Data Governance - Increase you chance of getting a buy-in

Your Case for Data Governance needs a sponsor

Another beautiful Monday morning, and time for another article. This one is a bit on the fringe of Data Governance, but it is very relevant as it applies to many disciplines. It is not as actionable as the post on pain point analysis, nor is it a pitch for treating data as an asset, but it’s something worth keeping in mind when peddling data governance.

This a wholly ecological article with no synthetic fertilizing from chat-gpt or its ilk. Not counting the illustration.

Decision-Making

Why is the process for making decisions relevant to data governance, enterprise architecture, or business process management? It’s simple: Adoption of these disciplines requires change, and change requires decisions. Major initiatives such as data governance involves numerous decisions at every level of the organization. This makes it important to understand how decisions are made.

What is a Decision?

There are probably many definitions out there, but I’ll offer my own:

A decision is a personal, willful change in behavior.

This definition has several implications. I’m not talking about automation of business rules, decision trees, formulas, or statistics. Nor am I referring to Change Advisory Boards (CABs) or project gateways. Neither is the good old Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle the focus here.

This is about slow, deliberate, organic decisions made by people—people who decide to support and implement data governance (or decide not to).

The Four Phases of Decision-Making

Regardless of what decision you consider, there are four distinct phases everyone goes through. I’ve seen this compared to a clock, starting at midnight, and ending twelve hours later. Professionals in this space typically break this into 12 phases, but I’ll cut it down to four since I’m more of a practitioner than an expert.

Phase One (12 AM - 3 AM)

You realize something isn’t quite right. There are circumstances causing discomfort, irritation, or longing—or possibly all three. As the clock approaches 2 AM, you look for causes and eventually seek confirmation to validate the need for change. As the clock approaches 3 AM, the motivation, the "Why" change is needed become clear and as during the last hour when the "What" is clear, the decision to change is made.

Phase Two (3 AM - 6 AM)

At 3 AM, after the decision to change has been made. The next phase is spent planning and detailing the change: "What" exactly needs to be done to address the "Why", and equally important, "How" will the change be implemented? This is the planning phase, and the second final decision made at 6AM concerns the scope and the "How."

Phase Three (6 AM - 9 AM)

Once the plan is nailed down, you execute it. You take the necessary actions, investing time and resources. You not only know "What" to do, but also "Why" and therefore there’s a strong motivation to carry it the decision through. Of course, there will be smaller deviations along the way as details unfold. However since the "Why" and the "What" is in place the "How" can be adjusted with relative ease.

Phase Four (9 AM - 12 PM)

After the plan has been implemented, it is reinforced it. There may be tweaks and adjustments, but most of the time is spent reaffirming and reassessing the decision and its implementation. Again, some decisions are made, primarily to reinforce the three previous phases.

Example

Think about the last time you took a major decision. Perhaps moved house, quit your job to take on a new position, or bought something expensive, like a new car.

Phase One

You had to long a commute, you disagreed with management, felt bored, bypassed, or needed a higher salary, or perhaps you car broke down. Something was off, and there was a clear motivation for change.

Phase Two

E.g., If you decided to change jobs plans were made: what tasks would suit you, where to do it, how much you wanted to earn. You assessed your skills, considered the industry, location, and position you wanted, i.e, set limits and ambitions. You planned how to connect with potential employers—through networking, job ads, or (God forbid) LinkedIn.

Phase Three

You executed the plan: Networking, coffee chats, applications, job interviews followed, and eventually, a contract was signed. Lastly a resignation was announced.

Phase Four

You have started onboarding, announced your new job, posted on social media (as seems customary every fifth post on LinkedIn is about this ??), and threw yourself into the new role.

The Thing Is...

Organizations are made up of people who make decisions in this same way. This includes managers and sponsors of data governance initiatives.

However, there’s often a snag when it comes to large organizational decisions (reorganizations come to mind): Phases One and Two are usually carried out by a select few. This means that large changes happen to people, rather than with them.

Employees affected by a major change haven’t gone through Phases One and Two themselves. They were unaware there were issues, had no time to deliberate or prepare. The decision was forced upon them, and they are now expected to carry out Phase Three. People in general does not like when decisions are enforced on them. It causes discomfort (see phase one). This is why sudden organizational changes often create resistance and may result in employee churn.

Enter Data Governance

Your Data governance sponsors also make decisions this way. This makes it difficult to get buy-in if you take the approach I used to take:

Hit management with a fully researched, brilliant 50-page PowerPoint (and a 10-slide executive summary) a week before a budget meeting. Every detail was accounted for: a budget, role descriptions, processes, a full-fledged project plan ready to roll it out, etc.

The results was rarely what I hoped for. At best the reception was lukewarm, at worst it was in the "don't call us we'll call you..." category. In short: too soon, too detailed, too fast. One busy week to review 50 slides (and a 10-slide executive summary) plus a one-hour show-and-tell does not cut it. I came across as a used car salesman. The proposal was not internalized and of course management did not buy it.

I know this from hard earned experiences (I’m a slow learner).

Unlike employees at the business end of a reorganization, managers can block decisions and stop changes they aren’t motivated to make. This is why leading upwards requires that the senior vice president go through this four phase mental cycle, no matter what decision you’re advocating.

Going Full Circle

This was a long introduction to a short conclusion. To succeed you need to rise early and guide your stakeholders through the decision cycle. At every phase—especially at 3 AM and 6 AM—you need to make it easy for them to make the right decision. There are various techniques you can use to achieve this. This is one (ask Nicola Askham for more):

Split Your Initiative into Four Parts:

• Do a preliminary study (Phase One)
• Create a data governance model (Phase Two)
• Roll it out (Phase Three)
• Reinforce it through communication and education (Phase Four)

You can facilitate this by proposing a minimal effort in the first part —"just to investigate the murmurs on the shop floor"—allowing you to report your findings on a continuous basis to your potential sponsor. This will reveal the "why" as you go along.

Depending on who your sponsor is and their inclination toward data governance, you may choose not to reveal all the steps upfront. Make it their decision to seek a solution, i.e. take the next step. This is particularly relevant when shifting from Phase One to Phase Two.

Sometimes it's easier to get buy in-by bits and pieces — your sponsor will be more likely to make the decisions to (eventually) go all the way.