Direct answer
Do not pick a side. Split the argument into decision rights (who gets to make which call, and who is accountable for the data product: a shared dataset or pipeline run like a product, with an owner, consumers and a quality promise) and expectations (what each side gets from it), get the two VPs to agree on the criteria before the answer, and get a single decision forum to accept the question so the two committees stop working in parallel. Then write the outcome as a one-page ownership charter (a short signed agreement on who owns what) both VPs sign, with a review date. Relationships survive when each VP keeps something that matters to them and nobody is publicly overruled.
Steps
- Gather facts, not positions. Who built it, who operates it, who funds it, who is paged when it breaks, and who consumes it for what (for example quarter-end reporting).
- Meet each VP separately and ask what they are afraid of losing. Ownership disputes are usually about control over definitions, roadmap, or accountability for failures.
- Propose criteria that both accept: the owner is the team that can fix and maintain it and is accountable for its quality; other teams are consumers with rights.
- Merge the escalations. Ask both VPs to co-sign a single referral to one forum (the executive who oversees both, or the data governance group, a cross-team body that sets data rules), and ask each committee chair to hold until that forum decides.
- Write it down in a charter, using a DACI (Driver, Approver, Contributor, Informed) or RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) table so roles are explicit.
What the charter contains
| Item | Example content |
|---|
| Owner and steward (the steward looks after day-to-day quality and definitions) | Named team accountable for quality and uptime |
| Consumers | Each consuming team and what they use it for |
| Service levels (SLA: agreed measurable service commitment) | Data ready by 8:00 on business day 3 of the month-end close |
| Change process | Notice period and review for schema or definition changes (changing a table's columns or what a field means) |
| Funding | Who pays for what |
| Review date | Revisit in 90 days |
Worked example (illustrative)
A customer table was built by Marketing's analysts. Finance uses six dashboards from it for revenue reporting, and two late loads last quarter delayed a close. Proposal: the data platform team operates the pipeline and is accountable for freshness; Marketing owns the definition of marketing fields and has a say on roadmap; Finance is a named consumer with a written freshness commitment and a change-notice period. Each VP wins something: Marketing keeps definitional control, Finance gets a guarantee. Filled in as a DACI:
| Role | Who |
|---|
| Driver (runs the process, writes the charter) | Data lead |
| Approver (makes the final call) | The senior executive above both VPs |
| Contributor (gives input before the call) | Marketing analytics lead and Finance reporting lead |
| Informed (told the outcome) | Both committees and the dashboard owners |
The same charter as a RACI: Responsible (does the work) is the data platform team, Accountable (one person answers for it) is a named owner, Consulted is the Marketing and Finance leads, Informed is both committees.
Trade-offs and pitfalls
- If you side privately with one VP, the other will treat the outcome as illegitimate.
- A verbal agreement does not survive a reorganisation; the charter does.
- Avoid framing it as ownership versus service. Ownership without service levels leaves consumers exposed.
- What would change the plan: if neither VP will agree to a joint referral, escalate through your own management with a neutral factual brief and let them convene the forum.
