Scenarios 13–18
Scenario 13 — Existing committee has no bandwidth
Situation: senior steering committee gives data five minutes quarterly and makes no data decisions. - Primary problem: insufficient DM attention/decision capacity. - Supporting: Data Governance. - Roles: sponsor, committee chair, DMO lead. - Best response: redesign mandate/time or create/supplement with a suitable steering/working structure. - Weaker response: reuse is useful only if the forum advances the work. - Changed fact: current committee can make timely data decisions → reuse becomes preferable. Source: p. 532.
Scenario 14 — High influence, low interest
Situation: CFO can block funding but is only mildly interested. - Primary problem: high-influence/lower-interest stakeholder. - Supporting: Organizational Change. - Roles: DMO lead, sponsor, CFO. - Best response: Meet Their Needs; connect outcomes to CFO priorities. - Weaker response: low interest does not make a high-influence person low priority. - Changed fact: interest becomes high → Key Player. Source: pp. 532–533.
Scenario 15 — Critical blocker ignored
Situation: regulator-facing compliance leader controls resources, influences leaders, is skeptical, and was omitted from stakeholder analysis. - Primary problem: critical stakeholder risk. - Supporting: Data Governance; compliance. - Roles: sponsor, compliance leader, stakeholder-analysis team. - Best response: analyze goals/concerns/support and engage early. - Weaker response: treating all stakeholders equally misses make-or-break influence. - Changed fact: little influence and little impact → Lower Priority may be sufficient. Source: pp. 532–533.
Scenario 16 — Hiring before inventory
Situation: HR creates five new data titles before identifying employees already doing stewardship, modeling, quality, or metadata work. - Primary problem: DMO build sequence reversed. - Supporting: HR. - Roles: DMO lead, HR, current practitioners. - Best response: inventory existing participants/skills → identify gaps → add titles/resources/compensation as needed. - Weaker response: premature titles can discard knowledge and politicize the effort. - Changed fact: inventory proves real gaps with no transferable skills → hiring is appropriate. Source: pp. 531–532.
Scenario 17 — Governance and management blurred
Situation: DG Office and DMO both claim policy approval, execution, escalation, and standards enforcement; decisions stall. - Primary problem: unclear DG/DM roles and accountabilities. - Supporting: Data Governance. - Roles: DG lead, DMO lead, working group. - Best response: agree/document guidance-policy-accountability vs execution interfaces. - Weaker response: making one side “win” ignores the intended synergy. - Changed fact: roles are clear but policy lacks executive mandate → governance sponsorship/authority becomes primary. Source: pp. 534–535.
Scenario 18 — Data Quality grows beyond one application
Situation: successful application DQ team now must improve shared master data across multiple LOBs. - Primary problem: DQ scope maturing from local to cross-enterprise. - Supporting: Data Quality; Reference & Master Data. - Roles: DQ team, DMO, BU teams, governance. - Best response: move toward unified/COE capability aligned with DMO while retaining local execution where needed. - Weaker response: isolated DQ practices make shared-data improvement harder. - Changed fact: issue remains bounded to one application/LOB → local execution may still be enough. Source: p. 535.