# The peterjamesthomas.com Data Strategy Hub

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.

Another article from peterjamesthomas.com. The home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases.

# The latest edition of The Data & Analytics Dictionary is now out

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.

Remember that The Dictionary is a free resource and quoting contents (ideally with acknowledgement) and linking to its entries (via the buttons provided) are both encouraged.

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 [1].

The Data & Analytics Dictionary will continue to be expanded in coming months.

Notes

 [1] Please note that any submissions will be subject to editorial review and are not guaranteed to be accepted.

Another article from peterjamesthomas.com. The home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases.

# Why do data migration projects have such a high failure rate?

Similar to its predecessor, Why are so many businesses still doing a poor job of managing data in 2019? this brief article has its genesis in the question that appears in its title, something that I was asked to opine on recently. Here is an expanded version of what I wrote in reply:

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 [1], the rest mass of a proton [2], or the fine structure constant [3].

$\alpha=\dfrac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0d}\bigg/\dfrac{hc}{\lambda}=\dfrac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0d}\cdot\dfrac{2\pi d}{hc}=\dfrac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0d}\cdot\dfrac{d}{\hbar c}=\dfrac{e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0\hbar c}$

For more on this, see the preambles to both Ever tried? Ever failed? and Ideas for avoiding Big Data failures and for dealing with them if they happen.

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 [4] 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 [5] 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 [6] 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.

Notes

 [1] $c\approx299,792,458\text{ }ms^{-1}$ [2] $m_p\approx1.6726 \times 10^{-27}\text{ }kg$ [3] $\alpha\approx0.0072973525693$ – which doesn’t have a unit (it’s dimensionless) [4] Probably because they were low-balled at first to get it green-lit; both internal and external teams can be guilty of this. [5] Which was do doubt created by a generalist of some sort; or at the very least an incurable optimist. [6] BAU of course stands for Basically All Unfunded.

Another article from peterjamesthomas.com. The home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases.

# Why are so many businesses still doing a poor job of managing data in 2019?

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:

1. Why are so many businesses still doing a bad job of controlling their costs in 2019?

2. Why are so many businesses still doing a bad job of integrating their acquisitions in 2019?

3. Why are so many businesses still doing a bad job of their social media strategy in 2019?

4. Why are so many businesses still doing a bad job of training and developing their people in 2019?

5. 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 [1]. This has some of its own specific pitfalls. In particular work in the Data Management may need to negotiate the following obstacles:

1. 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.

2. Data is still – sadly – often seen as a technical, even nerdy, issue, one outside of the mainstream business.

3. 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.

4. Arguably, too many data professionals have used the easy path of touting regulatory peril [2] to drive data work rather than making the commercial case that good data, well-used leads to better profitability.

With reference to the aforementioned failure rate, I discuss some ways to counteract the early challenges in a recent article, Building Momentum – How to begin becoming a Data-driven Organisation. In the closing comments of this, I write:

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 [12]) 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:

1. 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:

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 [3].

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.

Notes

 [1] For example in: [2] GDPR and its ilk. Regulatory compliance is very important, but it must not become the sole raison d’être for data work. [3] As described in In praise of Jam Doughnuts or: How I learned to stop worrying and love Hybrid Data Organisations.

Another article from peterjamesthomas.com. The home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases.

# In praise of Jam Doughnuts or: How I learned to stop worrying and love Hybrid Data Organisations

The above infographic is the work of Management Consultants Oxbow Partners [1] 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 [2]. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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:

1. 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.

2. 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 [3]. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

 Disclosure: 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.

Notes

 [1] Though the author might have had a minor role in developing some elements of it as well. [2] The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Simple Data Capability Framework. [3] See also The impact of bad information on organisations.

Another article from peterjamesthomas.com. The home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases.

# A Simple Data Capability Framework

Introduction

As part of my consulting business, I end up thinking about Data Capability Frameworks quite a bit. Sometimes this is when I am assessing current Data Capabilities, sometimes it is when I am thinking about how to transition to future Data Capabilities. Regular readers will also recall my tripartite series on The Anatomy of a Data Function, which really focussed more on capabilities than purely organisation structure [1].

Detailed frameworks like the one contained in Anatomy are not appropriate for all audiences. Often I need to provide a more easily-absorbed view of what a Data Function is and what it does. The exhibit above is one that I have developed and refined over the last three or so years and which seems to have resonated with a number of clients. It has – I believe – the merit of simplicity. I have tried to distil things down to the essentials. Here I will aim to walk the reader through its contents, much of which I hope is actually self-explanatory.

The overall arrangement has been chosen intentionally, the top three areas are visible activities, the bottom three are more foundational areas [2], ones that are necessary for the top three boxes to be discharged well. I will start at the top left and work across and then down.

Collation of Data to provide Information

This area includes what is often described as “traditional” reporting [3], Dashboards and analysis facilities. The Information created here is invaluable for both determining what has happened and discerning trends / turning points. It is typically what is used to run an organisation on a day-to-day basis. Absence of such Information has been the cause of underperformance (or indeed major losses) in many an organisation, including a few that I have been brought in to help. The flip side is that making the necessary investments to provide even basic information has been at the heart of the successful business turnarounds that I have been involved in.

The bulk of Business Intelligence efforts would also fall into this area, but there is some overlap with the area I next describe as well.

Leverage of Data to generate Insight

In this second area we have disciplines such as Analytics and Data Science. The objective here is to use a variety of techniques to tease out findings from available data (both internal and external) that go beyond the explicit purpose for which it was captured. Thus data to do with bank transactions might be combined with publically available demographic and location data to build an attribute model for both existing and potential clients, which can in turn be used to make targeted offers or product suggestions to them on Digital platforms.

It is my experience that work in this area can have a massive and rapid commercial impact. There are few activities in an organisation where a week’s work can equate to a percentage point increase in profitability, but I have seen insight-focussed teams deliver just that type of ground-shifting result.

Control of Data to ensure it is Fit-for-Purpose

This refers to a wide range of activities from Data Governance to Data Management to Data Quality improvement and indeed related concepts such as Master Data Management. Here as well as the obvious policies, processes and procedures, together with help from tools and technology, we see the need for the human angle to be embraced via strong communications, education programmes and aligning personal incentives with desired data quality outcomes.

The primary purpose of this important work is to ensure that the information an organisation collates and the insight it generates are reliable. A helpful by-product of doing the right things in these areas is that the vast majority of what is required for regulatory compliance is achieved simply by doing things that add business value anyway.

Data Architecture / Infrastructure

Best practice has evolved in this area. When I first started focussing on the data arena, Data Warehouses were state of the art. More recently Big Data architectures, including things like Data Lakes, have appeared and – at least in some cases – begun to add significant value. However, I am on public record multiple times stating that technology choices are generally the least important in the journey towards becoming a data-centric organisation. This is not to say such choices are unimportant, but rather that other choices are more important, for example how best to engage your potential users and begin to build momentum [4].

Having said this, the model that seems to have emerged of late is somewhat different to the single version of the truth aspired to for many years by organisations. Instead best practice now encompasses two repositories: the first Operational, the second Analytical. At a high-level, arrangements would be something like this:

The Operational Repository would contain a subset of corporate data. It would be highly controlled, highly reconciled and used to support both regular reporting and a large chunk of dashboard content. It would be designed to also feed data to other areas, notably Finance systems. This would be complemented by the Analytical Repository, into which most corporate data (augmented by external data) would be poured. This would be accessed by a smaller number of highly skilled staff, Data Scientists and Analytics experts, who would use it to build models, produce one off analyses and to support areas such as Data Visualisation and Machine Learning.

It is not atypical for Operational Repositories to be SQL-based and Analytical Repsoitories to be Big Data-based, but you could use SQL for both or indeed Big Data for both according to the circumstances of an organisation and its technical expertise.

Data Operating Model / Organisation Design

Here I will direct readers to my (soon to be updated) earlier work on The Anatomy of a Data Function. However, it is worth mentioning a couple of additional points. First an Operating Model for data must encompass the whole organisation, not just the Data Function. Such a model should cover how data is captured, sourced and used across all departments.

Second I think that the concept of a Data Community is important here, a web of like-minded Data Scientists and Analytics people, sitting in various business areas and support functions, but linked to the central hub of the Data Function by common tooling, shared data sets (ideally Curated) and aligned methodologies. Such a virtual data team is of course predicated on an organisation hiring collaborative people who want to be part of and contribute to the Data Community, but those are the types of people that organisations should be hiring anyway [5].

Data Strategy

Our final area is that of Data Strategy, something I have written about extensively in these pages [6] and a major part of the work that I do for organisations.

It is an oft-repeated truism that a Data Strategy must reflect an overarching Business Strategy. While this is clearly the case, often things are less straightforward. For example, the Business Strategy may be in flux; this is particularly the case where a turn-around effort is required. Also, how the organisation uses data for competitive advantage may itself become a central pillar of its overall Business Strategy. Either way, rather than waiting for a Business Strategy to be finalised, there are a number of things that will need to be part of any Data Strategy: the establishment of a Data Function; a focus on making data fit-for-purpose to better support both information and insight; creation of consistent and business-focussed reporting and analysis; and the introduction or augmentation of Data Science capabilities. Many of these activities can help to shape a Business Strategy based on facts, not gut feel.

More broadly, any Data Strategy will include: a description of where the organisation is now (threats and opportunities); a vision for commercially advantageous future data capabilities; and a path for moving between the current and the future states. Rather than being PowerPoint-ware, such a strategy needs to be communicated assiduously and in a variety of ways so that it can be both widely understood and form a guide for data-centric activities across the organisation.

Summary

As per my other articles, the data capabilities that a modern organisation needs are broader and more detailed than those I have presented here. However, I have found this simple approach a useful place to start. It covers all the basic areas and provides a scaffold off of which more detailed capabilities may be hung.

The framework has been informed by what I have seen and done in a wide range of organisations, but of course it is not necessarily the final word. As always I would be interested in any general feedback and in any suggestions for improvement.

Notes

 [1] In passing, Anatomy is due for its second refresh, which will put greater emphasis on Data Science and its role as an indispensable part of a modern Data Function. Watch this space. [2] Though one would hope that a Data Strategy is also visible! [3] Though nowadays you hear “traditional” Analytics and “traditional” Big Data as well (on the latter see Sic Transit Gloria Magnorum Datorum), no doubt “traditional” Machine Learning will be with us at some point, if it isn’t here already. [4] See also Building Momentum – How to begin becoming a Data-driven Organisation. [5] I will be revisiting the idea of a Data Community in coming months, so again watch this space. [6] Most explicitly in my three-part series:

Another article from peterjamesthomas.com. The home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases.

# The Chief Marketing Officer and the CDO – A Modern Fable

This Fox has a longing for grapes:
He jumps, but the bunch still escapes.
So he goes away sour;
And, ’tis said, to this hour
Declares that he’s no taste for grapes.

— W.J.Linton (after Aesop)

 Note: Not all of the organisations I have worked with or for have had a C-level Executive accountable primarily for Marketing. Where they have, I have normally found the people holding these roles to be better informed about data matters than their peers. I have always found it easy and enjoyable to collaborate with such people. The same goes in general for Marketing Managers. This article is not about Marketing professionals, it is about poorly researched journalism.

Prelude…

I recently came across an article in Marketing Week with the clickbait-worthy headline of Why the rise of the chief data officer will be short-lived (their choice of capitalisation). The subhead continues in the same vein:

Chief data officers (ditto) are becoming increasingly common, but for a data strategy to work their appointments can only ever be a temporary fix.

Intrigued, I felt I had to avail myself of the wisdom and domain expertise contained in the article (the clickbait worked of course). The first few paragraphs reveal the actual motivation. The piece is a reaction [1] to the most senior Marketing person at easyJet being moved out of his role, which is being abolished, and – as part of the same reorganisation – a Chief Data Officer (CDO) being appointed. Now the first thing to say, based on the article’s introductory comments, is that easyJet did not have a Chief Marketing Officer. The role that was abolished was instead Chief Commercial Officer, so there was no one charged full-time with Marketing anyway. The Marketing responsibilities previously supported part-time by the CCO have now been spread among other executives.

The next part of the article covers the views of a Marketing Week columnist (pause for irony) before moving on to arrangements for the management of data matters in three UK-based organisations:

• Camelot – who run the UK National Lottery

• Mumsnet – which is a web-site for UK parents

• Flubit – a growing on-line marketplace aiming to compete with Amazon

The first two of these have CDOs (albeit with one doing the role alongside other responsibilities). Both of these people:

[…] come at data as people with backgrounds in its use in marketing

Flubit does not have a CDO, which is used as supporting evidence for the superfluous nature of the role [2].

Suffice it to say that a straw poll consisting of the handful of organisations that the journalist was able to get a comment from is not the most robust of approaches [3]. Most of the time, the article does nothing more than to reflect the continuing confusion about whether or not organisations need CDOs and – assuming that they do – what their remit should be and who they should report to [4].

But then, without it has to be said much supporting evidence, the piece goes on to add that:

Most [CDOs – they would probably style it “Cdos”] are brought in to instill a data strategy across the business; once that is done their role should no longer be needed.

Now as a Group Theoretician, I am a great fan of symmetry. Symmetry relates to properties that remain invariant when something else is changed. Archetypally, an equilateral triangle is still an equilateral triangle when rotated by 120° [5]. More concretely, the laws of motion work just fine if we wind the clock forward 10 seconds (which incidentally leads to the principle of conservation of energy [6]).

Let’s assume that the Marketing Week assertion is true. I claim therefore that it must be still be true under the symmetry of changing the C-level role. This would mean that the following also has to be true:

Most [Chief marketing officers] are brought in to instill a marketing strategy across the business; once that is done their role should no longer be needed.

Now maybe this statement is indeed true. However, I can’t really see the guys and gals at Marketing Week agreeing with this. So maybe it’s false instead. Then – employing reductio ad absurdum – the initial statement is also false [7].

If you don’t work in Marketing, then maybe a further transformation will convince you:

Most [Chief financial officers] are brought in to instill a finance strategy across the business; once that is done their role should no longer be needed.

I could go on, but this is already becoming as tedious to write as it was to read the original Marketing Week claim. The closing sentence of the article is probably its most revealing and informative:

[…] marketers must make sure they are leading [the data] agenda, or someone else will do it for them.

I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions on the merits of this piece and move on to other thoughts that reading it spurred in me.

…and Fugue

Sometimes buried in the strangest of places you can find something of value, even if the value is different to the intentions of the person who buried it. Around some of the CDO forums that I attend [8] there is occasionally talk about just the type of issue that Marketing Week raises. An historical role often comes up in these discussions is that of Chief Electrification Officer [9]. This supposedly was an Executive role in organisations as the 19th Century turned into the 20th and electricity grids began to be created. The person ostensibly filling this role would be responsible for shepherding the organisation’s transition from earlier forms of power (e.g. steam) to the new-fangled streams of electrons. Of course this role would be very important until the transition was completed, after that redundancy surely beckoned.

Well to my way of thinking, there are a couple of problems here. The first one of these is alluded to by my choice of the words “supposedly” and “ostensibly” above. I am not entirely sure, based on my initial research [10], that this role ever actually existed. All the references I can find to it are modern pieces comparing it to the CDO role, so perhaps it is apochryphal.

The second is somewhat related. Electrification was an engineering problem, indeed it the [US] National Academy of Engineering called it “the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th Century”. Surely the people tackling this would be engineers, potentially led by a Chief Engineer. Did the completion of electrification mean that there was no longer a need for engineers, or did they simply move on to the next engineering problem [11]?

Extending this analogy, I think that Chief Data Officers are more like Chief Engineers than Chief Electrification Officers, assuming that the latter even exists. Why the confusion? Well I think part of it is because, over the last decade and a bit, organisations have been conditioned to believe the one dimensional perspective that everything is a programme or a project [12]. I am less sure that this applies 100% to the CDO role.

It may well be that one thing that a CDO needs to get going is a data transformation programme. This may purely be focused on cultural aspects of how an organisation records, shares and otherwise uses data. It may be to build a new (or a first) Data Architecture. It may be to remediate issues with an existing Data Architecture. It may be to introduce or expand Data Governance. It may be to improve Data Quality. Or (and, in my experience, this is often the most likely) a combination of all these five, plus other work, such as rapid tactical or interim deliveries. However, there is also a large element of data-centric work which is not project-based and instead falls into the category often described as “business as usual” (I loathe this term – I think that Data Operations & Technology is preferable). A handful of examples are as follows (this is not meant to be an exhaustive list) [13]:

1. Addressing architectural debt that results from neglect of a Data Assets or the frequently deleterious impact of improperly governed change portfolios [14]. This is often a series of small to medium-sized changes, rather than a project with a discrete scope and start and end dates.

2. More positively, engaging proactively in the change process in an attempt to act as a steward of Data Assets.

3. Establishing a regular Data Audit.

4. Regular Data Management activities.

5. Providing tailored Analytics to help understand some unscheduled or unexpected event.

6. Establishment of a data “SWAT team” to respond to urgent architecture, quality or reporting needs.

7. Running a Data Governance committee and related activities.

8. Creating and managing a Data Science capability.

9. Providing help and advice to those struggling to use Data facilities.

10. Responding to new Data regulations.

11. Creating and maintaining a target operating model for Data and is use.

12. Supporting Data Services to aid systems integration.

13. Production of regular reports and refreshing self-serve Data Repositories.

14. Testing and re-testing of Data facilities subject to change or change in source Data.

15. Providing training in the use of Data facilities or the importance of getting Data right-first-time.

The above all point to the need for an ongoing Data Function to meet these needs (and to form the core resources of any data programme / project work). I describe such a function in my series about The Anatomy of a Data Function.

There are of course many other such examples, but instead of cataloguing each of them, let’s return to what Marketing Week describe as the central responsibility of a CDO, to formulate a Data Strategy. Surely this is a one-off activity, right?

Well is the Marketing strategy set once and then never changed? If there is some material shift in the overall Business strategy, might the Marketing strategy change as a result? What would be the impact on an existing Marketing strategy of insight showing that this was being less than effective; might this lead to the development of a new Marketing strategy? Would the Marketing strategy need to be revised to cater for new products and services, or new segments and territories? What would be the impact on the Marketing strategy of an acquisition or divestment?

As anyone who has spent significant time in the strategy arena will tell you, it is a fluid area. Things are never set in stone and strategies may need to be significantly revised or indeed abandoned and replaced with something entirely new as dictated by events. Strategy is not a fire and forget exercise, not if you want it to be relevant to your business today, as opposed to a year ago. Specifically with Data Strategy (as I explain in Building Momentum – How to begin becoming a Data-driven Organisation), I would recommend keeping it rather broad brush at the begining of its development, allowing it to be adpated based on feedback from initial interim work and thus ensuring it better meets business needs.

So expecting that a Data Strategy (or any other type of strategy) to be done and dusted, with the key strategist dispensed with, is probably rather naive.

Coda

It would be really nice to think that sorting out their Data problems and seizing their Data opportunities are things that organisations can do once and then forget about. With twenty years experience of helping organisations to become more Data-centric, often with technical matters firmly in the background, I have to disabuse people of this all too frequent misconception. To adapt the National Canine Defence League’s [15 long-lived slogan from 1978:

A Chief Data Officer is for life, not just for Christmas.

With that out of the way, I’m off to write a well-informed and insightful article about how Marketing Departments should go about their business. Wish me luck!

Notes

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases

# More Definitions in the Data and Analytics Dictionary

The peterjamesthomas.com Data and Analytics Dictionary is an active document and I will continue to issue revised versions of it periodically. Here are 20 new definitions, including the first from other contributors (thanks Tenny!):

Remember that The Dictionary is a free resource and quoting contents (ideally with acknowledgement) and linking to its entries (via the buttons provided) are both encouraged.

People are now also welcome to contribute their own definitions. You can use the comments section here, or the dedicated form. Submissions will be subject to editorial review and are not guaranteed to be accepted.

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases

# Version 2 of The Anatomy of a Data Function

Between November and December 2017, I published the three parts of my Anatomy of a Data Function. These were cunningly called Part I, Part II and Part III. Eight months is a long time in the data arena and I have now issued an update.

The changes in Version 2 are confined to the above organogram and Part I of the text. They consist of the following:

1. Split Artificial Intelligence out of Data Science in order to better reflect the ascendancy of this area (and also its use outside of Data Science).

2. Change Data Science to Data Science / Engineering in order to better reflect the continuing evolution of this area.

My aim will be to keep this trilogy up-to-date as best practice Data Functions change their shapes and contents.

If you would like help building or running your Data Function, or would just like to have an informal chat about the area, please get in touch

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases

# An in-depth interview with experienced Chief Data Officer Roberto Maranca

Part of the In-depth series of interviews

 Today’s interview is with Roberto Maranca. Roberto is an experienced and accomplished Chief Data Officer, having held that role in GE Capital and Lloyds Banking Group. Roberto and I are both founder members of the IRM(UK) Chief Data Officer Executive Forum and I am delighted to be able to share the benefit of his insights with readers.
 Can you perhaps highlight a single piece of work that was important to you, added a lot of value to the organisation, or which you were very proud of for some other reason? I always had a thing about building things to last, so I have always tried to achieve a sustainable solution that doesn’t fall apart after a few months (in Six Sigma terms you will call it “minimising the long term sigma shift”, but we will talk about it another time). So trying to have change process to be mindful of “Data” has been my quest since day one, in the job of CDO. For this reason, my most important piece of work was probably the the creation of the first link between the PMO process in GEC and the Data Lineage and Quality Assurance framework, I had to insist quite a bit to introduce this, design it, test it and run it. Now of course, after the completion of the GEC sale, it has gone lost “like tears in the rain”, to cite one of the best movies ever [1].
 What was your motivation to take on Chief Data Officer roles and what do you feel that you bring to the CDO role? I touched on some reasons in my introductory comments. I believe there is a serendipitous combination of acquired skills that allows me to see things in a different way. I spent most of my working life in IT, but I have a Masters in Aeronautical Engineering and a diploma in what we in Italy call “Classical Studies”, basically I have A levels in Latin, Greek, Philosophy, History. So for example, together with my pilot’s licence achieved over weekends, I have attended a drama evening school for a year (of course in my bachelor days). Jokes apart, the “art” of being a CDO requires a very rich and versatile background because it is so pioneering, ergo if I can draw from my study of flow dynamics to come up with a different approach to lineage, or use philosophy to embed a stronger data driven culture, I feel it is a marked plus.
 We have spoken about the CDO role being one whose responsibilities and main areas of focus are still sometimes unclear. I have written about this recently [2]. How do you think the CDO role is changing in organisations and what changes need to happen? I mentioned the role being pioneering: compared to more established roles, CFO, COO and, even, CIO, the CDO is suffering from ambiguity, differing opinions and lack of clear career path. All of us in this space have to deal with something like inserting a complete new organ in a body that has got very strong immunological response, so although the whole body is dying for the function that the new organ provides (and with the new breed of regulation about, dying for lack of good and reliable data is not an exaggeration), there is a pernickety work of linking up blood vessels and adjusting every part of the organisation so that the change is harmonious, productive and lasting. But every company starts from a different level of maturity and a different status quo, so it is left to the CDO to come up with a modus operandi that would work and bring that specific environment to a recognisable standard.
 The Chief Data Officer has been described as having “the toughest job in the executive C-suite within many organizations” [3]. Do you agree and – if so – what are the major challenges? I agree and it simply demonstrated: pick any Company’s Annual Report, do a word search for “data quality”, “data management“, “data science” or anything else relevant to our profession, you are not going to find many. IT has been around for a while more and yet technology is barely starting now to appear in the firm’s “manifesto”, mostly for things that are a risk, like cyber security. Thus the assumption is, if it is not seen as a differentiator to communicate to the shareholders and the wider world, why should it be of interest for the Board? It is not anyone’s fault and my gut feeling is that GDPR (or perhaps Cambridge Analytica) is going to change this, but we probably need another generational turnover to have CDOs “safely” sitting in executive groups. In the meantime, there is a lot we can do, maybe sitting immediately behind someone who is sitting in that crucial room.
 We both believe that cultural change has a central role in the data arena, can you share some thoughts about why this is important? Data can’t be like a fad diet, it can’t be a program you start and finish. Companies have to understand that you have to set yourself on a path of “permanent augmentation”. The only way to do this is to change for good the attitude of the entire company towards data. Maybe starting from the first ambiguity, data is not the bits and bytes coming out of a computer screen, but it is rather the set of concepts and nouns we use in our businesses to operate, make products, serve our customers. If you flatten your understanding of data to its physical representation, you will never solve the tough enterprise problems, henceforth if it is not a problem of centralisation of data, but it is principally a problem of centralisation of knowledge and standardisation of behaviours, it is something inherently close to people and the common set of things in a company that we can call “culture”.
 Accepting the importance of driving a cultural shift, what practical steps can you take to set about making this happen? In my keynotes, I often quote the Swiss philosopher (don’t tell me I didn’t warn you!) Henry Amiel: Pure truth cannot be assimilated by the crowd: it must be communicated by contagion. This is especially the case when you are confronted with large numbers of colleagues and small data teams. Creating a simple mantra that can be inoculated in many part of the organisation helps to create a more receptive environment. So CDOs should first be keen marketeers, able to create a simple brand and pursuing relentlessly a “propaganda” campaign. Secondly, if you want to bring change, you should focus where the change happens and make sure that wherever the fabric of the company changes, i.e. big programmes or transformations, data is top priority.
 What are the potential pitfalls that you think people need to be aware of when embarking on a data-centric cultural transformation programme? First is definitely failing to manage your own expectations on speed and acceptance; it takes time and patience. Long-established organisations cannot leap into a brighter future just because an enlightened CDO shows them how. Second, and sort of related, it is a problem thinking that things can happen by management edicts and CDO policy compliance, there is a lot niftier psychology and sociology to weave into this.
 A two-part question. What do you see as the role of Data Governance in the type of cultural change you are recommending? Also, do you think that the nature of Data Governance has either changed or possibly needs to change in order to be more effective? The CDO’s arrival at a discussion table is very often followed by statements like “…but we haven’t got resources for the Governance” or “We would like to, but Data Governance is such an aggro”. My simple definition for Data Governance is a process that allows Approved Data Consumers to obtain data that satisfies their consumption requirements, in accordance with Company’s approved standards of traceability, meaning, integrity and quality. Under this definition there is no implied intention of subjecting colleagues to gruelling bureaucratic processes, the issue is the status quo. Today, in the majority of firms, without a cumbersome process of checks and balances, it is almost impossible to fulfil such definition. The best Data Governance is the one you don’t see, it is the one you experience when you to get the data you need for your job without asking, this is the true essence of Data Democratisation, but few appreciate that this is achieved with a very strict and controlled in-line Data Governance framework sitting on three solid bastions of Metadata, User Access Controls and Data Classification.
 Can you comment on the relationship between the control of data and its exploitation; between Analytics and Governance if you will?Do these areas need to both be part of the CDO’s remit? Oh… this is about the tale of the two tribes isn’t it? The Governors vs. the Experimenters, the dull CDOs vs the funky CAOs. Of course they are the yin and the yang of Data, you can’t have proper insight delivered to your customer or management if you have a proper Data Governance process, or should we call it “Data Enablement” process from the previous answer. I do believe that the next incarnation of the CDO is more a “Head of Data”, who has got three main pillars underneath, one is the previous CDOs all about governance, control and direction, the second is your R&D of data, but the third one that getting amassed and so far forgotten is the Operational side, the Head of Data should have business operational ownership of the critical Data Assets of the Company.
 The cultural aspects segues into thinking about people. How important is managing the people dimension to a CDO’s success? Immensely. Ours is a pastoral job, we need to walk around, interact on internal social media, animate communities, know almost everyone and be known by everyone. People are very anxious about what we do, because all the wonderful things we are trying to achieve, they believe, will generate “productivity” and that in layman’s terms mean layoffs. We can however shift that anxiety to curiosity, reaching out, spreading the above-mentioned mantra but also rethinking completely training and reskilling, and subsequently that curiosity should transform in engagement which will deliver sustainable cultural change.
 I have heard you speak about “intelligent data management” can you tell me some more about what you mean by this? Does this relate to automation at all? My thesis at Uni in 1993 was using AI algorithms and we all have been playing with MDM, DQM, RDM, Metadata for ages, but it doesn’t feel we cracked yet a Science of Data (NB this is different Data Science!) that could show us how to resolve our problems of managing data with 21st century techniques. I think our evolutionary path should move us from “last month you had 30k wrong postcodes in your database” to “next month we are predicting 20% fewer wrong address complaints”, in doing so there is an absolute need to move from fragmented knowledge around data to centralised harnessing of the data ecosystem, and that can only be achieved tuning in on the V.O.M. (Voice of the Machines), listening, deriving insight on how that ecosystem is changing, simulating response to external or internal factors and designing changes with data by design (or even better with everything by design). I yet have to see automated tools that do all of that without requiring man years to decide what is what, but one can only stay hopeful.
 Finally, how do you see the CDO role changing in coming years? To the ones that think we are a transient role, I respond that Compliance should be everyone’s business, and yet we have Compliance Officers. I think that overtime the Pioneers will give way to the Strategists, who will oversee the making of “Data Products” that best suit the Business Strategist, and maybe one day being CEO will be the epitome of our career ladders one day, but I am not rushing to it, I love too much having some spare time to spend with my family and sailing.
 Roberto, it is always a pleasure to speak. Thank you for sharing your ideas with us today.

Roberto Maranca can be reached at r.maranca@outlook.com and has social media presence on LinkedIn and Twitter (@RobertoMaranca).

Disclosure: At the time of publication, neither peterjamesthomas.com Ltd. nor any of its Directors had any shared commercial interests with Roberto Maranca.

 If you are a Chief Data Officer, a Chief Analytics Officer, a Director of Data, or hold some other “Top Data Job” and would like to share your thoughts with the readers of this site in an interview like this one, please get in contact.

Notes

 [1] [2] The CDO – A Dilemma or The Next Big Thing? [3] Randy Bean of New Vantage Partners quoted in The CDO – A Dilemma or The Next Big Thing?

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary, The Anatomy of a Data Function and A Brief History of Databases