Three functions. Three versions of the truth. One decision.
The version of the day for organisations where data is a function, not a spreadsheet — where the argument is not only about time and scope, but about whose number is right and who gets to define it.
Product, engineering and data on one page. The contested rows are the point; most organisations have never written them down.
Owner, source, refresh, and who gets told when it breaks. The dashboard argument ends when the definition has an author.
The difference between a data function and a ticket desk is not headcount. It is whether requests arrive as questions or as orders.
Who it is for
- A Head of Technology or CTO who owns all three functions — an increasingly common shape, and the one with almost no training built for it.
- Leadership groups where product, engineering and data each report separately and plan on different cadences.
- Organisations that just hired their first data lead and have not yet decided what that person owns.
- Works with two functions as well as three. The map simply has fewer columns.
The shape of it
- Format
- One day, on site or remote
- Shape
- Half taught, half worked
- Group
- 8–20 in a cohort; no floor in-house
- Drawn from
- AI-Native Core · The Bridge · Data
I hold a CTO seat day to day. That is the point: you are not being taught by someone describing a job they left, and the material is drawn from a job I am still doing.
What actually happens
Half taught, half worked — and the worked half runs on your own material, because a case study lets everyone stay polite.
- Three functions, three versions of the truth
Product owns the customer. Engineering owns the system. Data owns the numbers. Naming that out loud changes the temperature of the room faster than anything else in the day.
- Why your two dashboards disagree
It is almost never a bug. It is a governance problem wearing a technical costume, and it has a specific fix.
- Planning across three cadences that do not align
Discovery, delivery and data work move at genuinely different speeds. Pretending otherwise is why the roadmap keeps slipping in the same place.
- The three-function decision-rights lab
The room extends the map to three columns and argues about the overlaps — including the newest and least-assigned territory of all: who owns an AI feature when all three functions touch it.
What you leave with
- A three-function decision-rights map, signed by all three.
- A written contract for one real metric — definition, owner, source, refresh, escalation.
- An agreed intake route for data requests.
- A follow-up pack with the templates and the health-check instrument.
What it costs
A cohort seat is €500–600 per person, excluding VAT — the same as the two-function day, because bringing data into the room costs nothing extra. In-house starts at €6,000 and is about €8,000 for a room of twelve. In-house is the version worth having here: the metric contract gets written on a metric you actually argue about.
How you know it worked
Corporate training gets renewed on evidence, not enthusiasm. Two numbers are agreed at scoping, and only one of them is promised.
The Health Check the promise
Twelve statements, scored one to five, answered separately by each function, a week before and eight weeks after. The headline number is not the average — it is the spread between the functions. That spread closing is the product.
One metric you already track context, not promise
Chosen with you at scoping from what your tooling already produces: escalations per month, percentage of sprint scope changed mid-sprint, estimate-to-actual variance, lead time for changes. Reported as supporting context. I do not promise a number I do not control.
Is this the right thing for your team?
Thirty minutes. You describe what is going wrong; I tell you which of these actually fits, including when the answer is none of them.