Data governance maturity study
AI is advancing. Data governance is not.
This study measures that gap: 70 organizations from Latin America and Spain analyzed across six dimensions of maturity.
A diagnosis that shows where the region stands. And what is at stake if no action is taken?.
Made in collaboration with:
Download the study:
A diagnosis that leaves no room for doubt
The average maturity index for the region is 34.6%.
But the number isn't the most relevant thing: what matters is the distribution, the correlations, and the patterns that explain why most organizations won't be able to scale AI on this basis.
The CDO as
maturity lever.
Organizations with a dedicated Chief Decision Officer (CDO) average 71% on the maturity index. Those without a CDO average 22%. A difference of 49 points that cannot be explained solely by size or sector.
Regulation is progressing.
The investment, no.
Regulatory compliance is the best-rated dimension (66%). Investment and resources are the worst (19.6%). Organizations comply because they are mandated to do so, but they don't build out of conviction.
AI is a correlate
of maturity
Organizations that use AI in data governance average 58%. Those that don't: 24%. The largest difference observed in any cross-analysis of the study.
What will you find in the studio?
Maturity index by dimension: Average scores across the six dimensions and distribution of the 70 organizations by level.
AI in data governance: Active use cases, correlation with maturity, and AI governance as an emerging subdiscipline.
Regulatory framework and AI Act: Law 25.326, GDPR, LGPD and the new regulatory horizon opened by the regulation of AI.
Governance structure and role of the CDO: Who governs the data, how is the CDO positioned, and what impact does this have on the maturity index?.
Strategic cross-analysis: Maturity by sector and industry, by size and the “middle-size trap”.
Recommendations by maturity level: A concrete roadmap for advancing to the next level, with actions prioritized by stage and budget. 
