Black & White AND Gray

I'm finding myself in lots of discussions lately about information governance -- which is the thoroughly undemocratic topic of "who gets to see what."  All of these conversations end up revolving around SVOT, or Single Version of the Truth.  We all know how Sarbanes has dictated SVOT for financial info, and I wholeheartedly agree (as a CEO myself) that the guys signing the SEC filings MUST know that there's solid agreement/auditability on those numbers.  It's a Black & White issue.

The interesting thing (for a logic geek like me) is how lots of people jump to the conclusion that ALL information issues are Black & White, that SVOT applies everywhere simply because it applies somewhere.  I am pretty sure that there are other areas, besides external reporting, in which some variety and independence should be tolerated -- even encouraged.

For instance, you and I can agree that $100 mm in revenue was booked last month; but, I can use unique data sources, factors, and models to forecast my business unit's revenue for next month -- and you can do your own thing for your business unit's forecasts.  The important thing is forecast reliability, and the nature of my business unit may warrant a different approach using different data.

Yesterday, I heard a speech from a smart guy named Evan Levy (www.baseline-consulting.com), in which he made a good argument for "shared context as the natural boundary for shared meaning."  In other words, there is a time and place to insist on absolute Black & White consistency, but there are also times and places where the relative gray of subjectivity allows human creativity to create better solutions -- at no real cost to anyone else.  It's not either/or.

Great business intelligence practices are Black & White AND Gray.