Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Governance and Control

There seems to be some confusion in data governance circles concerning the application of governance--how to make it work. I sat through a tutorial at a recent conference in which the expert emphasized the need for authority as the key (or a key) to successful governance.


It was never clear to me what the scope of this authority was to be or how it was to be used. I finally asked the question, "Authority for what?" You may have heard that responsibility without authority is the recipe for stress and burnout. I thought to pursue this line of thinking as a way to discover what was meant by data governance. If I know the nature of the authority, I should be able to deduce the nature of the responsibility. The question never received an answer. What I got was blank looks.


I felt a strong need to get to the bottom of this since the word "enforce" or "enforcement" was also used several times. I was becoming extremely uncomfortable.


Friends, if people do not accept governance and cooperate with it, then the governance model needs to change. We do not need enforcers. We need arbiters, mediators and facilitators. More than anything else we need teachers. I've heard it said that we all do the best we know how and when we know better, we'll do better.


Controls and attempts to control do not work in governance. They only create bottlenecks and delays that encourage people to find other ways. In our local civil government, we call it red tape and bureaucracy. For example, building permits are required for many home improvements. The reasons for this requirement are excellent. The permit and the resulting inspections (audits) protect the current and future homeowner by insuring that the project is safe. In spite of the obvious benefits, many do-it-yourself homeowners avoid the permit process because the process is obscure, the standards must be discovered, it can be inconvenient, it adds to the cost and is known to produce delays. Furthermore, the only way for the scofflaw to be caught is through an inspection and the authority has no reason to inspect other than the permit. Note that contractors licensed by the authority are much more likely to comply.

Contrast this to the governance of traffic on roadways. Standards are clearly displayed, drivers must pass a licensing test demonstrating both physical capacity and knowledge. Law Enforcement (To Serve and Protect) is primarily tasked with monitoring compliance (which their mere presence guarantees). Compliance metrics are gathered via various kinds of technology and governance changes (to speed limits, traffic signals, etc.) are made based on these audits. What if we had a committee at each intersection with the sole authority to direct traffic?

As you can see, governance requires an initial framework (competence, licensure), a coherent set of standards (coherent in the sense of both understandable and integrated), and monitoring/audit capabilities. Anything else is extra and may even get in the way.

The result of good governance is a community that enjoys consistency, predictability and safety and is mostly free from nasty surprises. The authority that is present is passive and present only to deal with issues that don't fit within the governance structure. If authority is needed everywhere, there is no governance anywhere.

2 comments:

  1. Mike - nice post and I share your point of view.
    I think the keys are frameworks, collaboration and measurement. I'm a big advocate of "data governance portals".


    You might find the following articles interesting ... and you'll probably like MIKE2.0 based on the name!

    http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2007/11/04/governance-20/

    http://mike2.openmethodology.org/wiki/Governance 2.0 Solution Offering

    Sean

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do like MIKE2.0 but for one thing--it demands sponsorship at the senior management level. I think that's a really good idea but not a necessary step. The problems must be solved whether there is sponsorship or not. MIKE2.0 provides a comprehensive vision for the problem solvers to work within.

    Those who will actually solve the component problems will, for the most part, not be ready to absorb the full scope. Note that I DID NOT say unable because it is about readiness and not ability.

    Thanks for the pointers, Sean.

    ReplyDelete