Data Governance needs Searchers, not Planners
Jim Harris in Books, Data Quality tagged Change Management, Collaboration, Data Governance, Philosophy Tuesday, March 5, 2013 at 10:00AM In his book Everything Is Obvious: How Common Sense Fails Us, Duncan Watts explained that “plans fail, not because planners ignore common sense, but rather because they rely on their own common sense to reason about the behavior of people who are different from them.”
As development economist William Easterly explained, “A Planner thinks he already knows the answer; A Searcher admits he doesn’t know the answers in advance. A Planner believes outsiders know enough to impose solutions; A Searcher believes only insiders have enough knowledge to find solutions, and that most solutions must be homegrown.”
I made a similar point in my post Data Governance and the Adjacent Possible. Change management efforts are resisted when they impose new methods by emphasizing bad business and technical processes, as well as bad data-related employee behaviors, while ignoring unheralded processes and employees whose existing methods are preventing other problems from happening.
Demonstrating that some data governance policies reflect existing best practices reduces resistance to change by showing that the search for improvement was not limited to only searching for what is currently going wrong.
This is why data governance needs Searchers, not Planners. A Planner thinks a framework provides all the answers; A Searcher knows a data governance framework is like a jigsaw puzzle. A Planner believes outsiders (authorized by executive management) know enough to impose data governance solutions; A Searcher believes only insiders (united by collaboration) have enough knowledge to find the ingredients for data governance solutions, and a true commitment to change always comes from within.
Reader Comments (2)
From the LinkedIn Group for Data Governance & Data Quality , Richard Jarvis commented:
“Hi Jim - thanks for the mind-expanding post!
I like your thesis, but I wouldn't be quite so fast to get my Planners sitting facing the wall in the naughty corner just yet.
In general I would agree that Searchers will provide the best path to implementing data governance (along with other process improvements). The only qualification I would make is where the root cause of the issue is tactical or strategic. In that situation, the Searcher may struggle to get the objective view necessary to truly address the problem, and may instead focus on continually adjusting individual operational processes. This situation might come up where there's been a shift in the business strategy which hasn't been reflected in the functional strategies and governance. In that situation, a Planner would be better placed to provide that objective view, and delicately point out that the reason the Emperor keeps getting sunburnt is because he has no clothes on, rather than the poor standard of modern sunblock.
Just my 2 cents (+ sales tax) worth!”
And I responded:
Thanks for your comment, Richard.
Excellent point (as always) about situations where Data Governance needs Planners, not Searchers.
I would also add another 2 cents (sales tax free) about how a search eventually leads to the implementation of a plan so, in reality, Data Governance needs both Searchers and Planners.
However, the point of my post was that too often we skip the search and proceed with the plan.
Best Regards,
Jim
And Colin McCready commented:
“I think that the post saying that we need searchers is correct.
I have been in many situations where a perfectly good framework has been proposed, but nothing happens. The right framework (roles, responsibilities, processes, etc) isn't enough because it doesn't help people see what they will gain and what they will have to give up. We need searchers to try to figure out the answers to these questions before we can win the hearts and minds of the people who will ultimately become part of the data governance program. And if we don't win these hearts and minds, it's unlikely that data governance will be fully implemented.”
And I responded:
Thanks for your comment, Colin.
I definitely agree with you. The program is the people, so if we don't win the hearts and minds of the people who will implement and sustain it, then the data governance program will fail.
Best Regards,
Jim
And Andrew Sharp commented:
“Very thought provoking. I agree with comment that effective data governance needs both planners and searchers. The challenge can often be that the planner is employed in a searcher role and vice versa - so the skill becomes making sure that you deploy both types of individual effectively.
Also, can a planner naturally evolve into a searcher and can a searcher evolve into a planner?”
And I responded:
Thanks for your comment, Andrew.
Playing to people's strengths is important, so deploying both searchers and planners effectively is key.
Interesting question about evolving from one into the other. In some ways, searchers search and planners plan because both are doing what they are good at, but they could both become better if they spent some time in the other role, helping them see the challenge from both perspectives, allowing them to collaborate better.
However, this probably will not occur naturally, which is why data governance also needs managers and leaders.
Best Regards,
Jim
I really liked the Watts quote and I think it makes perfect sense. When you apply your "common" sense to other people you are assuming your common and their common are the same. Sometimes you get lucky and that works out perfectly but often there is a misstep somewhere and what you plan and how people react are not at all close.