Home › Cases

Why is data governance not a control mechanism?

Because governance means governing: setting direction, formulating ambitions and taking responsibility. The word suggests rules and restriction, and that association is why it stalls in most organisations. Mark van der Veen, Vice President at DAMA NL, frames it as an agreement about who owns what rather than a set of controls.

Data governance makes many people think of rules, control and restriction. At its core it is about governing: giving direction, formulating ambitions and taking responsibility. This longread follows an extensive conversation with Mark van der Veen, Vice President at DAMA NL, on how organisations can shape governance so that it works.

Governance as agreement, not control

Per data item you record who defines it, who maintains it and who may use it. That is an agreement between people, not a mechanism that enforces itself. The control layer comes later and only makes sense once the agreement exists.

Why it stalls

Because it is introduced as a restriction. A programme that arrives promising oversight gets treated as overhead. One that arrives solving an argument about which number is right gets adopted, because it removes work rather than adding it.

What makes it stick

• Tie it to a problem people already feel
• Start with the data that carries a decision, not with the complete catalogue
• Make the definition findable, or it does not exist
• Give it an owner with a name and the authority to decide

Based on an episode of the Databewuster podcast, recorded in Dutch. The episode, the summary and the full transcript are on the podcast page. This English article describes what was discussed; it does not quote the guest directly, because the conversation was in Dutch.