industrial Park standard system. Resour Conserv Recycl2019; 140: 137–144.
35.
CueRDoorninkMGeorgeR, et al.Data governance in the dairy industry. Animals2021; 11(10): 2981.
36.
GoretzkoD. Factor retention in exploratory factor analysis with missing data. Educ Psychol Meas2022; 82(3): 444–464.
37.
QiaoSHuangGS. Analysis on the stress relief of college students by physical exercise. Psychiatr Danub2022; 34: S924–S928.
38.
FrainoPE. Using principal component analysis to explore multi-variable relationships. Nat Rev Earth Environ2023; 4(5): 294.
39.
ToroRPena-SarmientoMAvendaño-PrietoBL, et al.Empirical analysis of cronbach’s alpha coefficient as a function of question response options, sample size and outliers. Rev Iberoam Diagn Ev2022; 2(63): 17–30.
40.
LibórioMPDinizAMAVieiraDAG, et al.Subjective–objective method of maximizing the average variance extracted from sub-indicators in composite indicators. Soc Indic Res2024; 13: 100431.
41.
AssisFACoelhoAJCRezendeLD, et al.Unsupervised machine learning techniques applied to composite reliability assessment of power systems. Int T Electr Energy2021; 31(11): e13109.
42.
MartinsAMEDLSantosAMRAlencarGP, et al.Psychometric properties of an oral health literacy scale for people living with diabetes. Braz Oral Res2023; 37: e022.
43.
FitzgeraldCEEstabrookRMartinDP, et al.Correcting the bias of the root mean squared error of approximation under missing data. Methodology-Eur2021; 17(3): 189–204.
