Another service we provide is writing White Papers for clients. Sometimes the labels of these are white  as well as the paper. Sometimes Peter James Thomas is featured as the author. White Papers can be based on themes arising from articles published here, they can feature findings from de novo research commissioned in the data arena, or they can be on a topic specifically requested by the client.
If you find the articles published on this site interesting and relevant to your work, then perhaps – like Neal Analytics – you would consider commissioning us to write a White Paper or some other document. If so, please just get in contact, or simply schedule an introductory ‘phone call. We have a degree of flexibility on the commercial side and will most likely be able to come up with an approach that fits within your budget. Although we are based in the UK, commissions – like Neal Analytics’s one – from organisations based in other countries are welcome.
The recent update of The Data & Analytics Dictionary featured an entry on Charts. Entries in The Dictionary are intended to be relatively brief  and also the layout does not allow for many illustrations. Given this, I have used The Dictionary entries as a basis for this slightly expanded article on the subject of chart types.
A Chart is a way to organise and Visualise Data with the general objective of making it easier to understand and – in particular – to discern trends and relationships. This article will cover some of the most frequently used Chart types, which appear in alphabetical order.
Here an “axis” is a fixed reference line (sometimes invisible for stylistic reasons) which typically goes vertically up the page or horizontally from left to right across the page (but see also Radar Charts). Categories and values (see below) are plotted on axes. Most charts have two axes.
Throughout I use the word “category” to refer to something discrete that is plotted on an axis, for example France, Germany, Italy and The UK, or 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. I use the word “value” to refer to something more continuous plotted on an axis, such as sales or number of items etc. With a few exceptions, the Charts described below plot values against categories. Both Bubble Charts and Scatter Charts plot values against other values.
I use “series” to mean sets of categories and values. So if the categories are France, Germany, Italy and The UK; and the values are sales; then different series may pertain to sales of different products by country.
Bar & Column Charts Clustered Bar Charts, Stacked Bar Charts
Bar Charts is the generic term, but this is sometimes reserved for charts where the categories appear on the vertical axis, with Column Charts being those where categories appear on the horizontal axis. In either case, the chart has a series of categories along one axis. Extending righwards (or upwards) from each category is a rectangle whose width (height) is proportional to the value associated with this category. For example if the categories related to products, then the size of rectangle appearing against Product A might be proportional to the number sold, or the value of such sales.
Sometimes the bars are clustered to allow multiple series to be charted side-by-side, for example yearly sales for 2015 to 2018 might appear against each product category. Or – as above – sales for Product A and Product B may both be shown by country.
Another approach is to stack bars or columns on top of each other, something that is sometimes useful when comparing how the make-up of something has changed.
Bubble Charts are used to display three dimensions of data on a two dimensional chart. A circle is placed with its centre at a value on the horizontal and vertical axes according to the first two dimensions of data, but then then the area (or less commonly the diameter ) of the circle reflects the third dimension. The result is reminiscent of a glass of champagne (then maybe this says more about the author than anything else).
You can also use bubble charts in a quite visceral way, as exemplified by the chart above. The vertical axis plots the number of satellites of the four giant planets in the Solar System. The horizontal axis plots the closest that they ever come to the Sun. The size of the planets themselves is proportional to their relative sizes.
There does not seem to be a generally accepted definition of Cartograms. Some authorities describe them as any diagram using a map to display statistical data; I cover this type of general chart in Map Charts below. Instead I will define a Cartogram more narrowly as a geographic map where areas of map sections are changed to be proportional to some other value; resulting in a distorted map. So, in a map of Europe, the size of countries might be increased or decreased so that their new areas are proportional to each country’s GDP.
Alternatively the above cartogram of the United States has been distorted (and coloured) to emphasise the population of each state. The dark blue of California and the slightly less dark blues of Texas, Florida and New York dominate the map.
A type of Bar Chart (typically with categories along the horizontal axis) where the categories are bins (or buckets) and the bars are proportional to the number of items falling into a bin. For example, the bins might be ranges of ages, say 0 to 19, 20 to 39, 30 to 49 and 50+ and the bars appearing against each might be the UK female population falling into each bin.
The diagram above is a bipartite quasi-histogram  that I created to illustrate another article. It is not a true histogram as it shows percentages for and against in each bin rather than overall frequencies.
In the same article, I addressed this shortcoming with a second view of the same data, which is more histogram-like (apart from having a total category) and appears above. The point that I was making related to how Data Visualisation can both inform and mislead depending on the presentational choices taken.
Line Charts Fan Charts, Area Charts
These typically have categories across the horizontal axis and could be considered as a set of line segments joining up the tops of what would be the rectangles on a Bar Chart. Clearly multiple lines, associated with multiple series, can be plotted simultaneously without the need to cluster rectangles as is required with Bar Charts. Lines can also be used to join up the points on Scatter Charts assuming that these are sufficiently well ordered to support this.
Adaptations of Line Charts can also be used to show the probability of uncertain future events as per the exhibit above. The single red line shows the actual value of some metric up to the middle section of the chart. Thereafter it is the central prediction of a range of possible values. Lying above and below it are shaded areas which show bands of probability. For example it may be that the probability of the actual value falling within the area that has the darkest shading is 50%. A further example is contained in Limitations of Business Intelligence. Such charts are sometimes called Fan Charts.
Another type of Line Chart is the Area Chart. If we can think of a regular Line Chart as linking the tops of an invisible Bar Chart, then an Area Chart links the tops of an invisible Stacked Bar Chart. The effect is that how a band expands and contracts as we move across the chart shows how the contribution this category makes to the whole changes over time (or whatever other category we choose for the horizontal axis).
These place data on top of geographic maps. If we consider the canonical example of a map of the US divided into states, then the degree of shading of each state could be proportional to some state-related data (e.g. average income quartile of residents). Or more simply, figures could appear against each state. Bubbles could be placed at the location of major cities (or maybe a bubble per country or state etc.) with their size relating to some aspect of the locale (e.g.population). An example of this approach might be a map of US states with their relative populations denoted by Bubble area.
These circular charts normally display a single series of categories with values, showing the proportion each category contributes to the total. For example a series might be the nations that make up the United Kingdom and their populations: England 55.62 million people, Scotland 5.43 million, Wales 3.13 million and Northern Ireland 1.87 million.
The whole circle represents the total of all the category values (e.g. the UK population of 66.05 million people ). The ratio of a segment’s angle to 360° (i.e. the whole circle) is equal to the percentage of the total represented by the linked category’s value (e.g. Scotland is 8.2% of the UK population and so will have a segment with an angle of just under 30°).
Sometimes – as illustrated above – the segments are “exploded”away from each other. This is taken from the same article as the other voting analysis exhibits.
See also: As Nice as Pie, which examines the pros and cons of this type of chart in some depth.
Radar Charts / Spider Charts
Radar Charts are used to plot one or more series of categories with values that fall into the same range. If there are six categories, then each has its own axis called a radius and the six of these radiate at equal angles from a central point. The calibration of each radial axis is the same. For example Radar Charts are often used to show ratings (say from 5 = Excellent to 1 = Poor) so each radius will have five points on it, typically with low ratings at the centre and high ones at the periphery. Lines join the values plotted on each adjacent radius, forming a jagged loop. Where more than one series is plotted, the relative scores can be easily compared. A sense of aggregate ratings can also be garnered by seeing how much of the plot of one series lies inside or outside of another.
I use Radar Charts myself extensively when assessing organisations’ data capabilities. The above exhibit shows how an organisation ranks in five areas relating to Data Architecture compared to the best in their industry sector .
In most of the cases we have dealt with to date, one axis has contained discrete categories and the other continuous values (though our rating example for the Radar Chart) had discrete categories and values). For a Scatter Chart both axes plot values, either continuous or discrete. A series would consist of a set of pairs of values, one to plotted on the horizontal axis and one to be plotted on the vertical axis. For example a series might be a number of pairs of midday temperature (to be plotted on the horizontal axis) and sales of ice cream (to be plotted on the vertical axis). As may be deduced from the example, often the intention is to establish a link between the pairs of values – do ice cream sales increase with temperature? This aspect can be highlighted by drawing a line of best fit on the chart; one that minimises the total distance between each plotted point and the line. Further series, say sales of coffee versus midday temperature can be added.
Here is a further example, which illustrates potential correlation between two sets of data, one on the x-axis and the other on the y-axis:
Tree Maps require a little bit of explanation. The best way to understand them is to start with something more familiar, a hierarchy diagram with three levels (i.e. something like an organisation chart). Consider a cafe that sells beverages, so we have a top level box labeled Beverages. The Beverages box splits into Hot Beverages and Cold Beverages at level 2. At level 3, Hot Beverages splits into Tea, Coffee, Herbal Tea and Hot Chocolate; Cold Beverages splits into Still Water, Sparkling Water, Juices and Soda. So there is one box at level 1, two at level 2 and eight at level 3. As ever a picture paints a thousand words:
Next let’s also label each of the boxes with the value of sales in the last week. If you add up the sales for Tea, Coffee, Herbal Tea and Hot Chocolate we obviously get the sales for Hot Beverages.
A Tree Map takes this idea and expands on it. A Tree Map using the data from our example above might look like this:
First, instead of being linked by lines, boxes at level 3 (leaves let’s say) appear within their parent box at level 2 (branches maybe) and the level 2 boxes appear within the overall level 1 box (the whole tree); so everything is nested. Sometimes, as is the case above, rather than having the level 2 boxes drawn explicitly, the level 3 boxes might be colour coded. So above Tea, Coffee, Herbal Tea and Hot Chocolate are mid-grey and the rest are dark grey.
Next, the size of each box (at whatever level) is proportional to the value associated with it. In our example, 66.7% of sales () are of Hot Beverages. Then two-thirds of the Beverages box will be filled with the Hot Beverages box and one-third () with the Cold Beverage box. If 20% of Cold Beverages sales () are Still Water, then the Still Water box will fill one fifth of the Cold Beverages box (or one fifteenth – – of the top level Beverages box).
It is probably obvious from the above, but it is non-trivial to find a layout that has all the boxes at the right size, particularly if you want to do something else, like have the size of boxes increase from left to right. This is a task generally best left to some software to figure out.
The above review of various chart types is not intended to be exhaustive. For example, it doesn’t include Waterfall Charts , Stock Market Charts (or Open / High / Low / Close Charts ), or 3D Surface Charts  (which seldom are of much utility outside of Science and Engineering in my experience). There are also a number of other more recherché charts that may be useful in certain niche areas. However, I hope we have covered some of the more common types of charts and provided some helpful background on both their construction and usage.
Certainly by my normal standards!
Research suggests that humans are more attuned to comparing areas of circles than say their diameters.
This has been suitably redacted of course. Typically there are four other such exhibits in my assessment pack: Data Strategy, Data Organisation, MI & Analytics and Data Controls, together with a summary radar chart across all five lower level ones.
The atmospheric CO2 records were sourced from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory and relate to concentrations measured at their Mauna Loa station in Hawaii. The Global Average Surface Temperature records were sourced from the Earth Policy Institute, based on data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and relate to measurements from the latter’s Global Historical Climatology Network. This exhibit is meant to be a basic illustration of how a scatter chart can be used to compare two sets of data. Obviously actual climatological research requires a somewhat more rigorous approach than the simplistic one I have employed here.
Randall’s drawings are used (with permission) liberally throughout this site,Including:
Today we launch a new on-line resource, The Data Strategy Hub. This presents some of the most popular Data Strategy articles on this site and will expand in coming weeks to also include links to articles and other resources pertaining to Data Strategy from around the Internet.
If you have an article you have written, or one that you read and found helpful, please post a link in a comment here or in the actual Data Strategy Hub and I will consider adding it to the list.
When I recently published the latest edition of The Data & Analytics Dictionary, I included an entry on Charts which briefly covered a number of the most frequently used ones. Given that entries in the Dictionary are relatively brief  and that its layout allows little room for illustrations, I decided to write an expanded version as an article. This will be published in the next couple of weeks.
One of the exhibits that I developed for this charts article was to illustrate the use of Bubble Charts. Given my childhood interest in Astronomy, I came up with the following – somewhat whimsical – exhibit:
Bubble Charts are used to plot three dimensions of data on a two dimensional graph. Here the horizontal axis is how far each of the gas and ice giants is from the Sun , the vertical axis is how many satellites each planet has  and the final dimension – indicated by the size of the “bubbles” – is the actual size of each planet .
Anyway, I thought it was a prettier illustration of the utility of Bubble Charts that the typical market size analysis they are often used to display.
However, while I was doing this, my older daughter wandered into my office and said “look at the picture I drew for you Daddy” . Coincidentally my muse had been her muse and the result is the Data Visualisation appearing at the top of this article. Equally coincidentally, my daughter had also encoded three dimensions of data in her drawing:
She also started off trying to capture relative size. After a great start with Mercury, Venus and Earth, she then ran into some Data Quality issues with the later planets (she is only four).
Here is an annotated version:
I think I’m at least OK at Data Visualisation, but my daughter’s drawing rather knocked mine into a cocked hat . And she included a comet, which makes any Data Visualisation better in my humble opinion; what Chart would not benefit from the inclusion of a comet?
For me at least that is.
Actually the measurement is the closest that each planet comes to the Sun, its perihelion.
This may seem a somewhat arbitrary thing to plot, but a) the exhibit is meant to be illustrative only and b) there does nevertheless seem to be a correlation of sorts; I’m sure there is some Physical reason for this, which I’ll have to look into sometime.
Bubble Charts typically offer the option to scale bubbles such that either their radius / diameter or their area is in proportion to the value to be displayed. I chose the equatorial radius as my metric.
It has to be said that this is not an atypical occurence.
For at least the four rocky planets, it might have taken a while to draw all 79 of Jupiter’s moons.
I often check my prose for phrases that may be part of British idiom but not used elsewhere. In doing this, I learnt today that “knock into a cocked hat” was originally an American phrase; it is first found in the 1830s.
After a hiatus of a few months, the latest version of the peterjamesthomas.com Data and Analytics Dictionary is now available. It includes 30 new definitions, some of which have been contributed by people like Tenny Thomas Soman, George Firican, Scott Taylor and and Taru Väre. Thanks to all of these for their help.
If you would like to contribute a definition, which will of course be acknowledged, you can use the comments section here, or the dedicated form, we look forward to hearing from you .
If you have found The Data & Analytics Dictionary helpful, we would love to learn more about this. Please post something in the comments section or contact us and we may even look to feature you in a future article.
The Data & Analytics Dictionary will continue to be expanded in coming months.
Please note that any submissions will be subject to editorial review and are not guaranteed to be accepted.
Well the first part of the answer is based on consideing activities which have at least moderate difficulty and complexity associated with them. The majority of such activities that humans attempt will end in failure. Indeed I think that the oft-reported failure rate, which is in the range 60 – 70%, is probably a fundamental Physical constant; just like the speed of light in a vacuum , the rest mass of a proton , or the fine structure constant .
Beyond that, what I have seen a lot is Data Migration being the poor relation of programme work-streams. Maybe the overall programme is to implement a new Transaction Platform, integrated with a new Digital front-end; this will replace 5+ legacy systems. When the programme starts the charter says that five years of history will be migrated from the 5+ systems that are being decommissioned.
Then the costs of the programme escallate  and something has to give to stay on budget. At the same time, when people who actually understand data make a proper assessment of the amount of work required to consolidate and conform the 5+ disparate data sets, it is found that the initial estimate for this work  was woefully inadequate. The combination leads to a change in migration scope, just two years historical data will now be migrated.
Rinse and repeat…
The latest strategy is to not migrate any data, but instead get the existing data team to build a Repository that will allow users to query historical data from the 5+ systems to be decommissioned. This task will fall under BAU  activities (thus getting programme expenditure back on track).
The slight flaw here is that building such a Repository is essentially a big chunk of the effort required for Data Migration and – of course – the BAU budget will not be enough for this quantum work. Oh well, someone else’s problem, the programme budget suddenly looks much rosier, only 20% over budget now…
Note: I may have exaggerated a bit to make a point, but in all honesty, not really by that much.
– which doesn’t have a unit (it’s dimensionless)
Probably because they were low-balled at first to get it green-lit; both internal and external teams can be guilty of this.
Which was do doubt created by a generalist of some sort; or at the very least an incurable optimist.
I was asked the question appearing in the title of this short article recently and penned a reply, which I thought merited sharing with a wider audience. Here is an expanded version of what I wrote:
Let’s start by considering some related questions:
Why are so many businesses still doing a bad job of controlling their costs in 2019?
Why are so many businesses still doing a bad job of integrating their acquisitions in 2019?
Why are so many businesses still doing a bad job of their social media strategy in 2019?
Why are so many businesses still doing a bad job of training and developing their people in 2019?
Why are so many businesses still doing a bad job of customer service in 2019?
The answer is that all of the above are difficult to do well and all of them are done by humans; fallible humans who have a varying degree of motivation to do any of these things. Even in companies that – from the outside – appear clued-in and well-run, there will be many internal inefficiencies and many things done poorly. I have spoken to companies that are globally renowned and have a reputation for using technology as a driver of their business; some of their processes are still a mess. Think of the analogy of a swan viewed from above and below the water line (or vice versa in the example below).
I have written before about how hard it is to do a range of activities in business and how high the failure rate is. Typically I go on to compare these types of problems to to challenges with data-related work . This has some of its own specific pitfalls. In particular work in the Data Management may need to negotiate the following obstacles:
Data Management is even harder than some of the things mentioned above and tends to touch on all aspects of the people, process and technology in and organisation and its external customer base.
Data is still – sadly – often seen as a technical, even nerdy, issue, one outside of the mainstream business.
Many companies will include aspirations to become data-centric in their quarterly statements, but the root and branch change that this entails is something that few organisations are actually putting the necessary resources behind.
Arguably, too many data professionals have used the easy path of touting regulatory peril  to drive data work rather than making the commercial case that good data, well-used leads to better profitability.
The important things to take away are that in order to generate momentum, you need to start to do some stuff; to extend the physical metaphor, you have to start pushing. However, momentum is a vector quantity (it has a direction as well as a magnitude ) and building momentum is not a lot of use unless it is in the general direction in which you want to move; so push with some care and judgement. It is also useful to realise that – so long as your broad direction is OK – you can make refinements to your direction as you pick up speed.
To me, if you want to avoid poor Data Management, then the following steps make sense:
Make sure that Data Management is done for some purpose, that it is part of an overall approach to data matters that encompasses using data to drive commercial benefits. The way that Data Management should slot in is along the lines of my Simplified Data Capability Framework:
Develop an overall Data Strategy (without rock-polishing for too long) which includes a vision for Data Management. Once the destination for Data Management is developed, start to do work on anything that can be accomplished relatively quickly and without wholesale IT change. In parallel, begin to map what more strategic change looks like and try to align this with any other transformation work that is in train or planned.
Leverage any progress in the Data Management arena to deliver new or improved Analytics and symmetrically use any stumbling blocks in the Analytics arena to argue the case for better Data Management.
Draw up a communications plan, advertising the benefits of sound Data Management in commercial terms; advertise any steps forward and the benefits that they have realised.
Consider that sound Data Management cannot be the preserve of solely a single team, instead consider the approach of fostering an organisation-wide Data Community.
Of course the above list is not exhaustive and there are other approaches that may yield benefits in specific organisations for cultural or structural reasons. I’d love to hear about what has worked (or the other thing) for fellow data practitioners, so please feel free to add a comment.
Of course it can be argued that you can use statistics (and Google Trends in particular) to prove anything , but I found the above figures striking. The above chart compares monthly searches for Business Process Reengineering (including its arguable rebranding as Business Transformation) and monthly searches for Data Science between 2004 and 2019. The scope is worldwide.
Business Process Reengineering (BPR) used to be a big deal. Optimising business processes was intended to deliver reduced costs, increased efficiency and to transform also-rans into World-class organisations. Work in this area was often entwined with the economic trend of Globalisation. Supply chains were reinvented, moving from in-country networks to globe-spanning ones. Many business functions mirrored this change, moving certain types of work from locations where staff command higher salaries to ones in other countries where they don’t (or at least didn’t at the time ). Often BPR work explicitly included a dimension of moving process elements offshore, maybe sometimes to people who were better qualified to carry them out, but always to ones who were cheaper. Arguments about certain types of work being better carried out by co-located staff were – in general – sacrificed on the altar of reduced costs. In practice, many a BPR programme morphed into the narrower task of downsizing an organisation.
In 1995, Thomas Davenport, an EY consultant who was one of the early BPR luminaries, had this to say on the subject:
“When I wrote about ‘business process redesign’ in 1990, I explicitly said that using it for cost reduction alone was not a sensible goal. And consultants Michael Hammer and James Champy, the two names most closely associated with reengineering, have insisted all along that layoffs shouldn’t be the point. But the fact is, once out of the bottle, the reengineering genie quickly turned ugly.”
Fast Company – Reengineering – The Fad That Forgot People, Thomas Davenport, November 1995[3a]
A decade later, Gartner had some rather sobering thoughts to offer on the same subject:
Gartner predicted that through 2008, about 60% of organizations that outsource customer-facing functions will see client defections and hidden costs that outweigh any potential cost savings. And reduced costs aren’t guaranteed […]. Gartner found that companies that employ outsourcing firms for customer service processes pay 30% more than top global companies pay to do the same functions in-house.
It is important here to bear in mind that neither of the above critiques comes from people implacable opposed to BPR, but rather either a proponent or a neutral observer. Clearly, somewhere along the line, things started to go wrong in the world of BPR.
Even when organisations abjured moving functions to other countries and continents, they generally embraced another 1990s / 2000s trend, open plan offices, with more people crammed into available space, allowing some facilities to be sold and freed-up space to be sub-let. Of course such changes have a tangible payback, no one would do them otherwise. What was not generally accounted for were the associated intangible costs. Some of these are referenced by The Atlantic in an article (which, in turn, cites a study published by The Royal Society entitled The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration):
“If you’re under 40, you might have never experienced the joy of walls at work. In the late 1990s, open offices started to catch on among influential employers—especially those in the booming tech industry. The pitch from designers was twofold: Physically separating employees wasted space (and therefore money), and keeping workers apart was bad for collaboration. Other companies emulated the early adopters. In 2017, a survey estimated that 68 percent of American offices had low or no separation between workers.
Now that open offices are the norm, their limitations have become clear. Research indicates that removing partitions is actually much worse for collaborative work and productivity than closed offices ever were.”
When you consider each of lost productivity, the collateral damage caused when staff vote with their feet and the substantial cost of replacing them, incremental savings on your rental bills can seem somewhat less alluring.
Nevertheless, some organisations did indeed reap benefits as a result of some or all of the activities listed above; it is worth noting however that these tended to be the organisations that were better run to start with. Others, maybe historically poor performers, spent years turning their organisations inside out with the anticipated payback receding ever further out of sight. In common with failure in many areas, issues with BPR have often been ascribed to a neglect of the human aspects of change. Indeed, one noted BPR consultant, the above-referenced Michael Hammer, said the following when interviewed by The Wall Street Journal:
“I wasn’t smart enough about that. I was reflecting my engineering background and was insufficiently appreciative of the human dimension. I’ve learned that’s critical.”
The Wall Street Journal – Reengineering Gurus Take Steps to Remodel Their Stalling Vehicles, Joseph White, November 1996[3b]
As with most business trends, Business Transformation (to adopt the more current term) can add substantial value – if done well. An obvious parallel in my world is to consider another business activity that reached peak popularity in the 2000s, Data Warehouse programmes . These could also add substantial value – if done well; but sadly many of them weren’t. Figures suggest that both BPR and Data Warehouse programmes have a failure rate of 60 – 70% . As ever, the key is how you do these activities, but this is a topic I have covered before  and not part of my central thesis in this article.
My opinion is that the fall-off you see in searches for BPR / Business Transformation reflects two things: a) many organisations have gone through this process (or tried to) already and b) the results of such activities have been somewhat mixed.
“O Brave New World”
Many pundits opine that we are now in an era of constant change and also refer to the tectonic shift that technologies like Artificial Intelligence will lead to. They argue further that new approaches and new thinking will be needed to meet these new challenges. Take for example, Bernard Marr, writing in Forbes:
Since we’re in the midst of the transformative impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the time is now to start preparing for the future of work. Even just five years from now, more than one-third of the skills we believe are essential for today’s workforce will have changed according to the Future of Jobs Report from the World Economic Forum. Fast-paced technological innovations mean that most of us will soon share our workplaces with artificial intelligences and bots, so how can you stay ahead of the curve?
However, neither these opinions, nor the somewhat chequered history of things like BPR and open plan office seem to stop many organisations seeking to apply 1990s approaches in the (soon to be) 2020s. As a result, the successors to BPR are still all too common. Indeed, to make a possibly contrarian point, in some cases this may be exactly what organisations should be doing. Where I agree with Bernard Marr and his ilk is that this is not all that they should be doing. The whole point of this article is to recommend that they do other things as well. As comforting as nostalgia can be, sometimes the other things are much more important than reliving the 1990s.
Gentlemen (and Ladies) Place your Bets
Here we come back to the upward trend in searches for Data Science. It could be argued of course that this is yet another business fad (indeed some are speaking about Big Data in just those terms already ), but I believe that there is more substance to the area than this. To try to illustrate this, let me start by telling you a fairytale ; yes your read that right, a fairytale.
upon a time, there was a Kingdom, the once great Kingdom of Suzerain. Of late it had fallen from its former glory and, accordingly, the King’s Chief Minister, one who saw deeper and further than most, devised a scheme which she prophesied would arrest the realm’s decline. This would entail a grand alliance with Elven artisans from beyond the Altitudinous Mountains and a tribe of journeyman Dwarves  from the furthermost shore of the Benthic Sea. Metalworking that had kept many a Suzerain smithy busy would now be done many leagues from the borders of the Kingdom. The artefacts produced by the Elves and Dwarves were of the finest quality, but their craftsmen and women demanded fewer golden coins than the Suzerain smiths.
a vision the Chief Minister saw the Kingdom’s treasury swelling. Once all was in place, the new alliances would see a fifth more gold being locked in Suzerain treasure chests before each winter solstice. Yet the King’s Chief Minister also foresaw that reaching an agreement with the Elves and Dwarves would cost much gold; there were also Suzerain smiths to be requited. Further she predicted that the Kingdom would be in turmoil for many Moons; all told three winters would come and go before the Elves and Dwarves would be working with due celerity.
the Moon had changed, a Wizard appeared at court, from where none knew. He bore a leather bag, overspilling gold coins, in his long, delicate fingers. When the King demanded to know whence this bounty came, the Wizard stated that for five days and five nights he had surveyed Suzerain with his all-seeing-eye. This led him to discover that gold coins were being dispatched to the Goblins of the Great Arboreal Forest, gold which was not their rightful weregild . The bag held those coins that had been put aside for the Goblins over the next four seasons. Just this bag contained a tenth of the gold that was customarily deposited in the King’s treasure chests by winter time. The Wizard declared his determination to deploy his discerning divination daily , should the King confer on him the high office of Chief Wizard of Suzerain .
King was a wise King, but now he was gripped with uncertainty. The office of Chief Wizard commanded a stipend that was not inconsiderable. He doubted that he could both meet this and fulfil the Chief Minister’s vision. On one hand, the Wizard had shown in less than a Moon’s quarter that his thaumaturgy could yield gold from the aether. On the other, the Chief Minister’s scheme would reap dividends twofold the mage’s bounty every four seasons; but only after three winters had come and gone. The King saw that he must ponder deeply on these weighty matters and perhaps even dare to seek the counsel of his ancestors’ spirits. This would take time.
it happens, the King never consulted the augurs and never decided as the Kingdom of Suzerain was totally obliterated by a marauding dragon the very next day, but the moral of the story is still crystal clear…
I will leave readers to infer the actual moral of the story, save to say that while few BPR practitioners self-describe as Wizards, Data Scientist have been known to do this rather too frequently.
It is hard to compare ad hoc Data Science projects, which can have a very major payback sometimes and a more middling one on other occasions, with a longer term transformation. On one side you have an immediate stream of one off and somewhat variable benefits, on the other deferred, but ongoing and steady, annual benefits. One thing that favours a Data Science approach is that this is seldom dependent on root and branch change to the organisation, just creative use of internal and external datasets that already exist. Another is that you can often start right away.
Perhaps the King in our story should have put his faith in both his Chief Minister and the Wizard (as well as maybe purchasing a dragon early warning system ); maybe a simple tax on the peasantry was all that was required to allow investment in both areas. However, if his supply of gold was truly limited, my commercial judgement is that new thinking is very often a much better bet than old. I’m on team Wizard.
There are many caveats around these figures. Just one obvious point is that people searching for a term on Google is not the same as what organisations are actually doing. However, I think it is hard to argue that that they are not at least indicative.
The above infographic is the work of Management Consultants Oxbow Partners and employs a novel taxonomy to categorise data teams. First up, I would of course agree with Oxbow Partners’ statement that:
Organisation of data teams is a critical component of a successful Data Strategy
Indeed I cover elements of this in two articles . So the structure of data organisations is a subject which, in my opinion, merits some consideration.
Oxbow Partners draw distinctions between organisations where the Data Team is separate from the broader business, ones where data capabilities are entirely federated with no discernible “centre” and hybrids between the two. The imaginative names for these are respectively The Burger, The Smoothie and The Jam Doughnut. In this article, I review Oxbow Partners’s model and offer some of my own observations.
The Burger – Centralised
Having historically recommended something along the lines of The Burger, not least when an organisation’s data capabilities are initially somewhere between non-existent and very immature, my views have changed over time, much as the characteristics of the data arena have also altered. I think that The Burger still has a role, in particular, in a first phase where data capabilities need to be constructed from scratch, but it has some weaknesses. These include:
The pace of change in organisations has increased in recent years. Also, many organisations have separate divisions or product lines and / or separate geographic territories. Change can be happening in sometimes radically different ways in each of these as market conditions may vary considerably between Division A’s operations in Switzerland and Division B’s operations in Miami. It is hard for a wholly centralised team to react with speed in such a scenario. Even if they are aware of the shifting needs, capacity may not be available to work on multiple areas in parallel.
Again in the above scenario, it is also hard for a central team to develop deep expertise in a range of diverse businesses spread across different locations (even if within just one country). A central team member who has to understand the needs of 12 different business units will necessarily be at a disadvantage when considering any single unit compared to a colleague who focuses on that unit and nothing else.
A further challenge presented here is maintaining the relationships with colleagues in different business units that are typically a prerequisite for – for example – driving adoption of new data capabilities.
The Smoothie – Federated
So – to address these shortcomings – maybe The Smoothie is a better organisational design. Well maybe, but also maybe not. Problems with these arrangements include:
Probably biggest of all, it is an extremely high-cost approach. The smearing out of work on data capabilities inevitably leads to duplication of effort with – for example – the same data sourced or combined by different people in parallel. The pace of change in organisations may have increased, but I know few that are happy to bake large costs into their structures as a way to cope with this.
The same duplication referred to above creates another problem, the way that data is processed can vary (maybe substantially) between different people and different teams. This leads to the nightmare scenario where people spend all their time arguing about whose figures are right, rather than focussing on what the figures say is happening in the business . Such arrangements can generate business risk as well. In particular, in highly regulated industries heterogeneous treatment of the same data tends to be frowned upon in external reviews.
The wholly federated approach also limits both opportunities for economies of scale and identification of areas where data capabilities can meet the needs of more than one business unit.
Finally, data resources who are fully embedded in different parts of a business may become isolated and may not benefit from the exchange of ideas that happens when other similar people are part of the immediate team.
So to summarise we have:
The Jam Doughnut – Hybrid
Which leaves us with The Jam Doughnut, in my opinion, this is a Goldilocks approach that captures as much as possible of the advantages of the other two set-ups, while mitigating their drawbacks. It is such an approach that tends to be my recommendation for most organisations nowadays. Let me spend a little more time describing its attributes.
I see the best way of implementing a Jam Doughnut approach is via a hub-and-spoke model. The hub is a central Data Team, the spokes are data-centric staff in different parts of the business (Divisions, Functions, Geographic Territories etc.).
It is important to stress that each spoke satellite is not a smaller copy of the central Data Team. Some roles will be more federated, some more centralised according to what makes sense. Let’s consider a few different roles to illustrate this:
Data Scientist – I would see a strong central group of these, developing methodologies and tools, but also that many business units would have their own dedicated people; “spoke”-based people could also develop new tools and new approaches, which could be brought into the “hub” for wider dissemination
Analytics Expert – Similar to the Data Scientists, centralised “hub” staff might work more on standards (e.g. for Data Visualisation), developing frameworks to be leveraged by others (e.g. a generic harness for dashboards that can be leveraged by “spoke” staff), or selecting tools and technologies; “spoke”-based staff would be more into the details of meeting specific business needs
Data Engineer – Some “spoke” people may be hybrid Data Scientists / Data Engineers and some larger “spoke” teams may have dedicated Data Engineers, but the needle moves more towards centralisation with this role
Data Architect – Probably wholly centralised, but some “spoke” staff may have an architecture string to their bow, which would of course be helpful
Data Governance Analyst – Also probably wholly centralised, this is not to downplay the need for people in the “spokes” to take accountability for Data Governance and Data Quality improvement, but these are likely to be part-time roles in the “spokes”, whereas the “hub” will need full-time Data Governance people
It is also important to stress that the various spokes should also be in contact with each other, swapping successful approaches, sharing ideas and so on. Indeed, you could almost see the spokes beginning to merge together somewhat to form a continuum around the Data Team. Maybe the merged spokes could form the “dough”, with the Data Team being the “jam” something like this:
I label these types of arrangements a Data Community and this is something that I have looked to establish and foster in a few recent assignments. Broadly a Data Community is something that all data-centric staff would feel part of; they are obviously part of their own segment of the organisation, but the Data Community is also part of their corporate identity. The Data Community facilities best practice approaches, sharing of ideas, helping with specific problems and general discourse between its members. I will be revisiting the concept of a Data Community in coming weeks. For now I would say that one thing that can help it to function as envisaged is sharing common tooling. Again this is a subject that I will return to shortly.
I’ll close by thanking Oxbow Partners for some good mental stimulation – I will look forward to their next data-centric publication.
It is peterjamesthomas.com’s policy to disclose any connections with organisations or individuals mentioned in articles.
Oxbow Partners are an advisory firm for the insurance industry covering Strategy, Digital and M&A. Oxbow Partners and peterjamesthomas.com Ltd. have a commercial association and peterjamesthomas.com Ltd. was also engaged by one of Oxbow Partners’ principals, Christopher Hess, when he was at a former organisation.
Though the author might have had a minor role in developing some elements of it as well.