๐๐ผ๐ป'๐ ๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ต๐๐ฝ๐ฒ. ๐ช๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ป'๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฒ๏ฟฝ...
๐๐ผ๐ป'๐ ๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ต๐๐ฝ๐ฒ. ๐ช๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ผ๐ป'๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฎ ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น.
Everyone seems to recommend federated governance. Over the last few years, it has become the model everyone talks about. But that doesn't mean it's the right choice for every organization.
The right model depends on your maturity, your organization and the problems you're trying to solve.
A ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐น๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น usually works best when governance is new, regulations are strict, data quality is inconsistent or ownership is still unclear. It helps create common standards, shared definitions and consistent ways of working.
A ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐บ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐น works best when business domains already have strong ownership, dedicated data teams and enough maturity to make decisions locally. The central team defines the guardrails and the domains own execution.
I've seen organizations adopt a federated model far too early. Instead of becoming more agile, they ended up with different rules across domains, duplicated work and long discussions to reach simple decisions.
In many companies, governance becomes more federated as maturity increases. Building strong foundations first usually leads to better results.
โโโ
๐ Download my Data Stewardship Playbook from my Featured section.
๐ Follow Mathieu Le Guรฉvel to fix Data Governance.