Data Governance Matters

A ‘Franchise’ Approach to Data Governance

Recently I had the pleasure of working simultaneously with two separate groups within the same financial services company. Members of the first group were focusing their Data Governance program on a specific need: ensuring contractual compliance for purchased data sets. The leader of this group is an amazingly focused woman. She taught me a thing or two about the art of looking away from details that were not on her critical path – at least until she had that critical path well defined. Because her success would depend primarily on business process rather than technology, we spent very little time during our roadmapping activities talking to IT folks.

During one such meeting, however, another manager mentioned that he was developing an enterprise data dictionary, and that his group would like to leverage what the first group was doing. He didn’t think IT should “own” his data governance effort, and would the first group agree to be their business “owners” and to take on his effort’s program administrative and facilitation activities.

I knew what she was going to say, of course. “Absolutely not.” She had her hands full, and she needed to maintain focus. Besides, she pointed out, they were different efforts, with different prime stakeholder groups, different skill sets required for their respective data stewards, and different timelines. What did he think the benefits would be of combining efforts, anyway?

His answer was quick. Data Governance can be hard, he said, and it helps if everyone’s using the same terms, concepts, accountabilities descriptions, approach to rules, and scorecards. He thought that a federated model for Data Governance was right for their organization.

So we began a fascinating discussion about the differences between centralized, decentralized, and federated models. What he was actually looking for, I told him, was not a traditional federated model. He was looking to establish a “franchise,” where a new installation of Data Governance with a unique focus could leverage the materials and knowledge of the original installation. He was looking for a tried-and-true template for a program that had already been customized to his company’s culture and environment and was ready to be further customized to his focus and goals.

Bingo. Everyone could buy into that approach.

It turns out my original client and I were way ahead of schedule with our work, so I was able to give him a half day to talk about opening his franchise. We went through the first effort’s “Program-at-a-Glance” materials, discovering how they could be used for his effort. As we worked our way through the briefing page, we slowly substituted his bullet points for her bullet points, until every single box on the page had changed.

But the overall organization remained, along with the look and feel, section headings, and the flow of the materials. An executive reading about her program and his program would experience the familiarity, comfort, and consistency that customers look for when they patronize a franchise. And that executive comfort level and clear understanding of their programs would go a long way toward getting both groups the support they need.

Oh, and along the way, we discovered that both efforts would indeed be receiving oversight from the same executive committee. So, strictly speaking, I guess they do have a federated model.

But the concept of a franchise approach to Data Governance made both teams’ roadmaps much clearer and immediately raised their confidence levels. It made Data Governance seem more real, and less academic. It made their goals appear more achievable, faster.

And aren’t those some of reasons entrepreneurs choose to go with a franchise?