By Laura Jackson, Principal Consultant / 20 January 2025
I often wonder how I would get on at the Traitors Round Table. Sure, it’s easy enough when you’re at home under a heated blanket to spot the deceptions (also made undeniably easier by being in full knowledge of who the Traitors are!), but when you’re all alone faced with a barrage of information, misinformation, gut feelings and downright lies – how do you see your way through to the truth?
And then it struck me that the process of collating and submitting regulatory returns is not unlike a Traitors Round Table. Both scenarios involve a lethal combination of strategy, pressure, risk management and (if we’re honest) optimised truths. In a data return, every entry is scrutinised, and one simple error could lead to funding implications, audits or reputational damage. We await further outcomes of the OfS reviews to see whether banishment is being considered as possible outcome for future returns...
The Traitors Round Table process is much like the final stages of preparing a data return with arguments over the truth, or coding accuracies thrown across meeting room tables (with a - ‘This isn’t personal’ - thrown in sometimes too). Departments and Central Services disagreeing over what is right, and what is true. And amongst this fray, you can almost imagine the OfS circling in the background, waiting to enforce their deadline (‘The time for data cleaning is over!’). Picture ‘OfS Claudia Winkleman’ - less tweed, a neater fringe, but just as menacing.
Of course, the OfS doesn’t just watch silently. Like any good TV host, they play an active role in framing events. Their cryptic commentaries – in the form of guidance documents or feedback – offer just enough direction to raise tensions without ever fully revealing their hand. Institutions are left second-guessing, decoding ambiguous requirements, and adjusting strategies in a desperate bid to avoid becoming the next cautionary tale.
And so, the data return deadlines keep coming, each one its own reenactment of the Traitors Round Table. Institutions proclaim their data as a ‘faithful’ representation of their story, painstakingly constructed to survive scrutiny. Yet, with the implementation of in-year returns and heightened expectations, trust in data is weakening. Both internally and externally, confidence in institutional narratives is being eroded by the constant need to defend them. The stakes are high, the margin for error slim, and the pressure to deliver – unrelenting.
What’s worse, unlike the January series of Traitors, there’s no end to the data return cycle. The process is now a perpetual fixture of institutional life. If it feels like you’ve barely survived one return before the next looms on the horizon, you’re not alone. It’s a game with no final winner, only varying degrees of survival.
So, what can we do? Perhaps we can take inspiration from ‘the Faithful’. They survive by fostering alliances, seeking clarity, and staying vigilant. In the data world, this might mean building stronger networks of collaboration across teams, investing in robust validation systems, and advocating for clearer guidance from the regulator. It means taking the time to rebuild trust – in our data, in our processes, and in each other.
And if all else fails? Well, maybe it’s time to forego “dry January” and crack open a fizzy rosé. After all, what’s the worst that could happen? A toast to surviving another round of data returns – and to living to submit another day.
If you’re interested in having a conversation with us about data confidence, strategy or governance, get in touch.