There Are Only Three Approaches to Data Governance

The other day, I overheard someone tell a large audience of data people that there are “hundreds of approaches to data governance”. I beg to differ. There are only three approaches to data governance.

Organizations often struggle with choosing the Data Governance approach that aligns with their culture, resources, and objectives. Three universal approaches – Command-and-Control, Traditional, and Non-Invasive Data Governance – offer distinct perspectives on how to implement effective data governance programs. Let me boil them down for you.

Command-and-Control Approach: Mandating Governance Responsibilities

The Command-and-Control approach to data governance involves assigning individuals as data stewards and instructing them to take on governance responsibilities beyond what they recognize as their “regular duties”. This approach relies on a structured hierarchy, where specific roles and responsibilities are appointed without necessarily considering individuals' existing relationships with the data. While this approach can bring swift organization to governance efforts, it often faces challenges in terms of employee engagement and the added burden on designated stewards.

This approach compels a thorough consideration of the impact on employees who are assigned governance responsibilities. Mandating additional duties can potentially lead to a sense of obligation rather than enthusiasm for the governance role. In some cases, individuals may perceive the imposition of these responsibilities as disruptive to their existing workflow.

To mitigate these challenges, effective communication becomes paramount. Clearly articulating the strategic importance of data governance, emphasizing the shared benefits for the organization and individuals, and providing necessary support and resources can foster a more positive reception. Incorporating feedback mechanisms and recognizing the contributions of data stewards within this structured framework can contribute to a more collaborative and motivated governance environment.

Traditional Approach: Identifying and Trusting Governance Inclinations

The Traditional approach to data governance appreciates the importance of individuals who naturally lean towards governing data but may encounter challenges in scaling this disposition across the organization. Depending solely on inherent leanings often results in an uneven distribution of the governance efforts, with certain subject areas or datasets receiving more attention than others. To address this, organizations should establish a clear framework that not only identifies individuals with inherent governance inclinations but also actively encourages others to participate. This involves creating a culture that values formal data stewardship and provides opportunities for skill development and engagement.

Acknowledging and rewarding the contributions of stewards under this approach becomes crucial for sustaining motivation and ensuring a more widespread and equitable distribution of governance responsibilities. By combining the strengths of identified natural stewards with a structured engagement strategy, the Traditional approach can enhance its effectiveness and inclusivity.

Non-Invasive Data Governance Approach: Based on Data Relationships

The Non-Invasive Data Governance (NIDG) approach recognizes individuals based on their inherent relationships with data. In other words, as the definers, producers, and users of data. Rather than imposing additional responsibilities, NIDG acknowledges existing data-related activities and formalizes these roles. This approach emphasizes engagement and collaboration, aligning governance with daily workflows. By organizing individuals based on their natural connections to data, NIDG promotes a culture of shared responsibility and leverages existing data expertise.

NIDG refrains, to the extent possible, from burdening individuals with additional governance tasks but instead formalizes and acknowledges their existing contributions. This approach fosters a sense of ownership and accountability, as individuals are engaged in governance activities that directly relate to their areas of expertise.

The NIDG approach thrives on collaboration and inclusivity, as it allows various departments and teams to contribute to governance efforts without disrupting established workflows. By aligning data stewardship with individuals' natural roles and responsibilities, NIDG builds a sustainable and integrated governance framework that capitalizes on the organization's existing data expertise.

Contrasting the Approaches

In comparing the three approaches to data governance, the aspect of imposition versus voluntarism stands out prominently. The Command-and-Control approach adopts a top-down strategy by designating individuals and mandating governance responsibilities, potentially facing resistance and challenges in engaging individuals who may perceive it as an added burden to their existing roles. On the other hand, the Traditional approach relies on voluntarism, expecting individuals to naturally gravitate toward governance due to their inherent interest or experience. This approach, while fostering enthusiasm among those naturally inclined, might lack a systematic and consistent engagement framework across the organization.

In the context of engagement, Command-and-Control might encounter difficulties in motivating individuals to actively participate, as the imposed responsibilities may not align with their daily workflows. The Traditional approach relies on the voluntary engagement of those with a predisposition for governance, potentially leading to uneven participation across different departments or teams. In contrast, the NIDG approach engages individuals by recognizing and formalizing their existing data-related roles, ensuring that governance activities seamlessly integrate with their regular responsibilities. This not only enhances engagement but also aligns governance efforts with the natural workflows of the organization.

Regarding formality, the Command-and-Control approach introduces formal roles and responsibilities, potentially creating a rigid structure that might not resonate with the organizational culture. The Traditional approach relies on informal inclinations toward governance, which, while flexible, might lack a structured framework. In contrast, NIDG combines formality by acknowledging and organizing based on existing relationships, providing a balance that leverages the strengths of both formal and informal structures. This hybrid approach ensures effective governance without disrupting established workflows, making it a practical and adaptable solution for organizations seeking a cohesive data governance strategy.

To summarize, while each approach has merits, the Non-Invasive Data Governance approach stands out by integrating recognition, engagement, and formalization, creating a harmonious and effective framework for governing data within the organizational landscape.

If you are interested in extending the conversation around Non-Invasive Data Governance, please reach out directly to the author through?LinkedIn.

?

Non-Invasive Data Governance[tm] is a trademark of Robert S. Seiner and KIK Consulting & Educational Services.

Copyright ? 2023 – Robert S. Seiner and KIK Consulting & Educational Services