Victoria Holt lays out some news:
AI is forcing a rethink of data governance. We are moving away from governance being something that sits alongside the data estate towards it becoming part of how data is managed and used.
The problems are familiar. Governance becomes fragmented across platforms and teams, controls become difficult to manage consistently, and manual processes struggle as the data estate grows. None of this comes from bad intentions. Data estates simply grow faster than the governance around them.
Putting governance closer to the data makes sense, particularly when that data is increasingly being used by AI as well as people. It makes it easier to use. An AI agent needs to know whether it can use the data, whether it is sensitive, what it means and whether it can be trusted. That makes good governance more important, not less.
Wolfgang Strasser has some additional thoughts:
Instead of separate Purview Data governance consumption meters, Microsoft states that governance is included in Fabric capacity. Actual cost implications still requires analysis. This is one of the things I am worrying about. For me, foundational governance features must be part of the platform and not be directly built using capacity units.
The cost is a question. The other question is, will Purview matter after this? Purview was a really neat idea, but I’ve always considered its cost prohibitive for most organizations. And, in one year, it’s going to be less capable but probably not less expensive.