
None of these change what the system actually allows people to create — which means none of them reduce risk, cost, or entropy. Cost Entropy in Fabric Capacities Microsoft Fabric costs drift not because of abuse, but because of shared compute, duplication pathways, refresh overlap, background load, and invisible coupling between teams. Capacity scaling becomes the default response because it’s easier than fixing architecture. Workspace Sprawl and Fabric Governance Failure Workspaces are not governance boundaries. In Microsoft Fabric, they are collaboration containers — and when treated as security, cost, or lifecycle boundaries, they become the largest entropy generator in the estate. Domains, OneLake, and the Illusion of Control Domains and OneLake help with discovery, not enforcement. Microsoft Fabric governance breaks when taxonomy is mistaken for policy and centralization is mistaken for ownership. Semantic Model Entropy Uncontrolled self-service semantic models create KPI drift, executive distrust, and refresh storms. Certified and promoted labels signal intent — they do not enforce it. Why Microsoft Fabric Governance Fails at Scale Microsoft Fabric governance fails because:
The platform executes configuration, not intent. If governance doesn’t compile into system behavior, it doesn’t exist. The Microsoft Fabric Governance Model That Actually Works Effective Microsoft Fabric governance operates as a control plane, not a committee:
The cheapest workload in Microsoft Fabric is the one you never allowed to exist. The One Rule That Fixes Microsoft Fabric Governance If an artifact in Microsoft Fabric cannot declare:
…it does not exist. That single rule eliminates more cost, risk, and trust erosion than any dashboard, CoE, or policy document ever will.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/m365-fm-modern-work-security-and-productivity-with-microsoft-365–6704921/support.
If this clashes with how you’ve seen it play out, I’m always curious. I use LinkedIn for the back-and-forth.