Lesson 4 of 5
Migration governance
13 min
A migration makes hundreds of decisions: scope, selection rules, mapping rules, cleansing deadlines, exceptions, go/no-go calls. Governance decides who makes which decision, in which forum, on what evidence, and how decisions are recorded and changed. Without it, decisions are made in hallway conversations and rediscovered in audits.
Forums
The exact names vary between programs; what matters is that each kind of decision has exactly one home and that escalation paths are clear. Many programs align these forums with SAP Activate quality gates, so that migration readiness is formally reviewed at the end of Explore, Realize and before Deploy.
Decision rights
| Decision | Responsible | Accountable | Consulted | Informed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapping rule for customer payment terms | Migration specialist | Maria | Dan, functional consultant | Priya |
| History scope for finance | Migration lead | Dan | Tax, legal, internal audit | Steering committee |
| Masking of personal data in test clients | Priya | Privacy officer | Data owners, Basis | Working group |
| Accepting a reconciliation difference at go-live | Migration lead | Dan for finance objects | Internal audit, Luis | Steering committee |
| Moving a go-live date because of migration readiness | Grace | Steering committee | Luis, data owners | Whole program |
A RACI extract for migration decisions. One accountable person per decision.
The decision log and change control
Every governance decision goes in a decision log: what was decided, by whom, on what evidence, with which alternatives rejected and why. Approved artifacts (scope decision records, mapping specifications, the retention approach, the runbook) are versioned, and changing an approved artifact goes through change control: who requested it, impact on tests and schedule, approval by the same owner who approved the original. Late changes are not forbidden, but they are visible and priced.
- Change requestedFor example, a new mandatory field for business partners after Mock 2
- Impact assessedEffect on mapping, cleansing, tests, runbook timing and privacy
- Owner decidesThe accountable owner approves or rejects in the right forum
- Artifacts updatedNew versions of the specification, test cases and runbook
- RetestedProven in the next mock before go-live
Escalation
- Can the object owner resolve it within their own object and without date impact?Yes → owner decides in the working group · No → next question
- Does it cross areas or set a policy, such as retention or privacy?Yes → data governance board · No → next question
- Does it change cost, date or overall risk?Yes → steering committee · No → back to the working group with a clear owner
Governance metrics
Governance forums need a short, honest set of measures, the same every week: mapping specifications approved versus planned; open data quality issues by object and owner; error rates and reconciliation differences per mock; unplanned runbook steps; open decisions past their due date. Grace reported these as trends rather than traffic lights, because a green status that has not moved in three weeks says less than a falling error rate.
Governance after go-live
Migration governance does not end at go-live. Someone must own the decisions that remain: accepted reconciliation differences and their corrections, data quality issues deferred to hypercare, the legacy read-only period and its end, deletion of migration copies, and storage of the evidence packs. Before the workstream closes, Grace transferred each open item in the decision log to a named owner in the run organization, usually the finance or order-to-cash process owner, with a due date. The data governance board continued monthly until Alternadores del Norte's legacy ERP was decommissioned.
What would you do?
Two weeks before Mock 3, the finance consultant changes a G/L account mapping directly in the transformation rules to fix a reconciliation difference, with a quick verbal OK from a finance analyst. What should the migration lead do?
- Governance defines who decides what, in which forum, on what evidence.
- Typical forums: steering committee, data governance board, migration working group, object owners.
- One accountable owner per decision; keep a decision log; version approved artifacts and change them under control.
- Escalate by impact: within one object, across areas or policy, or cost, date and risk.
Check your understanding · not graded
Lesson check
1. Which forum should decide the retention approach for finance history?
2. What does a decision log record?
3. How many accountable owners should a decision have?
4. What is a sign of governance theater?