A variation on a very old joke.

“How many data stewards does it take to screw in a light bulb?”

When it comes to the question of how many data stewards it takes to screw in a light bulb, the answer is not as straightforward as one might think.

While in some cases, one data steward may be sufficient, in most instances, changing the data governance light bulb requires the collaborative effort of multiple individuals.

Firstly, you need someone to define the policy regarding light bulb replacement.

Then, another person is required to approve the policy. But it doesn’t stop there.

Root cause analysis needs to be conducted, and someone must identify the owner of the light bulb. Each step in the process may require a dedicated individual (or team) to ensure a smooth transition.

The danger of overcomplicating your data governance structure

It can be easy to overcomplicate your governance structures.

Complexity can arise from the sheer volume of work or from attempting to incorporate various “best practices” or ideal team configurations found through internet research or consultant recommendations.

Remember, the larger the data governance team, the more intricate the supporting processes become.

The Data Governance Forum

Many data stewardship teams hold monthly data governance forums, which serve as a platform to discuss data issues and determine appropriate actions.

But here’s the catch: Without clear goals and focus, these meetings can quickly devolve into unproductive sessions or become time-consuming for busy decision-makers, causing them to disengage. Once decision-makers lose interest, it becomes challenging to regain their involvement.

The importance of Data Quality metrics

To ensure successful information governance, it’s vital to establish relevant data quality metrics. Metrics provide a basis for informed decision-making by prioritizing data issues and mitigating risks effectively. Remember, a data quality issue that isn’t measured is merely an opinion.

Any #DataQuality issue that is not measured is not an issue, it’s an opinion

Tweet

Data quality is not the only cause of conflict in data governance fora.

The importance of relevance

Conflicts within data governance forums often stem from lengthy discussions about policies, definitions, and standards that are only relevant to small subsets of the stewardship community at any given time.

Such discussions waste the time of others and don’t align with the needs of decision-makers who aim to maximize their productivity.

Instead, collaborative efforts should occur outside of these meetings, allowing the data governance forum to focus solely on decision-making.

Successful #Data Governance relies on small teams collaborating effectively

Tweet

Introduce Focussed Working Groups

One potential solution is to divide the monthly meeting into multiple working committees, each focusing on specific business goals or capabilities.

However, this approach can create problems by burdening individuals with the need to attend multiple meetings, leading to potential disengagement. The need to communicate outcomes and collaborate across groups can also be a challenge.

The Data Governance platform

An emerging alternative is investing in a data governance platform that facilitates quick and easy collaboration among data stewards. This platform eliminates the need for frequent meetings while providing a centralized repository for critical data assets, including policies, standards, business terms, and requirements. It also streamlines the approval process and captures feedback from relevant stewards.

By leveraging a data governance platform, small teams can achieve significant results. Perhaps, with the right tools and streamlined processes, one data steward can successfully change that light bulb. If you’re interested in improving your data governance program through automation, feel free to contact us for more information.

Image sourced from http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt512/4158314959/sizes/m/in/photostream/ - some rights reserved