We The People

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
Article 1 of this constitution describes a representative form of governance, recognizing that the needs for deliberation and timely decision making can best be met in this way. This was particularly true in a time when travel was by foot or by horse (or other animal propulsion) or by water propelled wither by wind, oar or paddle.
Two thoughts come to my mind:

1. What might this article say if written today?
2. There has been no need to modify the principles set forth during the ensuing 222 years.

All of this leads to a third thought. If the goals of corporate governance are substantially the same

• more perfect Union--Every CEO wants the company to operate as a unit, with a single purpose
• establish Justice--A sense of justice is a prerequisite for people to focus on their duties and responsibilities.
• insure domestic Tranquility--Inter-personal and inter-organizational dissension is a primary cause of lost productivity.
• provide for the common defence--The company must defend its position in the marketplace and each employee is critical to that defense.
• promote the general Welfare--This goes hand-in-hand with justice. It's human nature to want things to be better.
• secure the Blessings of Liberty--Personal liberty is always subject to the other goals.

then maybe we ought to consider whether the method should be the same.

It's hard for me to consider data governance (which is where I'm coming from) in a vacuum. The goals of data governance are substantially the same goals outlined above. Defense is about defending the integrity of the data resource. Union is about consistency. Justice and welfare is about everyone living by the same rules (which produces consistency).

I don't want to make data governance sound so impossibly complex that we throw up our hands in surrender. The message I'm transmitting is that we have models to use. We do not have to reinvent governance.

One of the difficulties in any governance model is to come up with a definition or picture of "the governed". We go through life happily assuming that everyone else is "just like me" in terms of their wants and needs. Mostly that works, but every now and then, we run into someone who isn't "just like me." When that happens we have two choices. Either we try to make the other person just like me or we adapt our view of "me" so that it includes some new parameters. In corporate life, it is exceeding dangerous to assume that anyone in a role different from ours is "just like me."

Even if we restrict ourselves to data governance, we find that we have to include as "governed" many who are filling different corporate roles and are definitely not "like" us. Again, I go back to the American Colonies in the mid eighteenth century. Imposing or trying to impose a set of rules on people whose life and needs I don't understand is destined for failure. The secondary message is: either include everyone in designing the rules or (poor second choice) understand the needs of the others before designing the rules.

Everything I see and hear about data governance is from the point of view of the person whose role is management of the data resource. There isn't a single person in the marketing department who would ever conceive of the need for data governance. Of course, we can spend time in learning to talk the marketing language and becoming familiar with marketing problems, then we can show them that some kind of governance is needed and they will agree. They might even agree to invest some time on a committee. Eventually, though, they're going to wonder if this is a good use of their most precious resource--time.

Making laws (standards) is a messy process. Much of the data governance effort is about the process--identifying stakeholders, building consensus, the political side of things, while the standards and processes become a very small box on a big diagram. My thought is that we don't even know the stakeholders until we understand the processes. The political side is essential, but there is a lot of good we could be doing if we would focus on the processes and standards.

I keep saying this because, while there may be similarity in the way two corporations handle governance, I have serious doubts whether it will ever be possible to export one company's solution to others. The political implications of forcing an outsider's will on a population would cause "failed" to be stamped on the effort nearly immediately.

Bottom line: You're on a burning platform. Don't wait for someone to save you. What do you have? What can you do? Do it!