Planning Successful Data Projects
Part two in the “Learning by Doing” series
When Nations first approach the BC RIGC, they often have a project in mind. They want to run a survey, or build a dashboard, or complete a data inventory.
The BC RIGC has now engaged with over 120 Nations and organizations, held dozens of detailed planning conversations, and funded 19 Nation-led Data Demonstration Projects
While every Nation's priorities and context are unique, analysis of the work to date surfaces lessons learned that the BC RIGC will apply to improve its project planning practices in order to deliver greater value to First Nations.
We’ve learned that most proposed projects are symptoms
Early in our work, we tended to take those requests largely at face value, moving quickly into project planning and contribution agreement. We’ve since seen more than a dozen contribution agreement amendments and redeveloped most project plans – because the project a Nation names is usually a symptom, not the root cause. The stated project is what’s visible on the surface; the need underneath it is what actually has to be addressed.
For example, a request for a data inventory , often turns out to be a symptom of something more foundational: existing files that need to be organized, named consistently, and set up so access doesn’t disappear when a staff member leaves. Building the database without addressing what sits beneath it would carry the same problem into a new system. So we start with the foundation; the database, if it’s still the right answer, becomes a later phase built on ground that can hold it.
These experiences have fundamentally changed how we approach project planning.
Instead of asking "How do we deliver this project?" the BC RIGC team now spends more time asking "What problem is this project trying to solve?"
The objective is not to redefine a Nation's priorities, but to ensure the work undertaken is the work most likely to achieve them.
We’ve learned that every project is part of an ongoing data maturity journey
Another lesson has been that we need to think less about individual projects and more about an arc of development for a Nation’s data capacity.
Nations are working toward long-term Nation rebuilding goals: strengthening governance, improving stewardship of information, modernizing systems, supporting planning, and increasing the use of data in decision-making. These are ongoing efforts at growing and maintaining maturity, and innovating over time. They are not outcomes achieved through a single project.
Increasingly, the BC RIGC has been playing a key role in helping identify the next pieces and sequencing of work for Nations who are embedding data into their Nation rebuilding efforts.
Instead of asking "What project should we fund?" the BC RIGC team increasingly asks “What should happen first?"
This does not require Nations to commit to future projects, but it provides a shared understanding of how the current project contributes to longer-term objectives and allows future partnership projects to be considered proactively rather than reactively.
We’ve learned that projects succeed when organizations, not individuals, are ready
One of the approaches the BC RIGC took early in our work was that project capacity could largely be understood by asking whether a Nation had sufficient staff available to undertake the work, providing resources for some dedicated capacity, and making BC RIGC staff available to support the project. Experience has shown that the picture is much more complex.
Successful projects depend on the organization’s readiness and contributions as a whole. Leadership needs to have time to make decisions. Departments need to work together. Governance processes need to align with project timelines. Staff need space to participate while continuing to deliver day-to-day services. Capacity is organizational, not individual.
We've seen projects slow because key staff changed roles, because governance decisions took longer than anticipated, because multiple departments needed to agree on common approaches, or simply because Nations were simultaneously managing other important priorities. None of these are failures of capacity. They are the realities of governing and administering a Nation.
As a result, the BC RIGC now spends less time asking,"Who is the project team?" and more time asking, "What organizational conditions need to be in place for this project to succeed?"
Understanding these factors allows projects to be scoped, paced, and supported in ways that better reflect how Nations actually work – and supports those projects to result in lasting organizational changes.
We’ve learned that effort matters more than scope
A common assumption is that smaller projects are generally be easier to deliver than larger ones. Yet, projects that have appeared modest in scope have required significant organizational effort. A data inventory, for example, may involve every department identifying information assets, agreeing on common terminology, clarifying ownership, validating records, and making decisions about governance and information management. The technical work may be relatively straightforward; the organizational work is not.
The BC RIGC now spends more time understanding the effort a project will require from the Nation, not simply the size of the proposed deliverable.
Rather than asking "How large is this project?" we increasingly ask "What will it take for the organization to successfully complete it?"
That means considering questions such as:
How many departments will need to participate?
What governance decisions will be required?
Where will staff need to invest significant time?
What organizational changes are necessary for the work to succeed?
Understanding implementation effort allows projects to be scoped more realistically, timelines to be established more accurately, and expectations to be shared openly from the outset. Ultimately, this leads to projects that are more likely to be completed successfully and to create lasting value for the Nation.
Conclusion
Taken together, these lessons reflect a significant evolution in how the BC RIGC approaches Nation-led projects.
Early in our work, project planning was largely about defining activities, timelines, and budgets. Experience has shown that the greatest value often comes before those conversations begin. Successful projects depend on understanding the organizational challenge a Nation is trying to address, where that work fits within its broader data maturity journey, whether the organization is ready to undertake it, and what the work will realistically require.
In other words, project planning is not simply about defining a project. It is about identifying the right problem to solve, the right place to begin, the organizational conditions needed for success, and the level of effort required to achieve lasting change.
This reflects a broader philosophy that sits at the heart of the BC RIGC's demonstration project model: learning by doing. Every Nation-led project is an opportunity to create value for the participating Nation, while also generating practical knowledge that strengthens the support available to all First Nations. Sometimes that knowledge takes the form of new tools, templates, or guidance. Sometimes it changes the questions we ask, the advice we provide, or the way we approach project planning.
In this way, every partnership helps move the starting line forward. Nations beginning new work benefit not only from the tools developed through earlier projects, but also from the experience accumulated across them. The result is a collective learning model in which each project makes the next one easier to start, better informed, and more likely to succeed.
If your Nation is thinking about where to start with data work, we’d welcome the conversation.
