In my previous post i briefly highlighted anti-pattern, the identification of such is really powerful, and helps to avoid where a solution that looks right, feels responsible, and is often widely accepted, but repeatedly produces poor results.

---

Seen inside business processes, at the moments where data is created, changed, handed over, or relied upon, something uncomfortable emerges. Most persistent data problems are not caused by missing frameworks or unclear principles. They are caused by how governance behaves or fails to behave at very specific points in the process.

This is where governance anti-patterns reveal themselves. Anti-patterns are rarely the result of ignorance. They are usually the outcome of good intentions applied at the wrong distance. They look like governance. They feel responsible. And yet, they consistently fail to change what actually happens.

The steering committee anti-pattern

This anti-pattern appears when governance decisions are placed outside the moments where they actually matter. The intention is alignment and shared ownership, but the effect is often delay. A data issue emerges during execution. It is documented and escalated. The process continues because it has to. By the time the committee meets, workarounds are already in place and the data has moved downstream.

Governance becomes retrospective by design. The real damage is not just slow decision-making. It is learned behaviour. Teams stop raising issues early because experience has shown that escalation does not help when it matters. What replaces this anti-pattern is not fewer committees but decisions embedded closer to the process. Decision rights are anchored at specific steps. Responses to known failure modes are predefined. Escalation paths trigger immediately, not eventually. Steering committees still have a role, but it shifts from operational intervention to learning and improvement.

The ownership-in-name-only anti-pattern

This anti-pattern emerges when data ownership is defined separately from the process that creates or changes the data. The owner exists on paper but not at the moment of creation. They are involved in reporting, but not in approval. They are contacted when problems are discovered, but not when they could have been prevented.

What we see is that ownership becomes symbolic. The damage is predictable. Owners are held accountable for outcomes they had no real ability to influence. Over time, the role becomes defensive. Governance conversations shift away from prevention and towards justification.

What replaces this anti-pattern is ownership anchored in the process. Responsibilities are clear at creation, approval, and handover points. Signals for when ownership must be exercised are explicit. Outcomes are visible when responsibilities are not met. Ownership stops being a title and becomes something people actually do.

The after-the-fact quality check anti-pattern

This anti-pattern appears when quality measurement is placed downstream, far from the steps where errors are introduced. Dashboards show declining scores. Reports explain the problem. Everyone agrees that quality must improve. And yet, the process itself continues unchanged.

Quality becomes observation rather than control. The damage is twofold. Teams receive signals they can no longer act on, and quality functions are positioned as auditors of failure rather than enablers of better outcomes.

What replaces this anti-pattern is embedded quality gates. Lightweight checks built directly into the flow of work. Validation before handover. Immediate feedback at the point of entry. Quality moves upstream, closer to where it can still influence behaviour.

Hoorah! process-centric thinking exposes anti-patterns

Seen through the lens of the process, these anti-patterns are hard to miss. They place governance around the work rather than in it. They add structure, roles, and artefacts, but leave the actual flow of work untouched.

This is why governance frameworks can feel complete on paper and absent in practice. Patterns are the missing link. They turn process-centric insight into repeatable responses at the moments where governance actually matters.