How to Avoid Data Governance Bureaucracy
I came across this interesting post by Shane Parrish on LinkedIn:
“ Organisations default to bureaucracy. People default to distraction. Both result in lack of focus and speed.”
I could immediately draw parallels with the data world and the threat of bureaucracy that creeps in as the organisation models and governance structures become mature.
With the paramount importance being given to data governance in a data-driven decision making organisation, we usually recommend setting up of working groups and committees for direction and guidance. However, with it comes the lurking threat of bureaucracy which is the arch nemesis of agility and progress. I have seen in different client scenarios where once a nimble data governance working group, with passionate and focused people soon turn into forums where debates lead to nowhere. The numbers of participants rise from 6 to 20. Meetings swell in size, agendas become bloated, and decision-making forums transform into a taxing process of appeasing everyone’s demands. The very essence of data governance, fostering data-driven insights and swift action, seems to slip away quite easily.
As I reflect on my own experience of organising and executing such data governance initiatives, I could think of some of the ways which I have tested with the data governance practitioners in the past to bypass the bureaucratic trap. In this article, I want to explore some practical examples on how to regain the momentum and outsmart bureaucracy:
Terms of Reference (ToR) to Reset
Revisit the initial Terms of Reference and redefine the scope. This was crucial especially if it has not been revised in a long time. We clearly defined the working group’s objectives and responsibilities. This helped the group to realign their efforts towards core data governance challenges, sidestepping any deviations that derailed their mission.
Regular Reviews to Navigate in Right Direction
Another interesting thing we introduced was regular reviews of the agenda, whether it was in line with core objective. This also presented an opportunity to assess the progress and impact of their initiatives. These reviews allowed them to identify any early signs of bureaucracy creeping in and promptly addressing it. Such introspective discussions helped the team to realign with their founding vision.
The Rationalization Exercise to Trim the Non-Value Adds
It’s hard to acknowledge that more minds don’t always mean better decisions. In one-off activity, we conducted a rationalization exercise, evaluating each member’s contributions and refining the group’s composition. This was really crucial as it helped us to identify and eliminate those who no longer added significant value to the core objectives. Rather we invited them to join as occasional / optional advisors and put their names in the mailing distribution list to keep them informed.
Another rationalisation exercise was done to reduce the different working groups in existence which had overlapping agenda(s) and stakeholder participation. To our surprise, this was much appreciated as it showed we valued everyone’s time and contribution.
Goal-Oriented Agenda to Cut Through the Noise
As we recognised the value of time, we embraced focused agendas for the meetings. We pre-published the agenda and reading material for the meeting highlighting the issue and business impact. We made it clear to our stakeholders that such meetings are not discovery sessions rather we expect Chairperson and stakeholders to come prepared. This helped us to avoid tangential discussions and preserved their energy for meaningful data governance decisions.
Educate on the Role of Chairperson, ‘The Navigator’
The role of the chairperson is crucial to steer the meeting in the right direction. It is their responsibility to keep the discussions on track, encourage collaborative decision making and ensure that every opinion is heard for a consensus-driven outcomes. Setting the expectations right with the Chairperson gave them clarity on their role and responsibilities.
While taking all these actions, we ensured open communication with all the members and remained transparent about any decisions made regarding the group’s composition or objectives.
Conclusion:
Data governance bureaucracy can put the brake on an organisation’s journey of being data-driven. By being aware and employing such tactics, we can ensure that data initiatives don’t lose the pace in propelling the organisations towards innovation.
