The governance
Ownership, funding, and accountability
A migration program without a named owner and a budget line is a set of good intentions — this is how leaders make it real.
5 min read
What you'll be able to do
- Assign the roles a migration program needs to be accountable rather than aspirational.
- Sequence funding against inventory and prioritization results instead of a single lump sum.
- Use time-bound exceptions instead of indefinite risk acceptance.
Everything so far in this course, the decision, the inventory, the prioritization, produces a plan. A plan without an owner and a budget line is a document. This lesson is about making the plan real.
| Role | What it is accountable for |
|---|---|
| Executive sponsor | Funding the program and representing it to the board; removing organizational blockers no individual team can clear |
| Program owner | Running the inventory, prioritization, and migration schedule day to day; the person who can answer "where are we" without a special meeting |
| Per-system owners | Each inventory entry has one — the person accountable when that specific system is the one still on the list |
| Budget owner | Approving phased spend against prioritization results, not a single up-front number |
Fund the program in phases tied to what the inventory and prioritization actually found, not as one lump sum requested before either exists. A credible sequence looks like this: fund the inventory and the first prioritization pass, fund migration of the highest-priority tier, then reassess and fund the next tier against updated evidence. Asking for the full budget before the inventory exists asks the board to approve a number nobody can defend yet.
Accountability also means someone can name, without checking a spreadsheet, which systems are still exceptions and why. If no one can answer that in a five-minute conversation, the exceptions process is not working, regardless of how it is tracked.
Marking a lesson complete only updates this browser.