These are the questions we hear most often when explaining OTT to executives, sponsors and delivery leaders. Each answer is short and decision-oriented.
Scope & cost
Is this a big new program or restructure?
No. This is a shift in how we anchor decisions, not a new delivery program. We're changing the reference point, not standing up a whole new organisation.
What does this cost?
Very little upfront. We're formalising concepts we already rely on, not buying platforms or tools. The value comes from avoiding rework, reducing customisation, and making cleaner technology decisions over time.
Does this slow delivery down?
No. It removes friction. Teams spend less time arguing about ownership, integration and system boundaries, and more time delivering outcomes. It speeds things up once the basics are in place.
Governance & ownership
Is this just data governance by another name?
No. Traditional governance focuses on compliance and control. This focuses on clarity. Governance becomes a by-product of shared understanding, not a layer of process people work around.
Who owns this?
The business owns the concepts and meaning. Architecture facilitates and maintains the model. Technology teams implement against it. Ownership becomes clearer, not more centralised.
What changes for delivery teams tomorrow?
Initially, very little. Over time, initiatives will reference impacted data concepts upfront, which reduces surprises later. It's additive, not disruptive.
Procurement & vendors
How does this help procurement?
We buy systems based on how well they support our defined data concepts, not feature lists. That makes vendor comparisons clearer and reduces lock-in and over-customisation.
Will vendors push back?
Good vendors already expect this. It actually simplifies conversations because requirements are clearer and more stable. We're being explicit about what matters to us.
How is this different from "system of record"?
"System of record" assumes one system owns everything. Reality is messier. This defines source of truth at the data level, by attribute and purpose, which reflects how organisations actually operate.
Outcomes & risk
How do we know this is working?
You'll see fewer integration surprises, cleaner investment decisions, and architecture that doesn't need to be redrawn every time a system changes. It shows up as reduced friction, not a dashboard metric.
What's the risk if we don't do this?
We stay tied to vendor decisions, keep re-doing architecture work, and carry hidden cost every time a system changes. This is about reducing long-term risk, not adding new process.
What decision are you asking us to make today?
To endorse Conceptual Data Objects as the primary anchor for enterprise integration and governance. In short: agree that applications are replaceable, and data concepts are enduring.
Anchor decisions in meaning, not in vendor roadmaps.