Scenarios 01–06
Scenario 1 — Org chart before current-state assessment
Situation: Leadership creates a centralized DMO chart without reviewing existing committees, decision norms, current owners, or reporting culture. - Primary problem: organization design detached from operating reality. - Leading chapter: Chapter 16 organization/role design. - Supporting: Data Governance; Organizational Change. - Roles: sponsor, DMO lead, current data participants. - Best response: assess current culture, operating model, people, role of data, and satisfaction before finalizing target structure. - Weaker response: finalize titles/reporting now; it risks an unsustainable design. - Changed fact: current-state assessment is already complete and supports centralization → operationalize roles/reporting next. Source: pp. 521–523.
Scenario 2 — Grassroots data team with no owner
Situation: several LOBs manage data well locally through a committee, but no single owner exists and standards vary. - Primary problem: decentralized model with consistency/ownership risk. - Supporting: Data Governance. - Roles: LOB data leads, IT, committee participants. - Best response: recognize Decentralized and strengthen consistency/accountability mechanisms. - Weaker response: call it Centralized because a committee exists. - Changed fact: add a maintained RACI without changing distributed reporting → Network. Source: pp. 523–524.
Scenario 3 — RACI without reorganization
Situation: distributed teams keep reporting lines but document Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed roles. - Primary problem: formal distributed accountability. - Supporting: Data Governance. - Roles: data participants, process owners, governance. - Best response: classify as Network and maintain/enforce the RACI. - Weaker response: centralize everyone; unnecessary for accountability. - Changed fact: all functions move under one DMO leader → Centralized. Source: p. 524.
Scenario 4 — Centralized DMO losing business context
Situation: all roles moved centrally; decisions are fast, but the DMO no longer understands how core business processes create data. - Primary problem: centralization has separated capability from business-process knowledge. - Supporting: Data Governance; business-process knowledge. - Roles: DM lead, business stakeholders, specialists. - Best response: restore business linkage through participation/roles or a more hybrid relationship while retaining needed accountability. - Weaker response: more centralization cannot fix lost local knowledge. - Changed fact: business knowledge remains strong and unclear accountability is the actual problem → Centralized may remain appropriate. Source: pp. 524–525.
Scenario 5 — COE plus business-unit teams
Situation: central COE sets direction/support while BU teams retain broad local accountability. - Primary problem/classification: Hybrid operating model. - Supporting: Data Governance. - Roles: executive, COE, BU teams, steering committee. - Best response: clarify central vs local responsibilities and manage enterprise/BU priorities. - Weaker response: Federated adds layers not present. - Changed fact: add multiple regional/divisional DMO layers → Federated. Source: pp. 525–527.
Scenario 6 — Global regional autonomy
Situation: multinational needs enterprise strategy/standards, but regions must execute differently due to laws, languages, systems, and priorities. - Primary problem: central strategy + regional execution. - Supporting: Data Governance; Data Security. - Roles: enterprise DMO/CDO, regional groups, business/IT. - Best response: Federated or appropriately networked pattern aligning standards/accountability while allowing regional execution; layered regions make Federated particularly strong. - Weaker response: pure centralization ignores legitimate regional constraints. - Changed fact: small enterprise with limited BU variation → simpler Hybrid may suffice. Source: pp. 526–527, 536–537.