Collibra Governance Reviews

We've used it for cataloging or defining our business data entities and their associated attributes or data elements. Where appropriate, we are defining their sources and their modes of derivation. Rising above that, we are also using Collibra for the definition of our business metrics that are calculated from those data elements and the derivation definitions associated with them.

We have folks in the field doing our clinical research operations, and they have the opportunity to refer to Collibra when they are examining a particular report. When they have a question about how something in that report is derived, they can pull a metric that is defined fully in Collibra. They have the opportunity to drill back into Collibra to see that.

It is a big library. It has a long list of data assets and their descriptions and lineage. It's fairly two-dimensional. For my use, it just has lists of things. There might be others in my organization who are tying the data elements, metrics, and other things together, but I don't rely on that, and I don't leverage that. For me, it is a fairly flat library for information.

What I use it for is fairly rudimentary, and I don't have any complaints about it. I haven't tried to stretch the boundaries at all, but it would be nice if there were capabilities built within the system to somehow help enforce the quality and consistency across related elements that are built in the catalog. It could have intelligent capabilities built in to help maintain the quality of the data and information, such as natural language processing, machine learning, and so on. 

I've been exposed to it for about seven years, but I have been using it more heavily over the past couple of years.

I've not seen or heard of any problems with its stability.

I haven't seen any impediments there. So, I have no concerns about scalability. It could be because I haven't been this involved in pushing the boundaries, but I've seen it accommodate new layers without hearing of any issues.

It is open to everybody in our organization. We have more than a thousand users. So, there are more than a thousand people out there who have lately used Collibra, but most of them have used it in the reference mode or read-only mode. In terms of their roles, we've got everybody from data engineers, data analysts, and systems developers to business analysts and business end-users. 

I've never called them, and I don't hear anybody complaining about it.

As far as I know, this was our first venture about seven years ago into data cataloging and data governance.

I wasn't involved in the setup, but I can see that the maintenance of information within the system is quite straightforward.

My guess would be that we took care of most of the things in-house.

I'm only involved in the use of it. My advice would be to make sure that the content is of quality because it tends to mushroom into lots and lots of information that can easily get out of sync. It should only be entered into by an organization that has the discipline behind it to maintain the information at a high level of quality. Otherwise, you end up with a lot of information that seems useful, but in effect, it could be more harmful than it's worth if things get out of sync. It takes an organization to maintain this kind of solution. The content is dependent on the quality of the maintenance of the content.

I see a small chunk of it, and I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We are focused primarily on the Data Governance Catalog (DGC) for our data dictionary use. We are not using it for information governance in terms of regulatory compliance, etc. We are focused on business glossary, data catalog, data dictionary, and some workflow processes to help with metadata management and other things.

We are fully updated, and we are using its latest version.

One of the workflows that we're just finishing and rolling out is a certification process. Collibra DGC has an attribute in there called "certified," and it is basically a yes/no choice. We wanted a lot more information about the certification of data sets, so I wrote this workflow, which is probably 30 or 40 steps long. We have a series of criteria that we have to meet in order for a data set to be considered certified. I was able to create attributes for all those and create a workflow that goes hand in hand with data set development so that when somebody competes their work, he or she can pop into Collibra and say, "I have finished this." It logs it and it becomes part of a trust score. It is really nice, and it is making our certification process more robust and the documentation easier to collect and maintain.

I like Collibra's flexibility. I like to be able to modify things for our own use. For example, we've chosen to use Collibra also as a knowledge management tool, even though it is not designed to be a knowledge management tool. That's the beauty of it. It can serve as a knowledge management tool by creating some custom assets specifically for knowledge management. I have a knowledge base domain and a knowledge base article asset type- along with a few other things. I really like the flexibility to be able to extend it in those non-traditional ways.

On the flexibility side, I've created some really nice and very useful custom workflows that have really helped with work processes and productivity. They've really helped us do things easier, faster, and better.

The UI is good if you happen to be an administrator and are familiar with the technical side of the administration. If you're a business user, the UI is not good. It is hard to learn. It is hard for those who are administering it to teach to end-users and it can take hours of training to do it. Because it is difficult and non-intuitive, business users resist using it. It is a battle to get them on board and to keep them engaged because of the UI. On the other hand, Collibra just hired a person specifically to revamp the UI. So, they're dealing with it, but it isn't there yet.

They're working on the lineage harvesting for technical lineages. I don't know this for a fact, but my feeling is that this is new to them. So, they're still developing it and it feels awkward.

I have been using this solution for eight months.

Its stability is very good. Out of 10, I'd probably give it a nine. We've had a couple of little glitches where something happened, but they were minor and we were able to create tickets and get issues resolved within a week and usually within just a day or so.

So far, we haven't had any major problems. We're ingesting metadata from AWS Redshift. We've also got connectors built for S3 but we haven't used them yet. We're importing from Oracle and working on lineage harvesting from DBT, Data Services, and few other places. So far, everything has been really good. We're importing metadata from Tableau, and there are no problems there, either.

In terms of the roles of its users, we've got product managers and solution managers. (A solution manager is the IT coordinator who works with the product manager.) We've also got analysts, engineers, reviewers, editors, data stewards, and data coordinators or custodians. We also have technical stewards, admins, and a group of people we call "normal" who are business users that have read-only access.

In terms of Collibra's usage, I would love to have it used 10 times more than it is, but because of the difficult UI, I am getting resistance from the users. It is hard for them to navigate and learn the interface. Once you know it, it is easy to get around and find what you need. It is just about learning the interface and dealing with some poor choices of how to use the screen real estate. So, right now, the user engagement is lower than I would like it to be. 

Their technical support is very good. On a scale of one to 10, I would give them a seven. We've probably had four or five tickets open and were able to get them resolved quickly. 

It feels like they may be sensitive--possibly they've had some bad reviews regarding their customer service--so it seems like they may be going overboard there. For example, they have scheduled a meeting every month for our team to meet with what they call a customer success manager.  I feel like this is too often.  They're responsive about stuff, but it feels like they're trying too hard.

Prior to this and strictly for our data dictionary, I used Dataedo. They are very good at what they do, but have a much more focused solution.

For knowledge management, I used Confluence and really liked it, but we came up against the issue of access levels for for non-registered users; we didn't want to pay license fees for a large number of "read-only" users. Basically, it is either full (paid) access or free access to "the world" and like everyone else, we have information that we don't want to expose to the world.

Setup was really straightforward. Collibra was very good with holding meetings and being responsive to requests. I was pleased with the setup and configuration process. They were really good at the initial stages of learning and understanding what we were doing.

Those of us who are working on this project also have "day jobs" so we were not focused solely on this. The focused time on it among members of the team was probably less than a hundred hours extended over a period of several weeks.

In terms of maintenance, we have a small, three-person team of people who are actually working on the technical maintenance side. All told, the actual time that we spend in administration at this point is very low--perhaps 20 hours a month spread between three people.

We did it in-house with direct interactions with the Collibra team. Our experience with their team was very good. They have an onboarding process and a roadmap they like to follow. We were just one department with a small team working on the actual setup and use case. Several of their steps didn't apply to our use case so we skipped these and even took some of the other steps out of order simply because it made sense for us. The onboarding team at Collibra was 100% supportive of making those changes and doing things the way we needed instead of the way they ordinarily would have done.

It is substantial, and we pay yearly. 

The thing that made our onboarding really simple was that we understood beforehand our use case and our needs. We understood what our roles were and who needed to be involved. We also understood our communities and our setup structure. We had all of that from the beginning. They mentioned several times that we were extremely well-prepared. So we learned that the more users know about the needs of the department or the company, and the more advance prep work they can do, the easier the onboarding process is.

When we started, the Collibra team sent us two huge Excel files that were basically questionnaires that they wanted us to go through to prepare for onboarding. We already had all of that done. It was finished but wasn't in the same format.  We wrote back and asked, "Do you really want us to fill out these Excel sheets? We've already gathered this information." They said, "Oh, great. We will skip the first two steps of onboarding because you've already got it." That really accelerated the process.

I'd give Collibra a nine out of 10. I am really happy with it though there are few things that I wish were different, especially in the UI.

Collibra Governance is a stable solution.

The solution's data lineage is a little difficult and will not support all the source systems on the database.

I have been working with Collibra Governance since last year.

Collibra Governance is a scalable solution.

Collibra Governance's documentation is clear. We can get all the documents from Collibra University.

Collibra Governance's initial setup is complex.

It takes more than 15 to 20 days to deploy Collibra Governance.

Collibra Governance is an expensive solution.

Collibra Governance is a good tool that has some pros and cons.

Overall, I rate Collibra Governance a seven out of ten.

Collibra is generally used as a data governance tool, maintaining all metadata repositories. For each and every data that has been cataloged in Collibra, there'll be an owner assigned to it, whether it's a subject matter expert, a data streamer, data owner, etc. All the data is catalogued into Collibra. It has a single source of truth for data. I'm a senior Collibra consultant and we are customers of the company. 

We have data that people want to access and that's where Collibra fits in. They provide the SSO authentication so that anyone in the organization using the login can find what they want. 

Collibra is evolving their connectivity towards all programs across the IT landscape. The solution has good workflows and they now offer nine dimensions of data quality and provide a lot of features. The solution is based on AIML, Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning so that even if you don't know SQL, you can operate Collibra Data Quality. Collibra Workflows, Collibra Data Quality, are two good aspects that I would highlight from Collibra. Governance provides a user access mechanism, where you have all the data assets cataloged in Collibra. Not everyone can access all the data which is where the governance process comes in. They are constantly coming up with new features, and provide a monthly release.

The Collibra interface is not very user-friendly because it has a lot of features that business users find difficult to navigate. Anyone using the device needs some knowledge about how to use the tool and it takes a while to access and get used to the interface. I'd like to see them build a simple interface with only four dropdowns in order to get access to the request. If you're using it for the first time, it's difficult.

There are widgets in the dashboard and if they could make it more like a webpage instead of a Word document, that would be helpful. They have alternatives, but it takes a lot of work and even Collibra developers don't necessarily know how it works. Some changes are needed. 

I've been using this solution for three years. 

The stability is good, I've never felt any performance issues. 

It is highly scalable, we have around 4,500 users.

When you buy a Collibra license, they offer some training. If we have any issues, we can have a coaching call with them. In addition, they have a support portal. If you raise a ticket with them, they'll respond. 

Collibra provides support to anyone deploying the cloud version and implementation generally only takes a couple of hours. They are also responsible for maintenance.

There is a standard license for Collibra Governance and an additional cost for Collibra Lineage and for Collibra Data Quality. Author licenses have a set maximum limit; if you want extra there's an additional cost. That's their marketing strategy. 

I recommend going to the Collibra University web portal where you can register and log in. They provide a lot of basic information and the functionalities they provide. For anyone wanting to get into governance you can easily get certified as a Collibra consultant. Collibra has its own product roadmap. They have an ideation platform, where you can suggest ideas and if they get a sufficient number of responses in a particular area, they will add it to their roadmap and work on it. Collibra provides a lot to their customers as well as continually improving the product.

Anyone wanting data analytics uses Collibra. I rate this solution seven out of 10. 

Collibra Governance is mainly used as a one-stop solution for data discovery.

Using Collibra Governance means that we know the end to the life cycle of data across the team, which provides our data science and analytics team with sample data they can use to make decisions on what to do next.

Collibra Governance's most valuable features are data lineage and stewardships.

There are a lot of gaps in Collibra's support and documentation. In the next release, I would like Collibra Governance to include better integration with data ecosystem tools.

I've been using Collibra Governance for approximately a year.

Collibra Governance is stable with limited data sizes, but with bigger data sizes, you need to invest a lot in the job servers, which becomes a very costly operation.

Collibra Governance isn't that scalable.

It's very difficult to get support from Collibra.

Neutral

Previously, we used Apache Atlas and switched because it had very limited features.

The initial setup was very difficult - if you're looking at a high-availability or a production scale setup, you need to be technically sound. I would rate the ease of the setup process as two out of five. Deployment took around six months.

We used an in-house team.

Collibra Governance helps our organization, but getting a GMV or dollar value out of it is tough. I would rate its ROI as two or three out of five.

Collibra Governance is expensive - I would rate its pricing as one out of five. There are also additional costs for everything except the basic setup.

We evaluated Alation and OvalEdge.

Before implementing Collibra Governance, go through the tool very thoroughly because doing a POC or MVP is fine, but when you're looking at a production-scale deployment, it's very complicated. So explore other tools before jumping in with Collibra. I would rate Collibra Governance as six out of ten.

The most important feature in Collibra Governance is the ability to gather data or a collection of data into one repository. If a client creates a repository at his place, then it will get updated to the cloud automatically.

It's easy to operate and understand.

Also, you can have different views for business people and for technical people, and there are some helpful customizations in it as well.

Collibra is not very user-friendly in terms of lineage generation. The lineage generation process is quite tough, and it takes lots of time to understand it.

Business staff are also struggling to generate lineages and to understand them. So, it is not very user-friendly.

They need to improve support. They have so many features, but nobody is much of an expert in the market at present. If they have easy, friendly support, it will help improve the product and help understand their own product.

I worked on a project related to this solution for six months.

It is quite a stable solution.

It is quite scalable. I think in the past, they had an in-house, on-premises version, but now they have come up with a cloud version, so it's quite scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. Collibra helped with that process, but we found it to be straightforward and not complicated.

For functional users, one or two persons are adequate for deployment and maintenance. For preparation, four to five persons should be enough for the overall job. Two people will be needed for hands on work, and two consultants who can guide the people and resolve queries will be needed as well. You will also need a project manager who can monitor everything and assign tasks etc. A total of  five or six people is more than enough.

Collibra helped with the deployment, and we shadowed them during the setup and upgrading processes.

I would rate Collibra Governance at seven  on a scale from one to ten.

There is a master glossary which includes all of our business fields. The fields are related to particular lines of business such as account numbers. We then build business rules around these fields and complete data integrity checks. 

We plan to increase our usage of this solution over time. We will have to use other functionality within this application as it is currently limited. We currently have 12 team members using this solution. 

This solution is user friendly and offers multiple functionalities. It operates like a kind of a repository that allows you to find anything about a particular data set or field.

This solution could be improved with the the addition of process diagrams to help the many users of the platform understand all the fields.

We have used this solution for six months. 

This is a stable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward. It was made easier due to the access we had to the Collibra team. The deployment took three months and involved three to four people.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

The solution that I had worked on was related to the technical implementation of metadata for capturing analytics. That said, that particular implementation missed the bus with using it for business use and getting a proper buy-in from the users.

We learned some lessons on a past implementation, and with the new implementation, we're going beyond the data catalog and looking at the OwlIQ, data quality, as well as data lineage. We're really selecting some of the best modules within Collibra's toolset.

Right now, we're just implementing it. We're still in the purchasing process, however, having experience with it, I would say a great feature is its usability on the engagement with enterprise functionality. The crowdsourcing and just making it very accessible is foundational. At the end of the day, it always comes down to terms. For example, we might be saying the same exact term, however, have completely different meanings. It brings to light just the nuances, especially within a larger enterprise organization, a global organization. In organizations of this size, we've realized just how different our terminology views are. It sheds a good light on this and helps clarify. 

The data lineage piece is very useful for us. The ability to understand data flows, where systems and changes originate, is great. A lot of time you might have something on paper that isn't necessarily working in real life. This product brings about the right visibility to have the right conversations between business and IT.

There is a good community setup around the solution that can provide insights. 

It's not necessarily a tool specific, however, with any sort of application, there's an investment as far as the way in which you need to use it. There is a lot of upfront work that has to be considered. That's just a common reality with any software implementation. There's a lot of pre-work. You just don't turn on the lights assume it's going to work exactly as you envisioned. There is input and planning required.

If anything, I would say that the licensing is one area that could get improved. We have basically three roles: an admin, an editor, and a view-only role. It is limiting. For example, we want view-only, however, if we want users to be able to approve workflows, they need editor rights. That makes sense, except it doesn't necessarily meet all the business cases we have. In some instances, you might just need proper approvals, and you are not necessarily asking anyone to edit things. Yet in order for them to approve, they must have edit rights.

The last implementation was very much focused more on IT and capturing more of the IT view of data and even data definitions really focused on data standards, such as how we're going to name the technical fields or how we're going to name the entities. This new deployment is really much more focused on not just the IT side but on the business side and the operational side. It's based more so around analytics and operational governance. I'm hoping to use more of the modules and have a better, more favorable opinion of the solution's capabilities. While overall I have the sense it's good, the last company I was with didn't have the right business partners and it really just became another IT tool, which wasn't helpful to the company as a whole.

The initial setup requires more of a trial and error approach and there isn't too much documentation available to help you figure things out. There needs to be more online support around the sharing of best practices. There are a lot of use cases and people like the tool. That said, you hear a lot of pain points around large amounts of data being ingested and creating backlogs of data that need to be cataloged and there's really no way to prioritize it. 

Ultimately, it's a tool that should help to coordinate a lot of efforts and it would be nice to be able to look at something and understand how another experience could be similar or you can get a lesson learned before you actually make it your own lesson to learn.

This is more of a data governance tool, not necessarily a centralized tool for data cleansing. However, with the data quality module, that's the next evolution that's possible. Looking at data quality issues and then ultimately not necessarily being able to correct them, there's a lost opportunity. Data changes all the time. We're measuring it all the time. It would be advantageous to build this into more of a data quality tool in which users could cleanse data that could go back to source systems. That said, that's encroaching on more of the MDM solution.

I've been using the solution for about two years or so at this point. 

It's largely a good, stable solution. This is not an MDM solution. From a governance standpoint, there are some things that Collibra does better than some of its competitors, however, there's always something about having multiple tools and getting users to accept the multiple tools. It would be great if they could partner with an MDM solution provider to give more of a seamless look and feel.

In the last implementation, I do not recall dealing with bugs or glitches. In this new implementation, it's still too early to tell. 

The scalability potential is all around the framework that's specific to the company. It'd be good to have some general best practices from Collibra's standpoint. That said, is scalable, however, first and foremost, you need to implement it and really look at how the tool is functioning out of the box before you put your own strategy on it. 

Many times though, projects as they go, you're really not afforded that freedom. You might have a specific use case and you're trying to get that implemented so you'll get a quick win from a governance standpoint and so you can continue to incrementally add value. It's a balance due to the fact that, as we're trying to provide a solution, governance is an investment for sure. While there's certainly scalability potential there are structures that need to be in place from a foundational standpoint for it to scale as you need it to.

In the last implementation, there were about 20 users on the product. In that case, it was not that extensively used. Doing a data warehouse migration from Cloudera to Azure, things were collected, however, what was missing was the business definitions and the scenario-based understanding. Due to the implementation the last time, it offered a very flat view of the data. You didn't understand how everything was related or how things were scenario-based, et cetera. You couldn't get a sense of how fields are ultimately connected, and the KPIs that they ultimately built didn't help with understanding. The intention was that it was going to be an enterprise data catalog and it missed that chance. 

I haven't been in touch with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

The implementation is not that easy. All the sell sheets and everything makes it seem as though it's more structured. Here you have this catalog, however, in reality, you have to define the structure including the data that you're going to be collecting, how you're going to define it, what those workflows are, what the user groups are, et cetera. There's a whole change management initiative even beyond just turning it on. 

With any application, whether it's cloud-based, but especially if it's on-prem, there is a level of pre-work that needs to be done. It's not just a turn-it-on type of event. Overall, that's sometimes lost in the process.

Getting it installed and all that is pretty straightforward if you can get a system integrator, or maybe if you have the in-house knowledge, however, it's really the strategy that's behind it that makes for an easy or difficult rollout.

The community is pretty good, however, I haven't necessarily found anything that's like user groups that can help guide implementation. A lot of it is you make a mistake and you have to go back and try to remedy it. There is a lot of trial and error involved.

We handled the entire implementation ourselves, in-house. 

While I do not have a sense of the version number, I would say that we are not on the latest version of the solution at this time. 

I would advise new users looking at getting it implemented to really use the out-of-box features before you overlay your specific strategy on it. Upfront investigations and creating a repeatable framework of how this will ultimately operate are important to the success of the solution. One of the crucial early factors is to get this as part of an operating fabric within your company. There's a lot of pre-work and pre-thought that needs to be in place in that sense. Having well-engaged business folks as part of it will help with the level of success as well. This is not necessarily a big bang type of development and release. It's very incremental. You've got to think backward as far as the user experience - of how things are going to be searched and located - and bring that back to your IT process.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.