Link directly to entries in the Data and Analytics Dictionary

The Data and Analytics Dictionary

The peterjamesthomas.com Data and Analytics Dictionary has always had internal tags (anchors for those old enough to recall their HTML) which allowed me, as its author, to link to individual entries from other web-pages I write. An example of the use of these is my article, A Brief History of Databases.

I have now made these tags public. Each entry in the Dictionary is followed by the full tag address in a box. This is accompanied by a link icon as follows:

Data Dictionary excerpt

Clicking on the link icon will copy the tag address to your clipboard. Alternatively the tag URL may just be copied from the box containing it directly. You can then use this address in your own article to link back to the D&AD entry.

As with the vast majority of my work, the contents of the Data and Analytics Dictionary is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. This means you can include my text or images in your own web-pages, presentations, Word documents etc. You can even modify my work, so long as you point out that you have done this.

If you would like to link back to the Data and Analytics Dictionary to provide definitions of terms that you are using, this should now be very easy. For example:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing Big Data elit. Duis tempus nisi sit amet libero vehicula Data Lake, sed tempor leo consectetur. Pellentesque suscipit sed felisData Governance ac mattis. Fusce mattis luctus posuere. Duis a Spark mattis velit. In scelerisque massa ac turpis viverra, acLogistic Regression pretium neque condimentum.

Equally, I’d be delighted if you wanted to include part of all of the text of an entry in the Data and Analytics Dictionary in your own work, commercial or personal; a link back using this new functionality would be very much appreciated.

I hope that this new functionality will be useful. An update to the Dictionary’s contents will be published in the next couple of months.
 


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

 

The CDO – A Dilemma or The Next Big Thing?

Janus

It wasn’t so long ago that I last wrote about Forbes’s perspective on the data arena [1]. In this piece, I am going to compare and contrast two more recent Forbes articles. The first is 3 Reasons Why The Chief Data Officer Will Become The Next Big Thing by Lauren deLisa Coleman (@ultra_Lauren). The second is The Chief Data Officer Dilemma by Randy Bean (@RandyBeanNVP) [2].

While the contents of the two articles differ substantially – the first is positive about the future of the role, the second highlights some of its current challenges – there are interesting points made in each of them. In the midst of confusion about what a Chief Data Officer (CDO) is and what they do, it is perhaps not surprising that fundamentally different takes on the area can both contain seeds of truth.
 


 
Lauren deLisa Coleman

In the first piece, deLisa Coleman refers to the twin drivers of meeting increasingly stringent regulatory demands [3] and leveraging data to drive enhanced business outcomes; noting that:

Expertise and full dedication is needed particularly since data is threaded into nearly all facets of today’s businesses [4].

She states that appointing a CDO is the canonical response of Executive teams, while noting that there is not full consensus on all facets of this role. In covering the title’s “three reasons” why organisations need CDOs, deLisa Coleman references a survey by Infogix [5]. This highlights the increasing importance of each of the following areas: Metadata, Data Governance and the Internet of Things.

Expanding on these themes, deLisa Coleman adds:

Those who seize success within these new parameters will be companies that not only adapt most quickly but those that can also best leverage their company’s data in a strategic manner in innovative ways while continuing to gathering massive amounts under flawless methods of protection.

So far, so upbeat. To introduce a note of caution, I am aware that, in the last few years – and no doubt in part driven by articles in Forbes, Harvard Business Review and their ilk – most companies have set forth a vision for becoming a “data-driven organisation” [6]. However, the number that have actually achieved this objective – or even taken significant steps towards it – is of course much smaller. The central reason for this is that it is not easy to become a “data-driven organisation”. As with most difficult things, reaching this goal requires hard-work, focus, perseverance and, it has to be said, innate aptitude. Some experience of what is involved is of course also invaluable and, even in 2018, this is a rare commodity.

A sub-issue within this over-arching problem is miracle-worker syndrome; we’ll hire a great CDO and then we don’t need to worry about data any more [7]. Of course becoming a “data-driven organisation” requires the whole organisation to change. A good CDO will articulate the need for change, generate enthusiasm for moving forward and and coordinate the necessary metamorphosis. What they cannot do however is enact such a fundamental change without the active commitment of all tiers of the organisation.
 


 
Randy Bean

Of course this is where the second article becomes pertinent. Bean starts by noting the increasing prevalence of the CDO. He cites an annual study by his consultancy [8] which surveys Fortune 1000 companies. In 2012, this found that only 12% of the companies surveyed had appointed a CDO. By 2018, the figure has risen to over 63%, a notable trend [9].

However, he goes on to say that:

In spite of the common recognition of the need for a Chief Data Officer, there appears to be a profound lack of consensus on the nature of the role and responsibilities, mandate, and background that qualifies an executive to operate as a successful CDO. Further, because few organizations — 13.5% — have assigned revenue responsibility to their Chief Data Officers, for most firms the CDO role functions primarily as an influencer, not a revenue generator.

This divergence of opinion on CDO responsibilities, mandate, and importance of the role underscores why the Chief Data Officer may be the toughest job in the executive c-suite within many organizations, and why the position has become a hot seat with high turnover in a number of firms.

In my experience, while deLisa Coleman’s sunnier interpretation of the CDO environment both holds some truth and points to the future, Bean’s more gritty perspective is closer to the conditions currently experienced by many CDOs. This is reinforced by a later passage:

While 39.4% of survey respondents identify the Chief Data Officer as the executive with primary responsibility for data strategy and results within their firm, a majority of survey respondents – 60.6% — identify other C-Executives as the point person, or claim no single point of accountability. This is remarkable and highly significant, for it highlights the challenges that CDO’s face within many organizations.

Bean explains that some of this is natural, making a similar point to the one I advance above: the journey towards being “data-driven” is not a simple one and parts of organisations may both not want to take the trip and even dissuade colleagues from doing so. Passive or active resistance are things that all major transformations need to deal with. He adds that lack of clarity about the CDO role, especially around the involved / accountable question as it relates to strategy, planning and execution is a complicating factor.

Some particularly noteworthy points arose when the survey asked about the background and skills of a CDO. Findings included:

While 34% of executives believe the ideal CDO should be an external change agent (outsider) who brings fresh perspectives, an almost equivalent 32.1% of executives believe the ideal CDO should be an internal company veteran (insider) who understands the culture and history of the firm and knows how to get things done within that organization.

22.6% of executives […] indicated that the CDO must be either a data scientist or a technologist who is highly conversant with data. An additional 11.3% responded that a successful CDO must be a line-of-business executive who has been accountable for financial results.

The above may begin to sound somewhat familiar to some readers. It perhaps brings to mind the following figure [10]:

Expanded CDO Sweet Spot

As I pointed out last year in A truth universally acknowledged… organisations sometimes take a kitchen sink approach to experience and expertise, a lengthy list of requirements that will never been found in one person. From the above survey, it seems that this approach probably reflects the thinking of different executives.

I endorse one of Bean’s final points:

The lack of consensus on the Chief Data Officer role aptly mirrors the diversity of opinion on the value and importance of data as an enterprise asset and how it should be managed.

Back in my more technologically flavoured youth, I used to say that organisations get the IT that they deserve. The survey findings suggest that the same aphorism can be applied to both CDOs and the data landscapes that they are meant to oversee.
 


 
So two contrasting pieces from the same site. The first paints what I believe is an accurate picture of the importance of the CDO role in fulfilling corporate objectives. The second highlights some of the challenges with the CDO role delivering on its promise. Each perspective is valid. I would recommend readers take a look at both articles and then blend some of the insights with their own opinions and ideas.
 


 
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Lauren deLisa Coleman and Randy Bean for both reviewing this article and allowing me to quote their work. Their openness and helpfulness are very much appreciated.
 


 
Notes

 
[1]
 
Draining the Swamp.
 
[2]
 
Text is reproduced with the kind permission of the authors.

Forbes has a limited free access policy for non-subscribers, this means that the number of articles you can view is restricted.

 
[3]
 
To which I would add both customer and business partner expectations about how their data is treated and used by organisations.
 
[4]
 
Echoing points from my two 2015 articles: 5 Themes from a Chief Data Officer Forum and 5 More Themes from a Chief Data Officer Forum, specifically:

It’s gratifying to make predictions that end up coming to be.

 
[5]
 
Infogix Identifies the Top Game Changing Data Trends for 2018.
 
[6]
 
It would be much easier to list those who do not share this aspiration.
 
[7]
 
Having been described as “the Messiah” in more than one organisation, I can empathise with the problems that this causes. Perhaps Moses – a normal man – leading his people out of the data dessert is a more apt Biblical metaphor, should you care for such things.
 
[8]
 
New Vantage Partners.
 
[9]
 
These are clearly figures for US companies and it is generally acknowledged that the US approach to data is more mature than elsewhere. In Europe, it may be that GDPR (plus, in my native UK, the dark clouds of Brexit) has tipped the compliance / leverage balance too much towards data introspection and away from revenue-generating data insights.
 
[10]
 
This first version of this image appeared in 2016’s The Chief Data Officer “Sweet Spot”, with the latest version being published in 2017’s A Sweeter Spot for the CDO?.

 

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary

 

Draining the Swamp

Draining the Swamp

The title phrase of this article has entered the collective consciousness from political circles in recent months and years. Readers will be glad to hear that the political commentary content of this piece is precisely zero. Instead I am going to talk about Data Lakes, also referred to pejoratively by those who are not fans as Data Swamps.

Having started my relationship with Data matters back in the early days of Relational Databases and having driven corporate success through Data Warehouses and Business Intelligence, I have also done work in the Big Data arena since around 2013. A central concept in the Big Data paradigm is that of a Data Lake; a large Hadoop repository into which all data that an organisation might want to use is poured, often essentially as is. The thinking is that – in a Big Data implementation – storage is cheap [1] and you never fully know what data you might need in advance, so why not save it all?

It is probably fair to say that – much like many other major programmes of work over the years [2] – the creation of Data Lakes, or perhaps more accurately the leverage of their contents, has resulted in at best mixed results for the organisations that undertake such an endeavour. The thing with mixed results is that it is not all doom and gloom, some people are successful, others are not. The important thing is to determine what are the factors that lead to good and bad outcomes.

Well first of all, I would suggest that – like any other data programme – the formation of a Data Lake is subject to the types of potential issues that I review in my 2017 article, 20 Risks that Beset Data Programmes. Of these, Data Lakes are particularly susceptible to risk 16:

In the absence of [understanding key business decisions], the programme becoming a technology-driven one.

The business gets what IT or Change think that they need, not what is actually needed. There is more focus on shiny toys than on actionable information. The programme forgets the needs of its customers.

The issue here is that some people buy into the misconception that all you have to do is fill the Data Lake and sit back and wait for precious Data gems to flow from it. Understanding a business and its key decisions is tough and perhaps it is not surprising that people would like to skip this step and instead focus on easier activities. Sadly, this approach is not going to work for Data Lakes or anything else.
 


 
Dan Woods

However Data Lakes also face some specific risks and in search of better understanding these, I turned to a recent Forbes article, Can Failed Data Lakes Succeed As Data Marketplaces? penned by Dan Woods (@danwoodsearly) [3]. Dan does not mince words in his introduction:

All over the world, data lake projects are foundering, not because they are not a step in the right direction, but because they are essentially uncompleted experiments.

he adds:

The main roadblock has been that once companies store their data in the data lake, they struggle to find a way to operationalize it. The data lake has never become a product like a data warehouse. Proof of concepts are tweaked to keep a desultory flow of signals going.

and finally states:

[…] for certain use cases, Hadoop and purpose-built data lake-like infrastructure are solving complex and high-value problems. But in most other businesses, the data lake got stuck at the proof of concept stage.

This chimes with my experience – the ability to synthesise and analyse vast troves of data is indispensable in addressing some business problems, but a sledge-hammer to crack a walnut for others. Data Lakes are no more universal panaceas than anything else we have invented to date. As always, the main issues are not technology, but good processes, consistent definitions, improved data quality and matching available data to real business questions.
 


 
Paul Barth

In seeking salvation (Dan’s word) for Data Lakes, he sought the opinion of one of my LinkedIn contacts, Paul Barth (@BarthPS), CEO of Podium Data. Paul analyses the root causes of Data Lake issues, splitting these into three main ones [4]:

  1. Polluted data lakes

    Too many projects targeted at filling or exploiting the Data Lake kick off in parallel. This leads to an incoherent landscape and inaccessible / difficult to understand data.
     

  2. Bottlenecked data lakes

    Essentially treating the Data Lake as if it was a Data Warehouse where the technology is designed for different and less structured purposes. This leads to a quasi-warehouse that is less performant than actual warehouses.
     

  3. Risky data lakes

    Where there is a desire to quickly populate the Data Lake, not least to provide grist to the Data Science mill, appropriate controls on access to data can be neglected; particularly an issue where personally identifiable data is involved. This can lead to regulatory, legal and reputational peril.

Barth’s solution to these problems is the establishment of a Data Marketplace. This is a concept previously referenced on these pages in Predictions about Prediction, a review of consultancy Eckerson Group‘s views on Data and Analytics in 2017 [5]. Back then, Eckerson Group had the following to say about the area:

[An Enterprise Data Marketplace (EDM) is] an Amazon-like data marketplace where analysts can seek datasets, see reviews of others, and select the best-fit datasets for their needs helps to encourage dataset reuse, minimize redundancy, and prevent flawed analysis that results from working with less than ideal data. Data cataloging tools, data curation practices, data preparation technologies, and data services will be combined to create a marketplace for data seekers. Enterprise Data Marketplaces return us to the single-source vision that was once touted as the real benefit of Enterprise Data Warehouses.

Enterprise Data Marketplace

So, as illustrated above, a Data Marketplace is essentially a collection of tagged data sets, which have in some cases been treated to increase consistency and utility, combined with information about their contents and usages. These are overlaid by what is essentially a “social media” layer where “shoppers” can search for data and provide feedback on its utility (e.g. a rating mechanism) and also add their own documentation. This means that useful data sets get highly rated and have more explanatory material attached to them.
 


 
Dave Wells

Eckerson Group build on this concept in their white paper The Rise of the Data Marketplace (opens a PDF document), work commissioned in part by Podium Data. In this Eckerson’s Dave Wells (@_DaveWells_) characterises an Enterprise Data Marketplace as having the following attributes [6]:

  • Categorization organises the marketplace to simplify browsing. For example a shopper seeking budget data doesn’t need to browse through unrelated data sets about customers, employees or other data subjects. Categories complement tagging and smart search algorithms, offering a variety of ways to find data sets.
     
  • Curation is active management of the data sets that are available in the EDM. Curation selects and qualifies data sets, describes each data set, and collects and manages metadata about the collection and each individual data set.
     
  • Cataloging exposes data sets for data shoppers, including descriptions and metadata. The catalog is a view into the inventory of curated data sets. Rich metadata and powereful search are important catalog features.
     
  • Crowdsourcing is the equivalent of a social network for data. Data shoppers actively participate in catloging, curating and categorizing data. This virtuous cycle (a chain of events that reinforces outcomes through a feedback loop) continuously improves the quality and value of data in the marketplace.

Back in the Forbes article, Barth focuses on using the Data Marketplace’s interactive elements to identify the most valuable data (that which is searched for most frequently and has the best shopper rating). This data can then be the subject of focussed investment. Such investment is of the sort familiar in Data Warehouse activities, but it is directed by shoppers’ “social media” preferences rather than more formal requirements gathering exercises.
 


 
Dan Woods makes the pertinent observation that:

So, as the challenge now is not one of technology, but of setting a vision, companies have to decide how to incorporate a new set of requirements to get the most out of their data. […] Even within one company, there may be the need for multiple requirements to be met. Marketing may not need the precision that the accounting department requires. Groups with regulatory mandates may have strong compliance requirements that drive the need for data that is 100% accurate, while those doing exploration for product development purposes may prefer to have larger datasets to work with, and 90% accuracy is all that they require. The data lake must be able to employ multiple approaches as needed by different applications and groups of users.

His article finishes with the following clarion call to implement the Data Marketplace vision:

Companies achieve data transparency with data warehouses because of the use of canonical data models. Yet data in data warehouses was trapped in slow processes that lacked agility. The data warehouse data was well understood but couldn’t evolve at the speed of business. The data lake wasn’t able to correct this problem because companies didn’t implement lakes with a sufficiently comprehensive vision. That’s what they need to do now.


 
"Grimpen Mire"

While when I hear about Data Warehouses that take months to change, poor design and a lack of automation both come to mind, it is unarguable that some Data Warehouses can be plagued by long turn-around times [7]. Equally I have seen enough Data Lakes turn into Grimpen Mire to perceive that there are some major issues inherent in an unmodified approach to this area [8]. The Data Marketplace idea is an intriguing one, a mash-up [9] of different approaches that may just yield some tangible results.

I also think that the inherent focus on users’ needs as opposed to technological considerations is the right way to go. I have been making this point for many years now [10] and have full confidence that I will still be doing so in ten years’ time. As with most aspects of life, it is with people, and how a programme interacts with them, that success and failure factors are most readily found. It seems to me that the Data Marketplace approach seeks to embrace this verity, which can only be a point in its favour.
 


 
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank each of Forbes / Dan Woods, Podium Data / Paul Barth and Eckerson Group / Dave Wells for both reviewing this article and allowing me to quote their work. Such generous behaviour is not as typical as one might like to think and always merits recognition.
 


 
Notes

 
[1]
 
Though the total cost of saving such data extends beyond just disk costs and can become significant.
 
[2]
 
See my earlier article Ever tried? Ever failed? for a treatment of what is clearly a fundamental physical constant – that 60- 70% of all types of major programmes don’t fully achieve their objectives (aka fail). Data Lakes appear to also be governed by this Law of Nature.
 
[3]
 
You may need to navigate past a Forbes banner screen before you can access the actual article.
 
[4]
 
The following is my take in Paul’s analysis, for his actual words, see the Forbes article.
 
[5]
 
Watch this space for a review of Eckerson Group’s predictions for 2018.
 
[6]
 
Which I reproduce with permission.
 
[7]
 
By way of contrast, warehouses that my teams have built have been able to digest acquisitions and meet new and onerous regulatory requirements in a matter of weeks, not months.
 
[8]
 
I should stress here a difference between Data Lakes, which seek to be all-embracing, and more focussed Big Data activities, e.g. the building of complex seismological or meteorological models to assess catastrophic insurance risk (see Hurricanes and Data Visualisation: Part II – Map Reading). I have helped the latter to be very successful myself and seen good results in other organisations.
 
[9]
 
Do people still say “mash-up”?
 
[10]
 
For example in my 2008 trilogy:

  1. Marketing Change
  2. Education and cultural transformation
  3. Sustaining Cultural Change

 

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary

 

The Anatomy of a Data Function – Part III

Part I Part II Part III

Sepia's Anatomy

This is the third and final part of my review of the anatomy of a Data Function, Part I may be viewed here and Part II here.

Update:

The data arena is a fluid one. The original set of Anatomy of a Data Function articles dates back to November 2017. As of August 2018, the data function schematic has been updated to separate out Artificial Intelligence from Data Science and to change the latter to Data Science / Engineering. No doubt further changes will be made from time to time.

In the first article, I introduced the following Data Function organogram:

The Anatomy of a Data Function

Larger PDF version (opens in a new tab)

and went on to cover each of Data Strategy, Analytics & Insight and Data Operations & Technology. In Part II, I discussed the two remaining Data Function areas of Data Architecture and Data Management. In this final article, I wanted to cover the Related Areas that appear on the right of the above diagram. This naturally segues into talking about the practicalities of establishing a Data Function and highlighting some problems to be avoided or managed.

As in Parts I and II, unless otherwise stated, text indented as a quotation is excerpted from the Data and Analytics Dictionary.
 
 
Related Areas

Related Areas

I have outlined some of the key areas with which the Data Function will work. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list and indeed the boxes may be different in different organisations. Regardless of the departments that appear here, the general approach will however be similar. I won’t go through each function in great detail here. There are some obvious points to make however. The first is an overall one that clearly a collaborative approach is mandatory. While there are undeniably some police-like attributes of any Data Function, it would be best if these were carried out by friendly community policemen or women, not paramilitaries.

So rather more:

Community Police

and rather less:

Not quite so Community Police
 
Data Privacy and Information Security

Though strongly related, these areas do not generally fall under the Data Function. Indeed some legislation requires that they are separate functions. Data Privacy and Information Security are related, but also distinct from each other. Definitions are as follows:

[Data Privacy] pertains to data held by organisations about individuals (customers, counterparties etc.) and specifically to data that can be used to identify people (personally identifiable data), or is sensitive in nature, such as medical records, financial transactions and so on. There is a legal obligation to safeguard such information and many regulations around how it can be used and how long it can be retained. Often the storage and use of such data requires explicit consent from the person involved.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Data Privacy

Information Security consists of the steps that are necessary to make sure that any data or information, particularly sensitive information (trade secrets, financial information, intellectual property, employee details, customer and supplier details and so on), is protected from unauthorised access or use. Threats to be guarded against would include everything from intentional industrial espionage, to ad hoc hacking, to employees releasing or selling company information. The practice of Information Security also applies to the (nowadays typical) situation where some elements of internal information is made available via the internet. There is a need here to ensure that only those people who are authenticated to access such information can do so.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Information Security

 
Digital

Digital is not a box that would have necessarily have appeared on this chart 15, or even 10, years ago. However, nowadays this is often an important (and large) department in many organisations. Digital departments leverage data heavily; both what they gather themselves and and data drawn from other parts of the organisation. This can be to show customers their transactions, to guide next best actions, or to suggest potentially useful products or services. Given this, collaboration with the Data Function should be particularly strong.
 
Change Management

There are some specific points to make with respect to Change collaboration. One dimension of this was covered in Part II. Looking at things the other way round, as well as being a regular department, with what are laughingly referred to as “business as usual” responsibilities [1], the Data Function will also drive a number of projects and programmes. Depending on how this is approached in an organisation, this means either that the Data Function will need its own Project Managers etc., or to have such allocated from Change. This means that interactions with Change are bidirectional, which may be particularly challenging.

For some reason, Change departments have often ended up holding the purse strings for all projects and programmes (perhaps a less than ideal outcome), so a Data Function looking to get its own work done may run counter to this (see also the second section of this article).
 
IT

While the role of IT is perhaps narrower nowadays than historically [2], they are deeply involved in the world of data and the infrastructure that supports its movement around the organisation. This means that the Data Function needs to pay particular attention to its relationship with IT.
 
Embedded Analytics Teams

A wholly centralised approach to delivering Analytics is neither feasible, nor desirable. I generally recommend hybrid arrangements with a strong centralised group and affiliated analytical resource embedded in business teams. In some organisations such people may be part of the Data Function, or have a dotted line into it. In others the connection may be less formal. Whatever the arrangements, the best result would be if embedded analytical staff viewed themselves as part of a broader analytical and data community, which can share tips, work to standards and leverage each other’s work.
 
Data Stewards

Data Stewards are a concept that arises from a requirement to embed Data Governance policies and processes. Data Function Governance staff and Data Architects both need to work closely with Data Stewards. A definition is as follows:

This is a concept that arises out of Data Governance. It recognises that accountability for things like data quality, metadata and the implementation of data policies needs to be devolved to business departments and often locations. A Data Steward is the person within a particular part of an organisation who is responsible for ensuring that their data is fit for purpose and that their area adheres to data policies and guidelines.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Data Steward

  
End User Computing

There are several good reasons for engaging with this area. First, the various EUCs that have been developed will embody some element (unsatisfied elsewhere) of requirements for the processing and or distribution of data; these needs probably need to be met. Second, EUCs can present significant risks to organisations (as well as delivering significant benefits) and ameliorating these (while hopefully retaining the benefits) should be on the list of any Data Function. Third, the people who have built EUCs tend to be knowledgeable about an organisation’s data, the sort of people who can be useful sources of information and also potential allies.

[End User Computing] is a term used to cover systems developed by people other than an organisation’s IT department or an approved commercial software vendor. It may be that such software is developed and maintained by a small group of people within a department, but more typically a single person will have created and cares for the code. EUCs may be written in mainstream languages such as Java, C++ or Python, but are frequently instead Excel- or Access-based, leveraging their shared macro/scripting language, VBA (for Visual Basic for Applications). While related to Microsoft Visual Basic (the precursor to .NET), VBA is not a stand-alone language and can only run within a Microsoft Office application, such as Excel.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: End User Computing (EUC)

 
Third Party Providers

Often such organisations may be contracted through the IT function; however the Data Function may also hire its own consultants / service providers. In either case, the Data Function will need to pay similar attention to external groups as it does to internal service providers.
 
 
Building a Data Function for the Practical Man [3]

Flag Planting for the Practical Man

When I published Part I of this trilogy, many people were kind enough to say that they found reading it helpful. However, some of the same people went on to ask for some practical advice on how to go about setting up such a Data Function and – in particular – how to navigate the inevitable political hurdles. While I don’t believe in recipes for success that are guaranteed to work in all circumstances, the second section of this article will cover three selected high-level themes that I think are helpful to bear in mind at the start of a Data Function journey. Here I am assuming that you are the leader of the nascent Data Function and it is your accountability to build the team while adding demonstrable business value [4].

Starting Small

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a Leader newly in possession of a Data Function, must be in want of some staff [5]. However seldom will such a person be furnished with a budget and headcount commensurate with the task at hand; at least in the early days. Often instead, the mission, should you choose to accept it, is to begin to make a difference in the Data World with a skeleton crew at best [6]. Well no one can work miracles and so it is a question of judgement where to apply scarce resource.

My view is that this is best applied in shining a light on the existing data landscape, but in two ways. First, at the Analytics end of the spectrum, looking to unearth novel findings from an organisation’s data; the sort of task you give to a capable Data Scientist with some background in the industry sector they are operating in. Second, at the Governance end of the spectrum, documenting failures in existing data processing and reporting; in particular any that could expose the organisation to specific and tangible risks. In B2C organisations, an obvious place to look is in customer data. In B2B ones instead you can look at transactions with counterparties, or in the preparation of data for external reports, either Financial or Regulatory. Here the ideal person is a competent Data Analyst with some knowledge of the existing data landscape, in particular the compromises that have to be made to work with it.

In both cases, the objective is to tell the organisation things it does not know. Positively, a glimmer of what nuggets its data holds and the impact this could have. Negatively, examples of where a poor data landscape leads to legal, regulatory, or reputational risks.

These activities can add value early on and increase demand for more of this type of work. The first investigation can lead to the creation of a Data Science team, the second to the establishment of regular Data Audits and people to run these.

A corollary here is a point that I ceaselessly make, data exploitation and data control are two sides of the same coin. By making progress in areas that are at least superficially at antipodal locations within a Data Function, the connective tissue between them becomes more apparent.

BAU or Project?

There is a pernicious opinion held by an awful lot of people which goes as follows.

  1. We have issues with our data, its quality, completeness and fitness for purpose.
  2. We do not do a good enough job of leveraging our data to guide decision making.
  3. Therefore we need a data project / programme to sort this out once and for all.
  4. Where is the telephone number of the Change Director?

Well there is some logic to the above and setting up a data project (more likely programme) is a helpful thing to do. However, this is necessary, but not sufficient [7]. Let’s think of a comparison?

  1. We need to ensure that our Financial and Management accounts are sound.
  2. It would be helpful if business leaders had good Financial reports to help them understand the state of their business.
  3. Therefore we need a Finance project / programme to sort this out once and for all.
  4. Where is the telephone number of the Change Director?

Most CFOs would view the above as their responsibility. They have an entire function focussed on such matters. Of course they may want to run some Finance projects and Change will help with this, but a Finance Department is an ongoing necessity.

To pick another example one that illustrates just how quickly the make-up of organisations can change, just replace the word “Finance” with “Risk” in the above and “CFO” with “CRO”. While programmes may be helpful to improve either Risk or Finance, they do not run the Risk or Finance functions, the designated officers do and they have a complement of staff to assist them. It is exactly the same with data. Data programmes will enhance your use of data or control of it, but they will not ensure the day-to-day management and leverage of data in your organisation. Running “data” is the responsibility of the designated officer [8] and they should have a complement of staff to assist them as well.

The Data Function is a “business as usual” [9] function. Conveying this fact to a range of stakeholders is going to be one of the first challenges. It may be that the couple of examples I cite above can provide some ammunition for this task.

Demolishing Demoralising Demarcations

With Data Functions and their leaders both being relative emergent phenomena [10], the separation of duties between them and other areas of a business that also deal with data can be less than clear. Scanning down the Related Areas column of the overall Data Function chart, three entities stand out who may feel that they have a strong role to play in data matters: Digital, Change Management and IT.

Of course each is correct and collaboration is the best way forward. However, human nature is not always do benign and I have several times seen jockeying for position between Data, Digital, Change and IT. Route A to resolving this is of course having clarity as to everyone’s roles and a lead Executive (normally a CEO or COO) who ensures that people play nicely with each other. Back in the real world, it will be down to the leaders in each of these areas to forge some sort of consensus about who does what and why. It is probably best to realise this upfront, rather than wasting time and effort lobbying Executives to rule on things they probably have no intention of ruling on.

Nascent Data Function leaders should be aware that there will be a tendency for other teams to carve out what might be seen as the sexier elements of Data work; this can almost seem logical when – for example – a Digital team already has a full complement of web analytics staff; surely it is just a matter of pointing these at other internal data sets, right?

If we assume that the Data Function is the last of the above mentioned departments to form, then “zero sum game” thinking would dictate that whatever is accretive to the Data Function is deleterious to existing data staff in other departments. Perhaps a good place to start in combatting this mind-set is to first acknowledge it and second to take steps to allay people’s fears. It may well make sense for some staff to gravitate to the Data Function, but only if there is a compelling logic and only if all parties agree. Offering the leaders of other departments joint decision-making on such sensitive issues can be a good confidence-building step.

Setting out explicitly to help colleagues in other departments, where feasible to do so, can make very good sense and begin the necessary work of building bridges. As with most areas of human endeavour, forging good relationships and working towards the common good are both the right thing to do and put the Data Function leader in a good place as and when more contentious discussions arise.

To make this concrete, when people in another function appear to be stepping on the toes of the Data Function, instead of reacting with outrage, it may be preferable to embrace and fully understand the work that is being done. It may even make sense to support such work, even if the ultimate view is to do things a bit differently. Insisting on organisational purity and a “my way, or the highway” attitude to data matters are both steps towards a failed Data Function. Instead, engage, listen, support and – maybe over time – seek to nudge things towards your desired state.
 
 
Closing Thoughts

That's All Folks

So we have reached the end of our anatomical journey. While maybe the information contained in these three articles would pale into insignificance compared to an actual course in human anatomy, we have nevertheless covered five main work-areas within a Data Function, splitting these down into nineteen sub-areas and cataloguing eight functions with which collaboration will be key in driving success. I have also typed over 8,000 words to convey my ideas. For those who have read all of them, thank you for your perseverance; I hope that the effort has been worthwhile and that you found some of my opinions thought-provoking.

I would also like to thank the various people who have provided positive feedback on this series via LinkedIn and Facebook. Your comments were particularly influential in shaping this final chapter.

So what are the main takeaways? Well first the word collaboration has cropped up a lot and – because data is so pervasive in organisations – the need to collaborate with a wide variety of people and departments is strong. Second, extending the human anatomy analogy, while each human shares a certain basic layout (upright, bipedal, two arms, etc.), there is considerable variation within the basic parameters. The same goes for the organogram of a Data Function that I have presented at the beginning of each of these articles. The boxes may be rearranged in some organisations, some may not sit in the Data Function in others, the amount of people allocated to each work-area will vary enormously. As with human anatomy, grasping the overall shape is more important than focussing on the inevitable variations between different people.

Third, a central concept is of course that a Data Function is necessary, not just a series of data-centric projects. Even if it starts small, some dedicated resource will be necessary and it would probably be foolish to embark on a data journey without at least a skeleton crew. Fourth, in such straitened circumstances, it is important to point early and clearly to the value of data, both in reducing potentially expensive risks and in driving insights that can save money, boost market share or improve products or services. If the budget is limited, attend to these two things first.

A fifth and final thought is how little these three articles have focussed on technology. Hadoop clusters, data visualisation suites and data governance tools all have their place, but the success or failure of data-centric work tends to pivot on more human and process considerations. This theme of technology being the least important part of data work is one I have come back to time and time again over the nine years that this blog has been published. This observation remains as true today as back in 2008.
 

Part I Part II Part III

 
Notes

 
[1]
 
BAU should in general be filed along with other mythical creatures such as Unicorns, Bigfoot, The Kraken and The Loch Ness Monster.
 
[2]
 
Not least because of the rise of Data Functions, Digital Teams and stand-alone Change Organisations.
 
[3]
 
A title borrowed from J E Thompson’s Calculus for the Practical Man; a tome read by the young Richard Feynman in childhood. Today “Calculus for the Practical Person” might be a more inclusive title.
 
[4]
 
Also known as “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps”.
 
[5]
 
I seem to be channelling JA a lot at present – see A truth universally acknowledged….
 
[6]
 
Indeed I have stated on this particular journey with just myself for company on no fewer than for occasions (these three 1, 2, 3, plus at Bupa).
 
[7]
 
Once a Mathematician, always a Mathematician.
 
[8]
 
See Alphabet Soup for some ideas about what he or she might be called.
 
[9]
 
See note 1.
 
[10]
 
Despite early high-profile CDOs beginning to appear at the turn of the millennium – Joe Bugajski was appointed VP and Chief Data Officer at Visa International in 2001 (Wikipedia).

 

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary

 

The Anatomy of a Data Function – Part II

Part I Part II Part III

Sepia's Anatomy

This is the second part of my review of the anatomy of a Data Function, the artfully named Part I may be viewed here. As seems to happen all too often to me, this series will now extend to having a Part III, which may be viewed here.

Update:

The data arena is a fluid one. The original set of Anatomy of a Data Function articles dates back to November 2017. As of August 2018, the data function schematic has been updated to separate out Artificial Intelligence from Data Science and to change the latter to Data Science / Engineering. No doubt further changes will be made from time to time.

In the first article, I introduced the following Data Function organogram:

The Anatomy of a Data Function

Larger PDF version (opens in a new tab)

and went on to cover each of Data Strategy, Analytics & Insight and Data Operations & Technology. In Part II, I will consider the two remaining Data Function areas of Data Architecture and Data Management. Covering Related Areas, and presenting some thoughts on how to go about setting up a Data Function and the pitfalls to be faced along the way, together form the third and final part of this trilogy.

As in Part I, unless otherwise stated, text indented as a quotation is excerpted from the Data and Analytics Dictionary.
 
 
Data Architecture

Data Architecture

To be somewhat self-referential, this area acts a a cornerstone for the rest of the Data Function. While sometimes non-Data architects can seem to inhabit a loftier plane than most mere mortals, Data Architects (who definitively must be part of the Data Function and none of the Business, Enterprise or Solutions Architecture groups) tend to be more practical sorts with actual hands-on technical skills. Perhaps instead of the title “Architect”, “Structural Engineer” would be more appropriate. When a Data Architect draws a diagram with connected boxes, he or she generally understands how the connections work and could probably take a fair stab at implementing the linkages themselves. The other denizens of this area, such as Data Business Analysts, are also essentially pragmatic people, focused on real business outcomes. Data Architecture is a non-theoretical discipline and here I present some of the real-world activities that its members are often engaged in.
 
Change Portfolio Engagement

One of the most important services that a good Data Function can perform is to act as a moderator for the otherwise deleterious impact that uncontrolled (and uncoordinated) Change portfolios can have on even the best of data landscapes [1]. As I mention in another article:

Over the last decade or so, the delivery of technological change has evolved to the point where many streams of parallel work are run independently of each other with each receiving very close management scrutiny in order to ensure delivery on-time and on-budget. It should be recognised that some of this shift in modus operandi has been as a result of IT departments running projects that have spiralled out of control, or where delivery has been significantly delayed or compromised. The gimlet-like focus of Change on delivery “come Hell or High-water” represents the pendulum swinging to the other extreme.

What this shift in approach means in practice is that – as is often the case – when things go wrong or take longer than anticipated, areas of work are de-scoped to secure delivery dates. In my experience, 9 times out of 10 one of the things that gets thrown out is data-related work; be that not bothering to develop reporting on top of new systems, not integrating new data into existing repositories, not complying with data standards, or not implementing master data management.

As well as the danger of skipping necessary data related work, if some data-related work is actually undertaken, then corners may be cut to meet deadlines and budgets. It is not atypical for instance that a Change Programme, while adding their new capabilities to interfaces or ETL, compromises or overwrites existing functionality. This can mean that data-centric code is in a worse state after a Change Programme than before. My roadworks anecdote begins to feel all too apt a metaphor to employ.

Looking more broadly at Change Programmes, even without the curse of de-scopes, their focus is seldom data and the expertise of Change staff is not often in data matters. Because of this, such work can indeed seem to be analogous to continually digging up the same stretch of road for different purposes, combined with patching things up again in a manner that can sometimes be barely adequate. Extending our metaphor, the result of Change that is not controlled from a data point of view can be a landscape with lumps, bumps and pot-holes. Maybe the sewer was re-laid on time and to budget, but the road has been trashed in the process. Perhaps a new system was shoe-horned in to production, but rendered elements of an Analytical Repository useless in the process.

Excerpted from: Bumps in the Road

A primary responsibility of a properly constituted Data Function is to lean hard against the prevailing winds of Change in order to protect existing data capabilities that would otherwise likely be blown away [2]. Given the gargantuan size of most current Change teams, it makes sense to have at least a reasonable amount of Data Function resource applied to this area. Hopefully early interventions in projects and programmes can mitigate any potentially adverse impacts and perhaps even lead to Change being accretive to data landscapes, as it really ought to be.

The best approach, as with most human endeavours is a collaborative one, with Data Function staff (probably Data Architects) getting involved in new Change projects and programmes at an early stage and shaping them to be positive from a Data dimension. However, there also needs to be teeth in the process; on occasion the Data Function must be able to prevent work that would cause true damage from going ahead; hopefully powers that are used more in breach than observance.
 
Data Modelling

It is in this area that the practical bent of Data Architects and Data Business Analysts is seen very clearly. Data modelling mirrors the realities of systems and databases the way that Theoretical Physicists use Mathematics to model the Natural World [3]. In both cases, while there may be a degree of abstraction, the end purpose is to achieve something more concrete. A definition is as follows:

[Data Modelling is] the process of examining data sets (e.g. the database underpinning a system) in order to understand how they are structured, the relationships between their various parts and the business entities and transactions they represent. While system data will have a specific Physical Data Model (the tables it contains and their linkages), Data Modelling may instead look to create a higher-level and more abstract set of pseudo-tables, which would be easier to relate to for non-technical staff and would more closely map to business terms and activities; this is known as a Conceptual Data Model. Sitting somewhere between the two may be found Logical Data Models. There are several specific documents produced by such work, one of the most common being an Entity-Relationship diagram, e.g. a sales order has a customer and one or more line items, each of which has a product.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Data Modelling

 
Data Business Analysis

Another critical role. In my long experience of both setting up Data Functions and running Data Programmes, having good Data Business Analysts on board is often the difference between success and failure. I cannot stress enough how important this role is.

Data Business Analysts are neither regular Business Analysts, nor just Data Analysts, but rather a combination of the best of both. They do have all the requirement gathering skills of the best BAs, but complement these with Data Modelling abilities, always seeking to translate new requirements into expanded or refined Data Models. Also the way that they approach business requirements will be very specific. The optimal way to do this is by teasing out (and they collating and categorising) business questions and then determining the information needed to answer these. A good Data Business Analyst will also have strong Data Analysis skills, being able to work with unfamiliar and lightly-documented datasets to discern meaning and link this to business concepts. A definition is as follows:

A person who has extensive understanding of both business processes and the data necessary to support these. A Business Analyst is expert at discerning what people need to do. A Data Analyst is adept at working with datasets and extracting meaning from them. A Data Business Analyst can work equally happily in both worlds at the same time. When they talk to people about their requirements for information, they are simultaneously updating mental models of the data necessary to meet these needs. When they are considering how lightly-documented datasets hang together, they constantly have in mind the business purpose to which such resources may be bent.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Data Business Analyst

 
 
Data Management

Data Management

Again, it is worth noting that I have probably defined this area more narrowly than many. It could be argued that it should encompass the work I have under Data Architecture and maybe much of what is under Data Operations & Technology. The actual hierarchy is likely to be driven by factors like the nature of the organisation and the seniority of Managers in the Data Function. For good or ill, I have focussed Data Management more on the care and feeding of Data Assets in my recommended set-up. A definition is as follows:

The day-to-day management of data within an organisation, which encompasses areas such as Data Architecture, Data Quality, Data Governance (normally on behalf of a Data Governance Committee) and often some elements of data provision and / or regular reporting. The objective is to appropriately manage the lifecycle of data throughout the entire organisation, which both ensures the reliability of data and enables it to become a valuable and strategic asset.

In some organisations, Data Management and Analytics are part of the same organisation, in others they are separate but work closely together to achieve shared objectives.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Data Management

 
Data Governance

There is a clear link here with some of the Data Architecture activities, particularly the Change Portfolio Engagement work-area. Governance should represent the strategic management of the data component of Change (i.e. most of Change), day-to-day collaboration would sit more in the Data Architecture area.

The management processes and policies necessary to ensure that data captured or generated within a company is of an appropriate standard to use, represents actual business facts and has its integrity preserved when transferred to repositories (e.g. Data Lakes and / or Data Warehouses, General Ledgers etc.), especially when this transfer involves aggregation or merging of different data sets. The activities that Data Governance has oversight of include the operation of and changes to Systems of Record and the activities of Data Management and Analytics departments (which may be merged into one unit, or discrete but with close collaboration).

Data Governance has a strategic role, often involving senior management. Day-to-day tasks supporting Data Governance are often carried out by a Data Management team.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Data Governance

 
Data Definitions & Metadata

This is a relatively straightforward area to conceptualise. Rigorous and consistent definitions of master data and calculated data are indispensable in all aspects of how a Data Function operates and how an organisation both leverages and protects its data. Focusing on Metadata, a definition would be as follows:

[Metadata is] data about data. So descriptions of what appears in fields, how these relate to other fields and what concepts bigger constructs like Tables embody. This helps people unfamiliar with a dataset to understand how it hangs together and is good practice in the same way that documentation of any other type of code is good practice. Metadata can be used to support some elements of Data Discovery by less technical people. It is also invaluable when there is a need for Data Migration.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Metadata

 
Data Audit

One of the challenges in driving Data Quality improvements in organisations is actually highlighting the problems and their impacts. Often poor Data Quality is a hidden cost, spread across many people taking longer to do their jobs than is necessary, or specific instances where interactions with business counterparties (including customers) are compromised. Organisations obviously cope – at least in general – with these issues, but they are a drag on efficiency and, in extremis, can lead to incidents which can cause significant financial loss and/or reputational damage. A way to make such problems more explicit is via a regular Data Audit, a review of data in source systems and as it travels through various data repositories. This would include some assessment of the completeness and overall quality of data, highlighting areas of particular concern. So one component might include the percentage of active records which suffer from a significant data quality issue.

It is important that any such issues are categorised. Are they the result of less than perfect data entry procedures, which could be tightened up? Are they due to deficient validation in transactional systems, where this could be improved and there may be a role for Master Data Management? Are data interfaces between systems to blame, where these need to be reengineered or potentially replaced? Are there architectural issues with systems or repositories, which will require remedial work to address?

This information needs to be rolled up and presented in an accessible manner so that those responsible for systems and processes can understand where issues lie. Data Audits, even if partially automated, take time and effort, so it may be appropriate to carry them out quarterly. In this case, it is valuable to understand how the situation is changing over time and also to track the – hopefully positive – impact of any remedial action. Experienced Data Analysts with a good appreciation of how business is conducted in the organisation are the type of resource best suited to Data Audit work.
 
Data Quality

Much that needs to be said here is covered in the previous section about Data Audit. Data Quality can be defined as follows:

The characteristics of data that cover how accurately and completely it mirrors real world events and thereby how much reliance can be placed on it for the purpose of generating information and insight. Enhancing Data Quality should be a primary objective of Data Management teams.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Data Quality

A Data Quality team, which would work closely with Data Audit colleagues, would be focussed on helping to drive improvements. The details of such work are covered in an earlier article, from which the following is excerpted:

There are a number of elements that combine to improve the quality of data:

  1. Improve how the data is entered
  2. Make sure your interfaces aren’t the problem
  3. Check how the data is entered / interfaced
  4. Don’t suppress bad data in your BI

As with any strategy, it is ideal to have the support of all four pillars. However, I have seen greater and quicker improvements through the fourth element than with any of the others.

Excerpted from: Using BI to drive improvements in data quality

 
Master Data Management

There is some overlap here with Data Definitions & Metadata as mentioned above. Master Data Management has also been mentioned here in the context of Data Quality initiatives. However this specialist area tends to demand dedicated staff. A definition is as follows:

Master Data Management is the term used to both describe the set of process by which Master Data is created, changed and deleted in an organisation and also the technological tools that can facilitate these processes. There is a strong relation here to Data Governance, an area which also encompasses broader objectives. The aim of MDM is to ensure that the creation of business transactions results in valid data, which can then be leveraged confidently to create Information.

Many of the difficulties in MDM arise from items of Master Data that can change over time; for example when one counterparty is acquired by another, or an organisational structure is changed (maybe creating new departments and consolidating old ones). The challenges here include, how to report historical transactions that are tagged with Master Data that has now changed.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Master Data Management

 
 
At this point, we have covered all of the work-areas within our idealised Data Function. In the third and final piece, we will consider the right-hand column of Related Areas, ones that a Data Function must collaborate with. Having covered these, the trilogy will close by offering some thoughts on the challenges of setting up a Data Function and how these may be overcome.
 

Part I Part II Part III

 
Notes

 
[1]
 
I am old enough to recall a time before Change portfolios, I can recall no organisation in which I have worked over the last 20 years in which Change portfolios have had a positive impact on data assets; maybe I have just been unlucky, but it begins to feel more like a fundamental Physical Law.
 
[2]
 
I have clearly been writing about hurricanes too much recently!
 
[3]
 
As is seen, for example in, the Introduction to my [as yet unfinished] book on the role of Group Theory in Theoretical Physics, Glimpses of Symmetry.

 

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary

 

The Anatomy of a Data Function – Part I

Part I Part II Part III

Back in Alphabet Soup, I presented a diagram covering what I think are good and bad approaches to organising Analytics and Data Management. I wanted to offer an expanded view [1] of the good organisation chart and to talk a bit about each of its components. Originally, I planned to address these objectives across two articles. As happens to me all too frequently, the piece has now expanded to become three parts. The second may be read here, and the third here.

Update:

The data arena is a fluid one. The original set of Anatomy of a Data Function articles dates back to November 2017. As of August 2018, the data function schematic has been updated to separate out Artificial Intelligence from Data Science and to change the latter to Data Science / Engineering. No doubt further changes will be made from time to time.

Let’s leap right in and look at my suggested chart:

The Anatomy of a Data Function

Larger PDF version (opens in a new tab)

I appreciate that the above is a lot of boxes! I can feel Finance and HR staff reaching for their FTE calculators as I write. A few things to note:

  1. I have avoided the temptation to add the titles of executives, managers or team leaders. Alphabet Soup itself pointed out how tough it can be to wrestle with the nomenclature. Instead I have just focussed on areas of work.
     
  2. The term “work areas” is intentional. In larger organisations, there may be teams or individuals corresponding to each box. In smaller ones Data Function staff will wear many hats and several work areas may be covered by one person.
     
  3. In some places, a number of work areas that I have tagged as Data Function ones may be performed in other parts of the organisation, though it is to be hoped with collaboration and coordination.

Having dealt with these caveats, let’s provide some colour on each of these progressing from top to bottom and left to right. In this first article we will consider the Data Strategy, Analytics & Insight and Data Operations & Technology areas. The second part will cover the remaining elements of Data Architecture and Data Management. The final article, considers Related Areas before also covering some of the challenges that may be faced in setting up a Data Function.

In what follows, unless otherwise stated, text indented as a quotation is excerpted from the Data and Analytics Dictionary.
 
 
Data Strategy

Data Strategy

A clear strategy is obviously most important to establish in the early days of a Data Function. Indeed a Data Strategy may well call for the creation of a Data Function where none currently exists. For anyone interested in this process, I recommend my series of three articles on this subject [2]. However a Data Strategy is not something carved in stone, it will need to be revisited and adapted (maybe significantly) as circumstances change (e.g. after an acquisition, a change in market conditions or potentially due to the emergence of some new technology). There is thus a need for ongoing work in this area. However, as demand for strategic work will tend to be lumpy, I suggest amalgamating Data Strategy with the following two sub-areas.
 
Data Comms & Education

Elsewhere on this site, I have highlighted the need for effective communication, education and assiduous follow-up in data programmes [3]. Education on data matters does not stop when a data quality drive is successfully completed, or when a new set of analytical capabilities are introduced, this is a need for an ongoing commitment here. Activities falling into this work area include: publishing regular data newsletters and infographics, designing and helping to deliver training programmes, providing follow-up and support to aid the embedded used of new capabilities or to ingrain new behaviours.
 
Relationship Management

There is a need for all Data Function staff to establish and maintain good working relations with any colleagues they come into contact with, regardless of their level or influence. However, the nature of, generally hierarchical, organisations is that it is often prudent to pay special attention to more senior staff, or to the type of person (common in many companies) who may not be that senior, but whose opinion is influential. In aggregate these two groups of people are often described as stakeholders. Providing regular updates to stakeholders and ensuring both that they are comfortable with Data Function work and that this is aligned with their priorities can be invaluable [4]. Having senior, business-savvy Data Function people available to do this work is the most likely path to success.
 
 
Analytics & Insight

Analytics & Insight

Broadly speaking the Analytics area and its sub-areas are focussed more on one-off analyses rather that the recurrent production of information [5], the latter being more the preserve of the Data Operations & Technology area. There is also more of a statistical flavour to the work carried out here.

[Analytics relates to] deriving insights from data which are generally beyond the purpose for which the data was originally captured – to be contrasted with Information which relates to the meaning inherent in data (i.e. the reason that it was captured in the first place). Analytics often employ advanced statistical techniques (logistic regression, multivariate regression, time series analysis etc.) to derive meaning from data.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Analytics

 
Data Science / Engineering

I have Data Science / Engineering as a sub-area of analytics, as with most terminology used in the data arena and most organisational units that exist in Data Functions, some people might argue that I have this the wrong way round and that Data Science / Engineering should be preeminent. Reconciling different points of view is not my objective here, I think most people will agree that both work areas should be covered. This comment pertains to many other parts of this article. Here is a two-part definition of the area (or rather the people who populate it):

[Data Scientists are people who are] au fait with exploiting data in many formats from Flat Files to Data Warehouses to Data Lakes. Such individuals possess equal abilities in the data technologies (such as Big Data) and how to derive benefit from these via statistical modelling. Data Scientists are often lapsed actual scientists.

[Data Engineering is] essentially a support function for Data Science. If you consider the messy process of sourcing data, loading it into a repository, cleansing, filling in “holes”, combining disparate data and so on, this is a somewhat different skill set to then analysing the resulting data. Early in the history of Data Science, the whole process sat with Data Scientists. Increasingly nowadays, the part before actual analysis begins is carried out by Data Engineers. These people often also concern themselves with aspects of Master Data Management and Data Architecture.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entries: Data Scientist and Data Engineering

 
Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has its roots in the academic discipline of both trying to understand cognition and reproduce it. In recent years, AI has come out of the lecture hall and lab and become an increasingly important aspect of the modern world, from driving our cars, to providing advice on financial products, to making recommendations for on-line purchases. Previously I had AI subsumed in the Data Science section. However, two trends have caused me to split it out in the current version of the Data Function Anatomy. First the importance of AI is increasing rapidly. Second it is no longer just Data Scientists who carry out this work. The advent of AI Platforms hides some of the complexity, while allowing a broader range of people to leverage the power of AI. The particular element of AI that has caught on to the greatest extent in business to date is Machine Learning.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Artificial Intelligence

 
Data Visualisation

There is an overlap here with both the Data Science team within the Analytics & Insight area and the Business Intelligence team in the Data Operations & Technology area. Many of the outputs of a good Data Function will include graphs, charts and other such exhibits. However, here would be located the real specialists, the people who would set standards for the presentation of visual data across the Data Function and be the most able in leveraging visualisation tools. A definition of Data Visualisation is as follows:

Techniques – such as graphs – for presenting complex information in a manner in which it can be more easily digested by human observers. Based on the concept that a picture paints a thousand words (or a dozen Excel sheets).

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Data Visualisation

 
Predictive Analytics

Gartner refer to four types of Analytics: descriptive, diagnostic, predictive and prescriptive analytics. In an article I referred to these as:

  • What happened?
  • Why did it happen?
  • What is going to happen next?
  • What should we be doing?

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Analytics

Predictive analytics is that element of the Analytics function that aims to predict the future, “What is going to happen next?” in the above list. This can be as simple as extrapolating data based on a trend line, or can involve more sophisticated techniques such as Time Series Analysis. As with most elements of the Data Function, there is overlap between Predictive Analytics and both Data Science and Business Intelligence.
 
“Skunkworks”

As with Data Strategy, state-of-the-art in Analytics & Insight will continue to evolve. This part of the Data Function will aim to keep current with the latest developments and to try out new techniques and new technologies that may later be adopted more widely by Data Function colleagues. The “skunkworks” team would be staffed by capable programmers / data scientists / statisticians.
 
 
Data Operations & Technology

Data Operations & Technology

It could be reasonably argued that this area is part of Data Management; I probably would not object too strongly to this suggestion. However, there are some benefits to considering it separately. This is the most IT-like of the areas considered here. It recognises that data technology (being it the Hadoop suite, Data Warehouse technology, or combinations of both) is different to many other forms of technology and needs its own specialists to focus on it. It is likely that the staff in this area will also collaborate closely with IT (see the final work area in Part II) or, in some cases, supervise work carried out by IT. As well as directly creating data capabilities, Data Operations & Technology staff would be active in the day-to-day running of these; again in collaboration with colleagues from both inside and outside of the Data Function.
 
Business Intelligence

There is no ISO definition, but I use this term as a catch-all to describe the transformation of raw data into information that can be disseminated to business people to support decision-making.

Data and Analytics Dictionary entry: Business Intelligence

This sub-area focusses on the relatively mature task of providing Business Intelligence solutions to organisations and working with IT to support and maintain these. Good BI tools work best on a sound underlying information architecture and so there would need to also be close collaboration with Data Infrastructure staff within Data Operations & Technology as well as colleagues from Data Architecture and also Analytics & Insight.
 
Regular Reporting

If BI provides interactive capabilities to support decision making, Regular Reporting is about the provision of specific key reports to relevant parties on a periodic basis; daily, weekly, monthly etc. These may be burst out to people’s e-mail accounts, provided at some central location, or both. While this an area that is ideally automated, there will still be significant need for human monitoring and to support the inevitable changes.
 
Data Service

One of the things that any part of a Data Function will find itself doing on a very regular basis is crafting ad hoc data extracts for other departments, e.g. Marketing, Risk & Compliance etc. Sometimes such a need will be on an ongoing basis and a web-service or some other Data Integration mechanism will need to be set up. Rather than having this be something that is supported out of the general running costs of the Data Function, it makes sense to have a specific unit whose role is to fulfil these needs. Even so, there may be a need for queuing and prioritisation of requests
 
Data Infrastructure

This relates to the physical architecture of the data landscape (for various flavours of logical architectures, see Data Architecture in Part II). While some of the tasks here may be carried out by (or in collaboration with) IT, the Data Infrastructure team will be expert at the care and feeding of Hadoop and related technologies and have experience in the fine-tuning of Data Warehouses and Data Marts.
 
SWAT Team

While (as both mentioned above and also covered in Part III this article) some of the heavy lifting in data matters will be carried out by an organisation’s IT team and / or its external partners, the process for getting things done in this way can be slow, tortuous and expensive [6]. It is important that a Data Function has its own capability to make at least minor technological changes, or to build and deploy helpful data facilities without having to engage with the overall bureaucracy. The SWAT Team will have a small number of very capable and business-knowledgeable programmers, capable of quickly generating robust and functional code.
 
 
The second part of this piece picks up where I have left off here and first consider Data Architecture.
 

Part I Part II Part III

 
Notes

 
[1]
 
I have added some functions that were absent in the previous one, mostly as they were not central to the points I was making in the previous article.
 
[2]
 
My trilogy on Formatting a Data / Information Strategy has the following parts:

  1. Part I – General Strategy
  2. Part II – Situational Analysis
  3. Part III – Completing the Strategy
 
[3]
 
While this theme runs through most of my writing, it is most explicitly referenced in the following three articles:

  1. Marketing Change
  2. Education and Cultural Transformation
  3. Sustaining Cultural Change
 
[4]
 
It should be noted that the relationship management described here is not the same as a Project Manager covering progress against plan. This is more of a two way conversation to ensure that the Data Function remains cognisant of stakeholder needs
 
[5]
 
Though of course sometimes one-off analyses have value on an ongoing basis and so need to be productionised. In such cases the Analytics & Insight team would work with the Data Operations & Technology team to achieve this.
 
[6]
 
No citation needed.

 

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary

 

The revised and expanded Data and Analytics Dictionary

The Data and Analytics Dictionary

Since its launch in August of this year, the peterjamesthomas.com Data and Analytics Dictionary has received a welcome amount of attention with various people on different social media platforms praising its usefulness, particularly as an introduction to the area. A number of people have made helpful suggestions for new entries or improvements to existing ones. I have also been rounding out the content with some more terms relating to each of Data Governance, Big Data and Data Warehousing. As a result, The Dictionary now has over 80 main entries (not including ones that simply refer the reader to another entry, such as Linear Regression, which redirects to Model).

The most recently added entries are as follows:

  1. Anomaly Detection
  2. Behavioural Analytics
  3. Complex Event Processing
  4. Data Discovery
  5. Data Ingestion
  6. Data Integration
  7. Data Migration
  8. Data Modelling
  9. Data Privacy
  10. Data Repository
  11. Data Virtualisation
  12. Deep Learning
  13. Flink
  14. Hive
  15. Information Security
  16. Metadata
  17. Multidimensional Approach
  18. Natural Language Processing (NLP)
  19. On-line Transaction Processing
  20. Operational Data Store (ODS)
  21. Pig
  22. Table
  23. Sentiment Analysis
  24. Text Analytics
  25. View

It is my intention to continue to revise this resource. Adding some more detail about Machine Learning and related areas is probably the next focus.

As ever, ideas for what to include next would be more than welcome (any suggestions used will also be acknowledged).
 


 

From: peterjamesthomas.com, home of The Data and Analytics Dictionary

 

The peterjamesthomas.com Data and Analytics Dictionary

The Data and Analytics Dictionary

I find myself frequently being asked questions around terminology in Data and Analytics and so thought that I would try to define some of the more commonly used phrases and words. My first attempt to do this can be viewed in a new page added to this site (this also appears in the site menu):

The Data and Analytics Dictionary

I plan to keep this up-to-date as the field continues to evolve.

I hope that my efforts to explain some concepts in my main area of specialism are both of interest and utility to readers. Any suggestions for new entries or comments on existing ones are more than welcome.
 

 

Predictions about Prediction

2017 the Road Ahead [Borrowed from Eckerson Group]

   
“Prediction and explanation are exactly symmetrical. Explanations are, in effect, predictions about what has happened; predictions are explanations about what’s going to happen.”

– John Rogers Searle

 

The above image is from Eckerson Group‘s article Predictions for 2017. Eckerson Group’s Founder and Principal Consultant, Wayne Eckerson (@weckerson), is someone whose ideas I have followed on-line for several years; indeed I’m rather surprised I have not posted about his work here before today.

As was possibly said by a variety of people, “prediction is very difficult, especially about the future” [1]. I did turn my hand to crystal ball gazing back in 2009 [2], but the Eckerson Group’s attempt at futurology is obviously much more up-to-date. As per my review of Bruno Aziza’s thoughts on the AtScale blog, I’m not going to cut and paste the text that Wayne and his associates have penned wholesale, instead I’d recommend reading the original article.

Here though are a number of points that caught my eye, together with some commentary of my own (the latter appears in italics below). I’ll split these into the same groups that Wayne & Co. use and also stick to their indexing, hence the occasional gaps in numbering. Where I have elided text, I trust that I have not changed the intended meaning:
 
 
Data Management

Data Management

1. The enterprise data marketplace becomes a priority. As companies begin to recognize the undesirable side effects of self-service they are looking for ways to reap self-service benefits without suffering the downside. […] The enterprise data marketplace returns us to the single-source vision that was once touted as the real benefit of Enterprise Data Warehouses.
  I’ve always thought of self-service as something of a cop-out. It tends to avoid data teams doing anything as arduous (and in some cases out of their comfort zone) as understanding what makes a business tick and getting to grips with the key questions that an organisation needs to answer in order to be successful [3]. With this messy and human-centric stuff out of the way, the data team can retreat into the comfort of nice orderly technological matters or friendly statistical models.

However, what Eckerson Group describe here is “an Amazon-like data marketplace”, which it seems to me has more of a chance of being successful. However, such a marketplace will only function if it embodies the same focus on key business questions and how they are answered. The paradigm within which such questions are framed may be different, more community based and more federated for example, but the questions will still be of paramount importance.

 
3.
 
New kinds of data governance organizations and practices emerge. Long-standing, command-and-control data governance practices fail to meet the challenges of big data and of data democratization. […]
  I think that this is overdue. To date Data Governance, where it is implemented at all, tends to be too police-like. I entirely agree that there are circumstances in which a Data Governance team or body needs to be able to put its foot down [4], but if all that Data Governance does is police-work, then it will ultimately fail. Instead good Data Governance needs to recognise that it is part of a much more fluid set of processes [5], whose aim is to add business value; to facilitate things being done as well as sometimes to stop the wrong path being taken.

 
Data Science

Data Science

1. Self-service and automated predictive analytics tools will cause some embarrassing mistakes. Business users now have the opportunity to use predictive models but they may not recognize the limits of the models themselves. […]
  I think this is a very valid point. As well as not understanding the limitations of some models [6], there is not widespread understanding of statistics in many areas of business. The concept of a central prediction surrounded by different outcomes with different probabilities is seldom seen in commercial circles [7]. In addition there seems to be a lack of appreciation of how big an impact the statistical methodology employed can have on what a model tells you [8].

 
Business Analytics

Business Analytics

1. Modern analytic platforms dominate BI. Business intelligence (BI) has evolved from purpose-built tools in the 1990s to BI suites in the 2000s to self-service visualization tools in the 2010s. Going forward, organizations will replace tools and suites with modern analytics platforms that support all modes of BI and all types of users […]
  Again, if it comes to fruition, such consolidation is overdue. Ideally the tools and technologies will blend into the background, good data-centric work is never about the technology and always about the content and the efforts involved in ensuring that it is relevant, accurate, consistent and timely [9]. Also information is often of most use when it is made available to people taking decisions at the precise point that they need it. This observation highlights the need for data to be integrated into systems and digital estates instead of simply being bound to an analytical hub.

 
So some food for thought from Wayne and his associates. The points they make (including those which I haven’t featured in this article) are serious and well-thought-out ones. It will be interesting to see how things have moved on by the beginning of 2018.
 


 
Notes

 
[1]
 
According to WikiQuotes, this has most famously been attributed to Danish theoretical physicist and father of Quantum Mechanics, Niels Bohr (in Teaching and Learning Elementary Social Studies (1970) by Arthur K. Ellis, p. 431). However it has also been ascribed to various humourists, the Danish poet Piet Hein: “det er svært at spå – især om fremtiden” and Danish cartoonist Storm P (Robert Storm Petersen). Perhaps it is best to say that a Dane made the comment and leave it at that.

Of course similar words have also been said to have been originated by Yogi Berra, but then that goes for most malapropisms you could care to mention. As Mr Berra himself says “I really didn’t say everything I said”.

 
[2]
 
See Trends in Business Intelligence. I have to say that several of these have come to pass, albeit sometimes in different ways to the ones I envisaged back then.
 
[3]
 
For a brief review of what is necessary see What should companies consider before investing in a Business Intelligence solution?
 
[4]
 
I wrote about the unpleasant side effects of a Change Programmes unfettered by appropriate Data Governance in Bumps in the Road, for example.
 
[5]
 
I describe such a set of processes in Data Management as part of the Data to Action Journey.
 
[6]
 
I explore some simmilar territory to that presented by Eckerson Group in Data Visualisation – A Scientific Treatment.
 
[7]
 
My favourite counterexample is provided by The Bank of England.

The Old Lady of Threadneedle Street is clearly not a witch
An inflation prediction from The Bank of England
Illustrating the fairly obvious fact that uncertainty increases in proportion to time from now.
 
[8]
 
This is an area I cover in An Inconvenient Truth.
 
[9]
 
I cover this assertion more fully in A bad workman blames his [Business Intelligence] tools.

 

 

20 Risks that Beset Data Programmes

Data Programme Risks

This article draws extensively on elements of the framework I use to both highlight and manage risks on data programmes. It has its genesis in work that I did early in 2012 (but draws on experience from the years before this). I have tried to refresh the content since then to reflect new thinking and new developments in the data arena.
 
 
Introduction

What are my motivations in publishing this article? Well I have both designed and implemented data and information programmes for over 17 years. In the majority of cases my programme work has been a case of executing a data strategy that I had developed myself [1]. While I have generally been able to steer these programmes to a successful outcome [2], there have been both bumps in the road and the occasional blind alley, requiring a U-turn and another direction to be selected. I have also been able to observe data programmes that ran in parallel to mine in different parts of various organisations. Finally, I have often been asked to come in and address issues with an existing data programme; something that appears to happens all too often. In short I have seen a lot of what works and what does not work. Having also run other types of programmes [3], I can also attest to data programmes being different. Failure to recognise this difference and thus approaching a data programme just like any other piece of work is one major cause of issues [4].

Before I get into my list proper, I wanted to pause to highlight a further couple of mistakes that I have seen made more than once; ones that are more generic in nature and thus don’t appear on my list of 20 risks. The first is to assume that the way that an organisation’s data is controlled and leveraged can be improved in a sustainable way by just kicking off a programme. What is more important in my experience is to establish a data function, which will then help with both the governance and exploitation of data. This data function, ideally sitting under a CDO, will of course want to initiate a range of projects, from improving data quality, to sprucing up reporting, to establishing better analytical capabilities. Best practice is to gather these activities into a programme, but things work best if the data function is established first, owns such a programme and actively partakes in its execution.

Data is for life...

As well as the issue of ongoing versus transitory accountability for data and the undoubted damage that poorly coordinated change programmes can inflict on data assets, another driver for first establishing a data function is that data needs will always be there. On the governance side, new systems will be built, bought and integrated, bringing new data challenges. On the analytical side, there will always be new questions to be answered, or old ones to be reevaluated. While data-centric efforts will generate many projects with start and end dates, the broad stream of data work continues on in a way that, for example, the implementation of a new B2C capability does not.

The second is to believe that you will add lasting value by outsourcing anything but targeted elements of your data programme. This is not to say that there is no place for such arrangements, which I have used myself many times, just that one of the lasting benefits of gimlet-like focus on data is the IP that is built up in the data team; IP that in my experience can be leveraged in many different and beneficial ways, becoming a major asset to the organisation [5].

Having made these introductory comments, let’s get on to the main list, which is divided into broadly chronological sections, relating to stages of the programme. The 10 risks which I believe are either most likely to materialise, or which will probably have the greatest impact are highlighted in pale yellow.
 
 
Up-front Risks

In the beginning

Risk Potential Impact
1. Not appreciating the size of work for both business and technology resources. Team is set up to fail – it is neither responsive enough to business needs (resulting in yet more “unofficial” repositories and additional fragmentation), nor is appropriate progress is made on its central objective.
2. Not establishing a dedicated team. The team never escapes from “the day job” or legacy / BAU issues; the past prevents the future from being built.
3. Not establishing a unified and collaborative team. Team is plagued by people pursuing their own agendas and trashing other people’s approaches, this consumes management time on non-value-added activities, leads to infighting and dissipates energy.
4. Staff lack skills and prior experience of data programmes. Time spent educating people rather than getting on with work. Sub-optimal functionality, slippages, later performance problems, higher ongoing support costs.
5. Not establishing an appropriate management / governance structure. Programme is not aligned with business needs, is not able to get necessary time with business users and cannot negotiate the inevitable obstacles that block its way. As a result, the programme gets “stuck in the mud”.
6. Failing to recognise ongoing local needs when centralising. Local business units do not have their pressing needs attended to and so lose confidence in the programme and instead go their own way. This leads to duplication of effort, increased costs and likely programme failure.

With risk 2 an analogy is trying to build a house in your spare time. If work can only be done in evenings or at the weekend, then this is going to take a long time. Nevertheless organisations too frequently expect data programmes to be absorbed in existing headcount and fitted in between people’s day jobs.

We can we extend the building metaphor to cover risk 4. If you are going to build your own house, it would help that you understand carpentry, plumbing, electricals and brick-laying and also have a grasp on the design fundamentals of how to create a structure that will withstand wind rain and snow. Too often companies embark on data programmes with staff who have a bit of a background in reporting or some related area and with managers who have never been involved in a data programme before. This is clearly a recipe for disaster.

Risk 5 reminds us that governance is also important – both to ensure that the programme stays focussed on business needs and also to help the team to negotiate the inevitable obstacles. This comes back to a successful data programme needing to be more than just a technology project.
 
 
Programme Execution Risks

Programme execution

Risk Potential Impact
7. Poor programme management. The programme loses direction. Time is expended on non-core issues. Milestones are missed. Expenditure escalates beyond budget.
8. Poor programme communication. Stakeholders have no idea what is happening [6]. The programme is viewed as out of touch / not pertinent to business issues. Steering does not understand what is being done or why. Prospective users have no interest in the programme.
9. Big Bang approach. Too much time goes by without any value being created. The eventual Big Bang is instead a damp squib. Large sums of money are spent without any benefits.
10. Endless search for the perfect solution / adherence to overly theoretical approaches. Programme constantly polishes rocks rather than delivering. Data models reflect academic purity rather than real-world performance and maintenance needs.
11. Lack of focus on interim deliverables. Business units become frustrated and seek alternative ways to meet their pressing needs. This leads to greater fragmentation and reputational damage to programme.
12. Insufficient time spent understanding source system data and how data is transformed as it flows between systems. Data capabilities that do not reflect business transactions with fidelity. There is inconsistency with reports directly drawn from source systems. Reconciliation issues arise (see next point).
13. Poor reconciliation. If analytical capabilities do not tell a consistent story, they will not be credible and will not be used.
14. Inadequate approach to data quality. Data facilities are seen as inaccurate because of poor data going into them. Data facilities do not match actual business events due to either massaging of data or exclusion of transactions with invalid attributes.

Probably the single most common cause of failure with data programmes – and indeed or ERP projects and acquisitions and any other type of complex endeavour – is risk 7, poor programme management. Not only do programme managers have to be competent, they should also be steeped in data matters and have a good grasp of the factors that differentiate data programmes from more general work.

Relating to the other highlighted risks in this section, the programme could spend two years doing work without surfacing anything much and then, when they do make their first delivery, this is a dismal failure. In the same vein, exclusive focus on strategic capabilities could prevent attention being paid to pressing business needs. At the other end of the spectrum, interim deliveries could spiral out of control, consuming all of the data team’s time and meaning that the strategic objective is never reached. A better approach is that targeted and prioritised interims help to address pressing business needs, but also inform more strategic work. From the other perspective, progress on strategic work-streams should be leveraged whenever it can be, perhaps in less functional manners that the eventual solution, but good enough and also helping to make sure that the final deliveries are spot on [7].
 
 
User Requirement Risks

Dear Santa

Risk Potential Impact
15. Not enough up-front focus on understanding key business decisions and the information necessary to take them. Analytic capabilities do not focus on what people want or need, leading to poor adoption and benefits not being achieved.
16. In the absence of the above, the programme becoming a technology-driven one. The business gets what IT or Change think that they need, not what is actually needed. There is more focus on shiny toys than on actionable information. The programme forgets the needs of its customers.
17. A focus on replicating what the organisation already has but in better tools, rather than creating what it wants. Beautiful data visualisations that tell you close to nothing. Long lists of existing reports with their fields cross-referenced to each other and a new solution that is essentially the lowest common denominator of what is already in place; a step backwards.

The other most common reasons for data programme failure is a lack of focus on user needs and insufficient time spent with business people to ensure that systems reflect their requirements [8].
 
 
Integration Risk

Lego

Risk Potential Impact
18. Lack of leverage of new data capabilities in front-end / digital systems. These systems are less effective. The data team is jealous about its capabilities being the only way that users should get information, rather than adopting a more pragmatic and value-added approach.

It is important for the data team to realise that their work, however important, is just one part of driving a business forward. Opportunities to improve other system facilities by the leverage of new data structures should be taken wherever possible.
 
 
Deployment Risks

Education

Risk Potential Impact
19. Education is an afterthought, training is technology- rather than business-focused. People neither understand the capabilities of new analytical tools, nor how to use them to derive business value. Again this leads to poor adoption and little return on investment.
20. Declaring success after initial implementation and training. Without continuing to water the immature roots, the plant withers. Early adoption rates fall and people return to how they were getting information pre-launch. This means that the benefits of the programme not realised.

Finally excellent technical work needs to be complemented with equal attention to business-focussed education, training using real-life scenarios and assiduous follow up. These things will make or break the programme [9].
 
 
Summary.

Of course I don’t claim that the above list is exhaustive. You could successfully mitigate all of the above risks on your data programme, but still get sunk by some other unforeseen problem arising. There is a need to be flexible and to adapt to both events and how your organisation operates; there are no guarantees and no foolproof recipes for success [10].

My recommendation to data professionals is to develop your own approach to risk management based on your own experience, your own style and the culture within which you are operating. If just a few of the items on my list of risks can be usefully amalgamated into this, then I will feel that this article has served its purpose. If you are embarking on a data programme, maybe your first one, then be warned that these are hard and your reserves of perseverance will be tested. I’d suggest leveraging whatever tools you can find in trying to forge ahead.

It is also maybe worth noting that, somewhat contrary to my point that data programmes are different, a few of the risks that I highlight above could be tweaked to apply to more general programmes as well. Hopefully the things that I have learnt over the last couple of decades of running data programmes will be something that can be of assistance to you in your own work.
 


 
Notes

 
[1]
 
For my thoughts on developing data (or interchangeably) information strategies see:

  1. Forming an Information Strategy: Part I – General Strategy
  2. Forming an Information Strategy: Part II – Situational Analysis and
  3. Forming an Information Strategy: Part III – Completing the Strategy

or the CliffsNotes versions of these on LinkedIn:

  1. Information Strategy: 1) General Strategy
  2. Information Strategy: 2) Situational Analysis and
  3. Information Strategy: 3) Completing the Strategy
 
[2]
 
Indeed sometimes an award-winning one.
 
[3]
 
An abridged list would include:

  • ERP design, development and implementation
  • ERP selection and implementation
  • CRM design, development and implementation
  • CRM selection and implementation
  • Integration of acquired companies
  • Outsourcing of systems maintenance and support
 
[4]
 
For an examination of this area you can start with A more appropriate metaphor for Business Intelligence projects. While written back in 2008-9 the content of this article is as pertinent today as it was back then.
 
[5]
 
I cover this area in greater detail in Is outsourcing business intelligence a good idea?
 
[6]
 
Stakeholder

Probably a bad idea to make this stakeholder unhappy (see also Themes from a Chief Data Officer Forum – the 180 day perspective, note [3]).

 
[7]
 
See Vision vs Pragmatism, Holistic vs Incremental approaches to BI and Tactical Meandering for further background on this area.
 
[8]
 
This area is treated in the strategy articles appearing in note [1] above. In addition, some potential approaches to elements of effective requirements gathering are presented in Scaling-up Performance Management and Developing an international BI strategy.
 
[9]
 
Of pertinence here is my trilogy on the cultural transformation aspects of information programmes:

  1. Marketing Change
  2. Education and cultural transformation
  3. Sustaining Cultural Change
 
[10]
 
Something I stress forcibly in Recipes for Success?