Episode 4 — Build a governance framework that clarifies who decides what, and why (1A1)
In this episode, we’re going to take the idea of a governance framework and make it feel like something you can picture, because new learners often hear framework and imagine a thick book of rules that only experts can understand. A governance framework is much simpler at its core: it is a deliberate way of organizing how decisions about I T are made across an enterprise, so decisions are consistent, accountable, and aligned with what the organization is trying to achieve. The reason this matters is that most real I T problems that frustrate leaders are not caused by a lack of effort or talent, but by unclear decision rights, conflicting priorities, and unclear reasons behind choices. When people do not know who is supposed to decide something, the same question gets debated repeatedly, decisions get made in informal back channels, and accountability disappears when outcomes are disappointing. Our goal is to build a framework concept in your mind that answers three everyday leadership questions: who decides what, why do they have that authority, and how does the enterprise keep those decisions coherent over time.
Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.
Begin with the word framework itself, because it has a specific meaning in governance that is different from a policy document or a process manual. A framework is an organizing structure that defines categories of decisions, roles and responsibilities, and the mechanisms used to guide and monitor those decisions. It does not tell you every detail of how to perform every task; instead, it gives you a stable way to decide what must be decided, by whom, using what criteria, and with what oversight. Think of it like the rules of a sport rather than a playbook for a team, because rules tell you what counts, who is allowed to do what, and how disagreements are resolved. A playbook is how a specific team executes within the rules, which is more like management processes and procedures. In governance, frameworks also protect the enterprise from personality-driven decisions, where outcomes depend on who happens to be in the room. If a framework is well-designed, two different leaders can approach the same problem and still make compatible decisions because the decision rights and criteria are clear. That consistency is one of the main benefits of governance, and it is exactly what the exam expects you to value.
To build a framework that clarifies who decides what, you first need to recognize that not all decisions are the same, and treating them the same is a common source of chaos. Some decisions are strategic, like which major capabilities to invest in or which risks the enterprise will accept. Some decisions are tactical, like which projects to prioritize this quarter or how to allocate budget across initiatives. Some decisions are operational, like approving a routine change or resolving a service incident. Governance focuses most heavily on strategic and high-impact tactical decisions, but a good framework also defines how tactical and operational decisions connect upward so that day-to-day work does not drift away from enterprise priorities. Beginners often assume governance must control everything, but that is not the goal; the goal is to control the right decisions at the right level and to delegate the rest with clarity. If governance tries to decide everything centrally, it becomes slow and resented. If it delegates without clarity, it becomes inconsistent and risky. A strong framework finds a balance by defining decision categories and assigning each category to the appropriate authority.
Now focus on who decides what, because decision rights are the heart of this episode title. Decision rights mean the authority to make a decision and the responsibility to be accountable for the outcome, and governance frameworks make those rights explicit. Without explicit decision rights, organizations often default to the loudest voice, the most senior person, or the person who will take the blame, which is not a healthy way to run an enterprise. A governance framework identifies key decision areas, like investment funding, architecture direction, security and risk acceptance, data ownership, vendor selection for major services, and prioritization of enterprise initiatives. For each area, the framework defines who has authority, who must be consulted, and who must be informed. Even if you never use formal charts, the logic remains the same: authority should match accountability, and accountability should be visible. When a decision goes wrong, the enterprise should be able to learn and improve, and that requires knowing where the decision came from. In exam scenarios, when the problem is confusion, duplication, or unresolved conflict, the best governance answer often involves clarifying decision rights rather than adding more meetings.
The second half of the title is why, and this is where many beginner frameworks fail because they assign authority based on habit instead of reasoning. Authority should be assigned based on factors like impact, risk, enterprise scope, and the need for consistent standards. Decisions with enterprise-wide impact, like choosing a core platform or defining data rules, usually require enterprise-level authority because local optimization can harm the whole system. Decisions that are low risk and localized can be delegated to the teams closest to the work, because that increases speed and ownership. The why also includes expertise, but not in a narrow technical sense; it includes understanding of business priorities, regulatory obligations, and the consequences of tradeoffs. For example, a security team may provide expertise about risk, but the authority to accept major risk often belongs to leadership because the consequences affect the enterprise. Governance frameworks make these reasons explicit so people do not interpret authority as personal power, but as assigned responsibility. When you can explain why authority is assigned a certain way, you can defend governance decisions and reduce frustration among stakeholders. On the exam, answers that include both authority and rationale often align with governance principles.
A governance framework also needs decision criteria, because authority without criteria is just permission to improvise. Decision criteria are the standards leaders use to evaluate options, like alignment with strategy, expected value, cost, risk exposure, compliance impact, and operational resilience. These criteria help keep decisions consistent even when different people make them at different times. For beginners, it helps to imagine two project proposals competing for funding: without criteria, the decision turns into a debate of opinions; with criteria, it becomes a structured comparison. Criteria also make decisions explainable, which is essential for stakeholder trust, because people can accept a decision they disagree with if they understand how it was reached. Governance frameworks do not require every decision to be quantified with perfect math, but they do require an explicit method for choosing among options. The stronger the governance, the more transparent the criteria and the more predictable the decision outcomes. In a scenario question, if the organization is repeatedly funding projects that do not deliver benefits, the governance fix is often to strengthen decision criteria and benefit tracking, not to demand more effort from delivery teams.
Another essential piece is escalation, because even with decision rights, conflicts happen and organizations need a legitimate way to resolve them. Escalation means when a decision cannot be made at one level due to conflict or risk, it moves to a higher authority that can make the tradeoff decision. Without clear escalation paths, conflicts become political battles, decisions get delayed, and teams work around the system. A governance framework defines how disagreements are surfaced, who resolves them, and what information must be provided to support the decision. This is not about blame; it is about preventing hidden conflicts from turning into hidden risks. For example, a business unit may want speed and a technology team may want standardization, and both are valid goals, but the enterprise needs a mechanism to decide which goal wins in that situation. Governance provides that mechanism by defining escalation and decision forums that have the authority to make enterprise tradeoffs. On the exam, when a scenario describes repeated unresolved tensions between groups, a governance answer that clarifies escalation and decision forums is usually stronger than an answer that simply tells teams to collaborate more.
A framework also requires an operating rhythm, because governance is not a one-time setup, it is a repeating pattern of decisions and oversight. Operating rhythm means the regular cadence of activities like reviewing priorities, monitoring performance measures, approving major changes, and assessing risk posture. Without rhythm, governance becomes reactive, showing up only after something goes wrong or when a crisis forces attention. With rhythm, leaders can detect drift early, adjust priorities, and address issues before they become expensive failures. The rhythm should match the pace of the enterprise, because a fast-moving organization needs more frequent decision checkpoints than a stable one, but every enterprise needs some predictable cadence. In governance, rhythm also supports accountability, because owners know when they will report progress and what evidence will be expected. For beginners, a simple way to remember this is that governance is a feedback loop, and feedback loops require a regular pulse. Exam questions often reward answers that establish consistent review and monitoring rather than one-time fixes.
To keep the framework from becoming abstract, we should anchor it in a few everyday decision examples without turning them into a list. Consider investment decisions, where leaders decide which initiatives get funded and which do not. A governance framework clarifies which group has the authority to approve funding, what criteria must be used, and how benefits will be tracked after delivery. Consider architecture direction, where the enterprise must decide when to standardize and when to allow exceptions. The framework clarifies who owns architecture principles, who can approve exceptions, and what justification is required, such as cost, time, or business necessity. Consider risk acceptance, where someone must decide whether the enterprise will accept exposure in exchange for speed or opportunity. The framework clarifies who can accept which level of risk, what documentation is required, and how accepted risk will be monitored. In each example, governance is not doing the technical work; it is defining the decision rights, criteria, and accountability that shape the technical work. If you can see these examples in your mind, you can better understand why frameworks matter.
Beginners should also learn to recognize the signs of a weak governance framework, because many exam scenarios describe symptoms rather than naming the problem. Symptoms include duplicated systems across departments, conflicting priorities, projects that start without clear business cases, repeated exceptions that become permanent, and frequent emergencies that feel like surprises. Another symptom is when people cannot explain why a decision was made, only that a senior person demanded it. Weak governance also shows up when accountability is unclear, so problems bounce between teams or get ignored until they become crises. Importantly, these symptoms often appear even when teams are talented and hardworking, because the issue is not effort but structure. A governance framework addresses these symptoms by clarifying authority, defining criteria, and enforcing oversight, so decisions become deliberate and traceable. When a scenario describes chaos and confusion, the exam is often looking for governance mechanisms, not operational heroics. Recognizing symptoms helps you choose answers that fix root causes.
On the other side, a strong governance framework produces predictable positive outcomes that leaders can feel. Decision-making becomes faster because people know who decides and what information is needed. Projects align better with strategy because funding and prioritization follow shared criteria. Risk becomes more controlled because acceptance is explicit and monitored. Stakeholder trust improves because decisions are explainable and consistent, and exceptions are handled through a known process rather than favoritism. Teams also experience less frustration because they are not constantly pulled in different directions by conflicting leadership demands. This does not mean governance removes all disagreement, but it means disagreement is resolved through legitimate decision channels. For beginners, it is important to notice that these outcomes are not about perfection, but about reducing waste and improving reliability of decisions. This is why governance is an enterprise capability, not merely a compliance requirement. When you connect governance frameworks to these outcomes, studying becomes more motivating because you can see the practical value.
A subtle but important part of building a governance framework is keeping it proportional, because overly heavy governance can be as damaging as no governance. Proportional governance means the rigor of decision-making matches the impact and risk of the decision. High-cost, high-risk, enterprise-wide decisions require more formal oversight and clearer documentation. Low-risk, local decisions should be delegated so teams can move quickly and feel ownership. If everything requires top-level approval, the enterprise becomes slow and leaders become overwhelmed, and people start finding workarounds. If nothing requires oversight, the enterprise becomes fragmented and risky, and leaders become surprised by problems they should have seen coming. A good framework defines thresholds, such as when a decision must be escalated, when an exception must be approved, and when a change must be reviewed. Those thresholds reduce ambiguity and help the enterprise operate smoothly at scale. On the exam, answers that emphasize right-sizing governance and clarifying thresholds often align with practical governance thinking.
Finally, remember that governance frameworks must be understood and adopted by people, not just written down, because a framework that exists only on paper does not clarify who decides what in real life. Adoption requires communication, training, and reinforcement, so people know how to use the framework when decisions arise. Reinforcement includes making sure decisions actually follow the defined decision rights and criteria, even when pressure is high. If leaders bypass the framework whenever it is inconvenient, the framework loses legitimacy and people stop trusting it. Governance also needs to be reviewed and improved over time, because enterprises change, strategies change, and new risks emerge. A framework that was perfect three years ago may be misaligned today, and governance must adapt without losing clarity. This is why oversight and operating rhythm are part of the framework itself, not add-ons. When you hear about evaluation and improvement in later topics, you will see them as the maintenance of governance clarity, not as extra bureaucracy.
To close, building a governance framework that clarifies who decides what, and why, means creating an enterprise system of decision rights, decision criteria, escalation paths, and oversight rhythms that make technology choices consistent and accountable. The framework assigns authority based on impact, risk, and enterprise scope, and it explains the rationale so authority feels legitimate rather than political. It defines criteria so decisions are predictable and defensible, and it establishes escalation so conflicts can be resolved without chaos. It also creates an operating rhythm so governance becomes a steady feedback loop instead of a crisis response. When you can look at an I T problem and ask who decided this, why did they have that authority, what criteria were used, and how is it monitored, you are thinking in governance terms. That way of thinking is exactly what this certification tests, and it sets you up to understand governance structures and roles in the episodes ahead.
