

  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)

BIG Data Session

DD

Most organisations do not lack data. They lack integrated, trusted, decision-ready information.

That was one of the strongest themes emerging from our latest BIG Book Club discussion on Data within the Business Integrated Governance (BIG) Body of Knowledge.

The conversation explored some uncomfortable but familiar realities:

governance by spreadsheet
fragmented reporting
inconsistent definitions
unclear ownership
manual reconciliation
and governance forums spending too much time debating the credibility of information rather than making decisions.

One observation from the session particularly stood out:

“If participants do not trust the information, governance becomes a talking shop rather than a decision-making body.”

The discussion also surfaced important tensions:

Should governance define information needs, or do organisations simply inherit what systems produce?
What does “single source of truth” really mean?
How much governance is enough before it becomes bureaucracy?
And how does AI change the stakes?

I’ve written up a reflection blog which captures the themes, practitioner perspectives, BIG viewpoints, and some of the open questions still to explore.

Data, Trust and Decision-Making - Reflections from the BIG Book Club

The session write up is here

What is your view and your experience?

DD

Hi All

Just gone through the recording.

Its quite good.

One thing that comes up a few times is management of decision vs management of governance

I think we need to cover accountability to verify, and be clear on what a governance body is.
An accountable person is accountable. They make decisions.
If they need approval for some - the decision thy have made may go to a board for approval.
An accountable person my chair a meeting about that point of accountability - e.g. project board - project exec, supplier, customer etc.
Information presented? Its not the PMO providing it. It is the accountable person providing it.
Points of accountability and boards both have agendas on which there are typical items - including decisions.

Department leadership team = point of accountability for a “management team”
Product Group = point of accountability for a “product team”

Please see chapter 6

Also - Accountability node examples:
Full Member Content - big-cic.org

Accountable people present information - they must own that set when presented - so they need to know and be happy what it is and where it cometh from? Accountability extends to data!!!

Why do we have PMOs “hunting data” - we need to know where it is - hunt nothing!!! We MUST know who owns the data and where does it come from.

I heard governance vs agile - fallacy. We design governance to the level of agility needed.

I heard about the “industry of data” - need to focus on the lifeblood data.

For human data - meetingquality.com

Someone made point about data at the same time - so real the idea people have about wanting real “time data” - fallacy.

The data integration tool needs to manage source, time captured, quality metric - Heatmaps and data sources

We spoke about company wide data design - what we are talking about is data design for governance. That is a subset - but part of the organisation digital twin (however detailed or simple that is).

Lastly - we spoke about copies of data. - we are talking about integrated data. There is only one source of that - and if each presentation shows providence - the copies will be labelled as copes as of…



  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)