Note: ‘Goh’ is a Dutch interjection of mild, deadpan realization (closer to ‘huh’ or ‘well, look at that’ than a direct one-to-one match), and the acronym G.O.H. (Gegevens OpperHoofd) is built entirely on that wordplay, so it won’t carry over to English as-is, an equivalent pun/acronym will need to be created for the EN version.
Somewhere in your organization, someone has the role of “data steward.” Oh, and don’t forget the “data owner.” What those roles actually entail is much less clear. How much time these people spend on these roles hasn’t been thought through at all.
Gee.
A hat without a head
Most data governance roles are filled with the best of intentions. Someone with an affinity for data, a willingness to invest time in it, and a vague mandate to “do something about data quality.” What’s missing is the one thing that makes all the difference: a mandate.
Without a mandate, a data steward is an advisor whom no one has to follow. A data owner who is accountable for thin air. A steering committee that meets but has no steering. A voice crying in the wilderness.
The hat has been handed out. The role or position has not.
Everyone already has a title
The problem isn’t that organizations don’t take data quality seriously. They take it seriously in the way that costs the least: handing out a title as if it were a gift.
A title costs nothing. A mandate requires position, priority, and the willingness to let someone actually take action—something you have to think about and can be held accountable for.
As long as that conversation isn’t having, little changes. The data steward sends emails. The data owner is invited to meetings. The insights and reports just keep piling up.
What Changes When You Do Take It Seriously
Don’t view the “Gegevens OpperHoofd” as just a new job title. It’s a description of what the role actually entails: someone who is at the top when it comes to data, who sets the direction, makes decisions, and can hold others accountable.
As soon as you give someone that mandate, things start to happen. Definitions are established. Priorities are set. People are held accountable for what they do with data. It feels uncomfortable, and yet it works.
The “Aha!” Moment
There’s a moment in every organization when the penny drops. Not when a consultant finishes yet another slide deck, not when the new tool is rolled out. It happens when someone says for the first time: “We’re going to do this differently,” and everyone knows that person can actually make it happen.
Wow, there’s actually someone who’s doing it.
Unfortunately, those moments are rarer than they should be. Why? Because formalizing a mandate requires a conversation about a topic that remains inherently elusive.
The Role Nobody Wants to Fill
Organizations secretly know that data quality requires attention. They also know, whether consciously or not, that real change meets with resistance. A G.O.H. who can do their job well touches on processes, systems, and habits that people like just the way they are.
Goh. So it is a G.O.H. after all.
A new platform always makes it a technical issue; a multi-year program shifts the focus away from the here and now. The step from problem to solution is smaller than it seems. One person, one role, one mandate.
Someone who takes the lead. Someone who truly bears the responsibility. Someone who, if the brake pads are made of cork, doesn’t go home but stops and walks back.
Gosh. That would help.
Want to learn more about data quality? Follow Ruud on LinkedIn for updates on data. Be sure to check out our other blogs on MAD-Quality.
