DataVisuals | Decision Governance Platform

Facet 1 · Ownership “Who's doing it?”

Which of these best describes how your institution names the owner of consequential decisions?

L1 There is no defined practice for naming owners. Decisions get owners by happenstance — the analyst who worked the file, the supervisor who signed off — but the practice is not deliberate. L2 Some workflows have an ownership practice in place (BSA, credit, others) but the practice is not institution-wide. Ownership exists in pockets. L3 There is a written, institution-wide standard for naming the owner of consequential decisions, applying across workflows. L4 The institution measures whether decisions in scope of the standard actually have a recorded owner, on a regular cadence. L5 The ownership standard has been updated in the last 24 months based on what measurement revealed.

You indicated that your institution has a written standard for naming decision owners. Which of these best describes where the standard lives?

Documented as a board-approved policy with explicit scope and review schedule. A standalone decision governance policy, reviewed periodically. A section of our enterprise risk policy or operational risk framework. Procedural documents in individual workflows (BSA procedures, credit procedures, etc.). Informal — we know what we do but it's not formally documented.

Which of these would your institution most benefit from?

A defined practice for naming owners on consequential decisions, applied across workflows. A written institution-wide standard that formalizes the practice we already follow in some places. Better measurement of whether decisions actually have recorded owners. Not sure yet — we're earlier in our governance journey than we'd like to be.

Where does your institution stand?