Information, Data, and Decisions –What We Learned (and What We Didn’t Resolve) at the Book Club Session, 13/4/26

Hosted by Veronica Edward Smith, Alex Shapley, David Dunning.

In our latest BIG BoK Club session, we set out to explore three seemingly straightforward questions:

• Is your Management Information designed for decisions – or for reporting?
• Do you “send” information or share it?
• Is there a visible “golden thread” from strategy to delivery?

What actually happened was more revealing.

We didn’t just discuss information and data. We exposed a deeper set of structural issues about how organisations govern, prioritise, and act. And in several places, we hit points of genuine disagreement.

1. Most organisations are still reporting, not deciding

There was broad agreement on intent: Management Information should support decisions.

But the lived reality described by the group was different:

• governance forums dominated by status updates
• large packs that are reviewed rather than used
• time spent on what is “on track” rather than what needs intervention

The strongest practical insight was simple: Governance should be exception-led and decision-focused.

That means:

• bringing forward only what requires a decision
• framing discussions around clear asks
• focusing on actions, escalations, and trade-offs

Not everything needs airtime. In fact, most of it doesn’t.

There was also an important distinction made between:

• data (raw, detailed, available)
• information (curated, contextualised, decision-relevant)

You need both. But they serve different purposes. And most organisations blur the two.

2. “Send vs Share” is not a binary choice

The second question – do you send information or share it – initially looks like a maturity question.

In practice, the discussion landed somewhere more nuanced. The pattern that emerged was this:

• Data should be shared
  • accessible
  • integrated
  • traceable
• Information should be sent
  • curated
  • contextualised
  • focused on the decision at hand

In other words: You don’t eliminate decks. You change what they are for.

A deck is not the system of record.
It is a decision brief.

That distinction matters. Because it connects directly to trust.

Several contributors highlighted the same dynamic:

• where data is not trusted, leaders drill into detail
• where trust exists, they stay at the level of decision

This is not just a technical problem. It is a maturity and assurance problem.

And it goes further. Even where data is correct, the story built on top of it may not be.

That introduces a different risk: Not bad data – but biased interpretation.

If we are serious about AI-enabled decision-making, this becomes critical.
AI will amplify whatever it is fed – good or bad.

3. The “golden thread” exposed a deeper fault line

The third question – is there a visible thread from strategy to delivery – is where the discussion shifted.

Not because people disagreed that it is important. But because it revealed two fundamentally different ways of thinking about portfolios and prioritisation.

View 1 – Strategy-led (objective-driven)

This is the position aligned with BIG:

• strategy defines direction
• objectives are made explicit
• initiatives exist to fulfil those objectives
• the portfolio is a deliberate response

In this model, the question is: What must we do to achieve our objectives?

View 2 – Portfolio filtering (opportunity-driven)

This is a more common operational reality:

• ideas and initiatives emerge from across the organisation
• portfolio processes filter and rank them
• decisions balance:
  • risk vs return
  • capacity vs demand
  • short vs long term

In this model, the question is: Which of these options is the best bet?

Why this matters

These are not the same thing. One is about executing intent. The other is about managing options.

Both have a place. But when the second dominates, something important is lost:

• objectives become vague or implicit
• ownership becomes unclear
• gaps in strategy go unnoticed
• delivery becomes disconnected from purpose

This is why the “golden thread” so often breaks:

• at strategy formulation (unclear or unowned objectives)
• at translation (objectives not turned into initiatives)
• at portfolio level (work not aligned back to objectives)

And in some cases, as was openly acknowledged: forcing that thread exposes uncomfortable truths about the strategy itself.

4. We tried to talk about information – but found governance instead

(Please note – while pre read was provided to cover Organisation and Governance in previous sessions, we are not sure the pre read was possible, and perhaps we should have provided preamble to cover the pre-issues people raised)

One of the more honest observations in the session was this: We were trying to discuss information and data, but kept returning to governance and accountability.

That is not accidental. Information requirements are not defined in isolation.

They are defined by:

• who is accountable
• what decisions they need to make
• what authority they hold
• what must be escalated

Without that structure:

• meetings fill with “fluff”
• reporting expands to fill the gap
• information becomes generic rather than purposeful

Or put more bluntly: If you haven’t designed your governance, you cannot design your information. This is a key BIG point.

5. What this means for BIG

The discussion reinforced several core BIG principles.

1. Start with governance and accountability
Before information and data, define:

• governance bodies
• decision points
• accountability nodes
• escalation paths

2. Design information from decision needs
Not from systems. Not from existing reports. From what accountable people need to decide and act.

3. Make objectives explicit and owned
Without this:

• prioritisation becomes subjective
• portfolios drift
• alignment becomes retrospective

4. Build the information backbone
Connecting:

• objectives
• performance
• risk and uncertainty
• actions and decisions

With traceability.

5. Accept that this will surface uncomfortable truths
About:

• strategy clarity
• ownership
• current ways of working

That is not a side effect.

It is the point.

6. What we didn’t resolve (and need to come back to)

The biggest unresolved area was clear:

How should organisations actually prioritise and shape their portfolios?

Specifically:

• Should portfolios be seeded from objectives – or filtered from demand?
• How do you operate when strategy is weak or unclear?
• What is the role of prioritisation methods (e.g. scoring, AHP) in this context?
• How do you balance:
  • deliberate strategy execution
  • emergent opportunity
  • Obligations and constraints
  • Capacity – allocation – between BAU, product creation and chnage.

These are not edge questions. They sit at the centre of strategy delivery.

Next step

We will run a follow-up session focused specifically on: Strategy, prioritisation, and portfolio design

Not as abstract theory. But as a practical question:

How do you move from “a lot of work” to “the right work”?

And how does that connect, properly, to:

• strategy
• governance
• and decision-making
• balancing all demands for leadership time, funds and resources?

You might like these blogs as a stimulation:

Strategy Intent to Delivery Reality – Making Strategy Happen

From Strategy to Delivery – Why Prioritisation is the Missing Machinery

Please also access the blog following our Conference Session with Stephen Jenner:

Strategy, Execution & Portfolio Management

If you have something to say – please join the community discussion here:

What next?

Subscribe to receive notification of blogs and events

Become a Member to access BIG Materials