IT projects cannot be conducted as a town-hall democracy in which every individual ranging from the highest ranking executive to the lowest menial laborer gets his or her say in the final product.  At the opposite extreme, projects should not be funded based only the personal aspirations of a few elite stakeholders—those holding titular rank or the purse strings.

Yet these elite few often get to state the ultimate decision as to whether a project is go or no-go.

This is disquieting when we consider that these stakeholders can and do have their own agendas in mind. This can have even deeper impacts on those who support the project and question its overall value to the organization as a whole.

Although this occurrence is common in every business sector, it is particularly relevant within Government Operations; often the most critical policies and requirements are supplanted on the basis of how they will be received by the higher-ups.  Put another way, three-star generals can trump entire data governance teams’ priorities.

For that reason, it is important to consider yet another dimension when discussing data governance policies: politics.

The difference between politics and policies is tantamount to the difference between emotions and logic. Politics is the part of a governmental system where men and women vie for the acceptance of constituents in a district or territory (see Policy vs. Politics: The Unknown Battle in Government).

Politics cannot exist in a vacuum and requires either the support or acknowledgement of others. If a plan is successfully executed, politics engenders additional respect.

Policy, on the other hand, is what the politicians, analysts, and administrators are supposed to manage on a day-to-day basis as part of their jobs.  A data policy, as Marty Moseley defines it, is “a measurable statement of ‘what must be achieved’ for which kinds of data, who owns responsibility and how anomalies and disputes are settled.”

We can separate policy as the hard and immutable facts while politics is a fleeting impression that can change almost overnight based on low revenue streams, bad outcomes based on unpopular decisions, or just plain gossip-mongering.

So how is it, given the hard and fast rules of policies versus the soft and bendable side of politics, that the politician wins out over policy? How is it that a three-star general can realign a project with the motto “success at any cost” in order to meet his specific department’s own strategic goals?

Placed in context, a single signature from the right stakeholder can spell the death of a project and its policies even when the project and policies address more global, shared issues.

In medieval times, populations were spread across kingdoms in which the elite were responsible for the major decisions, such as going to war, growing a particular crop, and so forth.  These elite—the kings, queens and various lordships—were viewed as having inherited their positions by divine right and their decisions were followed often without question. (Those who did question often faced prison, the axe, or worse).

Although the penalties are less severe in business, how different is this “divine right” from today’s class of stakeholders whose say-so is final?  Any accepted policy— ‘what must be achieved’—can go out the window if it runs counter to those holding the power.  Thus, as we design data governance directives, we need to consider the political influences as they can have greater impact on policies than many choose to recognize.

Through a stroke of a pen, today’s “best course of action” may be tomorrow’s deleted requirement.  Right now, our only choice is to hope that the leaders in charge of the final decisions can put their own political goals aside for the sake of the principles and policies they have been entrusted to uphold and protect.