Most companies I work with have one of these four quadrants and call it data governance.
Most companies I work with have one of these four quadrants and call it data governance.
The most common version has artifacts. A catalog, a few metric cards, a policy document somewhere on SharePoint. Other companies build out roles instead. A CDO with no peer at her level, a Gov Council that meets quarterly, a DPO who is mostly there for the regulator. A few do concepts well, with decision rights on a slide and named ownership on another, both signed off by someone who left the company. Almost everyone has use cases queued up: AI pilots running on data the team does not trust.
What none of them have is all four together. Each quadrant on its own becomes its own dysfunction: paperwork, theatre, bureaucracy, or a two-year proof of concept that nobody wants to kill.
The bullseye is also sequenced. You cannot buy the outer ring with tools, and AI deployed on an unbuilt foundation never makes it past pilot. Order matters, and the four quadrants have to work together inside the order.
This is the map I walk into governance conversations with, less a methodology than a way of seeing what is already there.
I wrote a 30-day playbook for moving governance from one quadrant to four: https://lnkd.in/dRkqe64E
♻️ Repost if your governance program is working on only one of the four quadrants.
Too many organizations try to solve governance with catalogs, tools, or AI platforms. In practice, sustainable AI adoption usually depends on much less glamorous capabilities: clear ownership, trusted data, defined decision rights, and escalation paths.