職場小故事：一份資料申請背後的兩種堅持Workplace Story: Two Stances Behind a Data Request

在一次跨公司的資料申請流程中，申請單位的風險管理同仁，臨時提出一個新要求：除了申請方與提供方要審核之外，提供方所屬的風管單位也必須加入會辦。During a cross-company data request process, a colleague from the applicant’s risk management team raised a new requirement: not only should the applicant and provider review, but the provider’s own risk management unit must also be included in the approval process.

這個邏輯並不算錯。畢竟，是否涉及風險類的資料，確實需要更嚴謹的檢視。This logic isn’t wrong. After all, whether the data involves risks does require more thorough oversight.

但是，資料提供方的治理主管卻堅持：會辦的規則已經寫在SOP中，並且經過集團二道管理委員會審議通過。若要新增風管單位，就應該先正式修改SOP，而不是臨時個案加上。However, the governance manager on the provider’s side insisted: the co-review rules are already written in the SOP and approved by the Group’s Second Line Management Committee. If new risk units are to be added, the SOP should first be officially revised—not adjusted ad hoc.

表面上看，雙方的立場都有道理；但其實，背後隱藏的是這位治理主管和風管單位之間的積怨與摩擦。最後受影響的，反而是單純想要拿到資料的申請單位。On the surface, both sides made valid points; yet beneath it all lay ongoing friction between the governance manager and the risk unit. In the end, the ones caught in the middle were simply the teams who needed the data.

我後來的想法是：長短並進。My takeaway was: approach it with both a long-term and short-term solution.

• 長期：把「是否需要加風管單位會辦」的議題，帶到二道會議正式討論，若有必要就修改SOP，讓未來流程更清晰。這樣既能降低後續溝通成本，也能讓治理主管覺得「他的堅持已被重視」。

• Long term: Bring the question—whether risk units must co-review—into the formal Second Line Committee discussion. If necessary, amend the SOP so future cases are clearer. This reduces communication costs and shows the governance manager his concerns are respected.

• 短期：在等待SOP討論結果的同時，爭取案件先行，請治理主管個案通融，讓提供方風管單位臨時加入，避免案件無限延宕。

• Short term: While waiting for SOP revisions, negotiate a temporary compromise—let the governance manager approve adding the provider’s risk unit for this case, so progress isn’t indefinitely delayed.

這個故事提醒我，制度與彈性並不衝突。制度是底線，彈性是潤滑劑。兩者兼顧，流程才走得下去，人也走得下去。This story reminded me: rules and flexibility don’t conflict. Rules set the baseline, flexibility smooths the process. Only with both can workflows move forward—and so can people.