Whenever we discuss the need for Data Governance, one area
that rightly receives significant attention is to start explicitly identifying
those stakeholders who need to be more formally accountable for the
organisation’s data. The roles and responsibilities of “Data Owner” and “Data
Steward” are debated, and Steering Committees, Information Boards and other
collective groups are eventually formed which bring the participants together
on an ongoing basis.
With a fair following wind, people will start talking
to each other for a change and data will be the topic of conversation. If
you’re really lucky, everyone might start playing nicely in the sandpit and you
might actually get some positive action.
So far, so egalitarian. However, this collective,
co-operative approach is not without its challenges. I’ve worked with several
organisations that have started out on a path towards more formal Data
Governance but have failed to get beyond the “talking shop” stage. They’ve
established working parties to focus on data quality issues, they’ve agreed
formal Data Principles that define the expectations, and some groups have even
put in place monitoring, measurement and cleansing services to correct “bad”
data. Yet somehow the overall result is that nothing much actually changes and
that “Data Governance” is ultimately seen as delivering little real value. (If things go really badly, then behaviours of distrust, protectionism, and entrenchment across territorial boundaries can even become reinforced).
Not so when I was working on a major data and
analytics project with my colleagues in Germany a while back.
The project had solid foundations. The overall benefits
case was strong, the investment had been approved, there was clear focus on the
data rather than the technology, we had trialed the solution within our UK
business operations and there was already active and willing participation from
the leaders of each business line. To this point, the initiative had progressed
to investment approval stage through collaboration and consensus and I was
expecting this to continue as the decision-making approach for the project
proper. However, when I brought everyone together to confirm their roles within
the collective Governance model, the project sponsor (Projektsführer) asked the room “Who is the Highlander?” (Imagine
this spoken with a thick German accent for best effect…)
At first, I thought this was a Teutonic joke at my
expense – as the token “Ausländer” on
the project and a proud Scotsman, we’d already exchanged plenty of jokes about
kilts, bagpipes, haggis and whisky. But my amusement (and slight bemusement) wasn’t
shared by the rest of the group, who were clearly treating this as a serious
question. What the heck was going on?!
The next part of the conversation went something like
this:
Projektsführer: “Ach so. You have seen ze film, ‘Ze
Highlander’ ja? Mit Christopher Lambert und Sean Connery?”
Me: “Ummm, yes….”
PF: “Zere can be only vun.”
Me: “Errrr. Pardon?”
PF: “There can
be only one. In ze film, ze immortals all die until zere is only one left,
und ze Highlander is ze one who gets all their power. So for our data project, who is the Highlander? Who is ze person
that we all trust to make it work?”
And then the penny dropped. Somewhat bizarrely, my German
colleagues had established a common metaphor for their Governance model, based
on a poor-quality but highly entertaining science fiction from the 1980’s in
which a French actor plays the Scottish hero and a world-famous Scottish actor
plays a Egyptian swordsman working for the King of Spain. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlander_(film) and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091203/ )
By asking “Who
is the Highlander”, everyone in the room (except me) knew implicitly what
was expected – that whoever was assigned the role of leading the whole
initiative would be granted the authority to act on everyone’s behalf, but
would be ultimately answerable to the whole group. They would be need drive the
whole process, facilitate and arbitrate, and have to ensure that everything came together and be held totally
accountable for achieving a successful outcome. The German approach to
Governance requires strong leadership from a committed individual, as well as
active and willing participation from the wider stakeholder community.
No comments:
Post a Comment