Deep Battle Cards A–G
Deep Card A — Operating Model vs Org Chart
Definition: Operating model = roles, responsibilities, decisions, collaboration; org chart = formal reporting positions. Purpose: separate behavioral/decision structure from reporting boxes. Inputs: current culture, decisions, roles, relationships. Outputs: operating-model design vs formal reporting chart. Nearest confusion: treating “organization design” as a hierarchy diagram. Deciding distinction: how work and decisions happen vs who reports to whom. Scenario pair: define escalation/accountability → operating model; assign names/titles → org chart. Memory hook: Relationships before rectangles. Source: p. 523.
Deep Card B — Decentralized vs Network
Definition: both distribute responsibility; Network adds documented connections/accountabilities such as RACI. Purpose: distinguish informal local collaboration from formal distributed accountability. Inputs: distributed roles, committee collaboration, RACI. Outputs: local committee model vs accountability network. Nearest confusion: a committee alone does not make the model networked. Deciding distinction: maintained RACI/formal connections. Scenario pair: local groups collaborate informally → Decentralized; same groups use maintained RACI → Network. Memory hook: Network = decentralization with the wires labeled. Source: pp. 523–524.
Deep Card C — Centralized vs Hybrid
Definition: Centralized puts functions under one DMO leader; Hybrid retains BU teams supported/directed by a central COE. Purpose: choose the correct central/local ownership balance. Inputs: enterprise priorities, local responsibilities, operating structure. Outputs: single-owner hierarchy vs central support + local accountability. Nearest confusion: an executive sponsor does not make the structure centralized. Deciding distinction: Do local teams still own meaningful Data Management work? Scenario pair: all DQ teams report to one DMO → Centralized; COE supports BU DQ teams → Hybrid. Memory hook: Own centrally vs guide/support centrally. Source: pp. 524–526.
Deep Card D — Hybrid vs Federated
Definition: Hybrid mixes central and BU roles; Federated adds multiple division/region layers under enterprise strategy. Purpose: recognize scale and layering. Inputs: enterprise strategy + divisional/regional autonomy. Outputs: COE+BU teams vs enterprise+multiple regional/divisional structures. Nearest confusion: both have central strategy and local execution. Deciding distinction: multi-layer division/region pattern. Scenario pair: national company with COE+BU teams → Hybrid; global company with regional DMOs under enterprise COE → Federated. Memory hook: Federated = hybrid-like patterns repeated across the enterprise. Source: pp. 525–527.
Deep Card E — Executive Sponsor vs CDO
Definition: Sponsor champions/guides an improvement transition; CDO owns or evangelizes enterprise data strategy and may lead DMO capability. Purpose: separate change authority from the standing enterprise data mandate. Inputs: DMO vision/strategy and change initiative. Outputs: change support/authority vs enterprise data strategy/alignment. Nearest confusion: a CDO can sponsor, but the concepts are not identical. Deciding distinction: initiative champion vs standing enterprise data role. Scenario pair: CFO backs DMO launch → Sponsor; CDO sets enterprise data strategy → CDO. Memory hook: Sponsor backs the change; CDO leads data strategy. Source: pp. 528–529, 534.
Deep Card F — Executive Sponsorship vs Leadership Alignment
Definition: Sponsorship = influential champion; alignment = leaders agree on goals/value/success and send unified messages. Purpose: diagnose different leadership failures. Outputs: authority/engagement vs collective agreement. Nearest confusion: one strong sponsor can coexist with conflicting business leaders. Deciding distinction: one champion vs one leadership voice. Scenario: sponsor is active but BU presidents dispute goals → alignment failure. Memory hook: Champion vs chorus. Source: pp. 528–530.
Deep Card G — Communication vs Orientation/Training
Definition: Communication explains what/why/expected behavior; training gives role-specific capability to perform work. Purpose: choose the right adoption intervention. Outputs: awareness/understanding vs skill/role execution. Nearest confusion: more communication does not fix a skill deficit. Deciding distinction: know why vs know how. Scenario pair: employees do not understand purpose → Communication; stewards cannot execute DQ process → Training. Memory hook: Message before mastery. Source: pp. 529–530.