Scenarios 01–05
Scenario 1 — Tool-First Assessment
Situation: Leadership buys a maturity-assessment platform before defining business driver, objective, scope, or framework.
- Primary problem: assessment planning skipped.
- Leading KA: Data Management Maturity Assessment.
- Supporting: Data Governance; architecture/technology planning.
- Roles: executive sponsor, assessment lead, Data Governance.
- Best action: define objectives, framework, scope, interaction approach, communications before tool implementation.
- Weaker response: configure the platform first; it imposes structure without purpose.
- Changed fact: if objectives/framework/scope are approved and collection tooling is the only gap, configure the tool next.
- Source: pp. 510–513.
Scenario 2 — Heroic Data Steward
Situation: one senior steward personally resolves every issue; procedures are inconsistent and no backup exists.
- Primary problem: person-dependent ad hoc capability.
- Leading KA: DMMA.
- Supporting: Data Governance; role management.
- Roles: steward, data owner, governance lead.
- Best action: classify near Level 1 and prioritize repeatable role/process definition after assessment.
- Weaker response: call it L2 because outcomes can be good; success is not repeatability.
- Changed fact: documented roles/processes and multiple consistent performers make L2 more defensible.
- Source: pp. 506–507.
Scenario 3 — Documented but Not Institutionalized
Situation: three departments have documented processes/common tools but different standards; governance is emerging.
- Primary problem: repeatability without enterprise definition.
- Leading KA: DMMA.
- Supporting: Data Governance.
- Roles: process owners, governance, assessors.
- Best action: rate near L2 until common scalable standards/policies are institutionalized.
- Weaker response: documentation alone = L3.
- Changed fact: coordinated enterprise standards/scalable processes are actually used → move toward L3.
- Source: pp. 506–508.
Scenario 4 — Metrics Change the Level
Situation: common policies/processes exist; DQ, project-success, and operational metrics are actively reviewed to control risk/performance.
- Primary problem: measured/controlled maturity classification.
- Leading KA: DMMA.
- Supporting: Data Quality; Data Governance.
- Roles: governance, process owners, risk/quality leaders.
- Best action: recognize Level 4 characteristics.
- Weaker response: remain at L3; ignores management-through-metrics.
- Changed fact: metrics exist but are not used for control/risk decisions → L3 may still be stronger.
- Source: pp. 507–508.
Scenario 5 — Score 4 Confusion
Situation: one criterion is 4 — Effective; an executive announces the organization is Level 4 Managed.
- Primary problem: criterion-score vs maturity-level confusion.
- Leading KA: DMMA.
- Supporting: Data Governance.
- Roles: assessors, sponsor.
- Best action: explain separate scales and evaluate full L4 characteristics.
- Weaker response: accept numerical equality.
- Changed fact: if the framework explicitly defines that rating as overall maturity and L4 criteria are satisfied, L4 could be correct.
- Source: p. 508.