Driving change for data governance

30 January 2015 by Justin York

There are many things about change which could be considered or discussed, whatever we think about change it is people that develop it, communicate it and are charged with making it work. Data Governance as a discipline is no different to this, except that like all intangible change it is difficult to ‘sell’ the benefits of it in its own right.

Many organisations today, particularly in financial services are recruiting and embedding the role of Chief Data Officer (CDO) which is a major step forward and yet for many they are not members of the board and do not necessarily wield the level of power necessary to drive out the changes.

It has long been known that data governance is simply a 'no brainer' in terms of the right thing to do, and yet we have to wait until the regulators decide that it should be implemented before any movement is seen.I believe that with the right people in the right place, with the right knowledge the delivery of data governance can be made much simpler.

When we think of people we have various levels, executives, directors, managers and team members along with any number of sub-grades; when there are this many levels of structure the message, regardless of its robustness at the highest levels is diluted to reduce its impact and to provide a different spin thus changing the seriousness of it.Much of this is done with making sure that everyone understands, the opposite seems to be true in that a diluted message becomes a confused message and if we talk strategy then we all need to see the final end goal, otherwise what are we striving for.

There are therefore many ways to change a culture, whichever approach we take, there is always 'stick' and possibly some 'carrot'.For me the message has to begin top down, by that I mean executive level; not only does it start there, the authority to carry it through is granted there.The robust message to carry the change is also driven from there and cascaded through the organisation.

It is then up to the directors to carry the torch; the key with the torch is that it is often a burden and can get quite hot.Questions will abound, what's the point? What's in it for me? Do we really have to do it? They will be endless.It is up to the directors to hold firm and make sure that the benefits are well communicated and understood.It's also not to bad an idea to show people that the stick is available.

Further cascade of the message brings even more loathing and grief, because we now begin to leave the ivory towers and get to the coal face where the work is done; here the burden is even greater less time for the day job and that means longer hours.

All of these may be valid arguments for the people that produce them, but let's not lose sight of the reason for doing data governance.The regulators and therefore the board require it to be done so the arguments are superfluous; evidence from successful delivery of data governance shows that not only does it save you time, it enhances the quality of your work as the data quality is higher, people know who to speak to for getting issues resolved and the real key, money is saved from streamlining and for financial services the reduction of fine threat.

When I look at the concept of data governance, it's a good and valuable thing to have.Sure the name can be changed because no-one wants more governance, however if you do it well the benefits will come.Treat your data like any other valuable business asset, give it the time and effort it needs, after all you do that with the accounts!