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

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

— W.J.Linton (after Aesop)

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

Prelude…

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

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

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

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

• Camelot – who run the UK National Lottery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…and Fugue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Establishing a regular Data Audit.

4. Regular Data Management activities.

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

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

7. Running a Data Governance committee and related activities.

8. Creating and managing a Data Science capability.

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

10. Responding to new Data regulations.

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

12. Supporting Data Services to aid systems integration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coda

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

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

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

Notes

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

# More Definitions in the Data and Analytics Dictionary

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

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

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

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

# Data Science Challenges – It’s Deja Vu all over again!

The rather famous tautology, “It’s déjà vu all over again”, has of course been ascribed to that darling of malapropisms, baseball catcher Yogi Berra [1]. The phrase came to mind for me today when coming across the following exhibit:

© Business Over Broadway (2018). Based on Kaggle’s State of Data Science Survey 2017 (Sample size: 10,153).

The text in the above exhibit is not that clear [2], so here are the 20 top challenges [3] faced by those running Data Science teams in human-readable form:

 # Challenge Cited by 1 Dirty Data 35.9% 2 Lack of Data Science talent in the organization 30.2% 3 Company politics / Lack of management/financial support for a Data Science team 27.0% 4 The lack of a clear question to be answering or a clear direction to go with available data 22.1% 5 Unavailability of/difficult access to data 22.0% 6 Data Science results not used by business decision makers 17.7% 7 Explaining Data Science to others 16.0% 8 Privacy issues 14.4% 9 Lack of significant domain expert input 14.2% 10 Organization is small and cannot afford a Data Science team 13.0% 11 Team using multiple ad hoc development environments such as Python/R/Java etc. 12.7% 12 Limitations of tools 12.0% 13 Need to coordinate with IT 11.8% 14 Maintaining responsible expectations about the potential impact of Data Science projects 11.5% 15 Inability to integrate findings into organization’s decision-making process 9.8% 16 Lack of funds to buy useful datasets from external sources 9.6% 17 Difficulties in deployment/scoring 8.6% 18 Scaling Data Science solution up to full database 8.4% 19 Limitations in the state of the art in machine learning 7.7% 20 Did not instrument data useful for scientific analysis and decision-making 6.5% 21 I prefer not to say 4.8% 22 Other 2.9%

The table above is a transcription of a transcription, so it would be remarkable if no Data Quality issues had crept in, however let’s assume that the figures are robust enough for our purposes. Of course the people surveyed will have reported multiple issues, so the percentages above are not additive. Nevertheless there are some very obvious comments to be made (some of the above items are pertinent to more than one of the points I would like to make):

• Data Quality / Availability remain major issues(1, 5, and 8)

It is indeed true that Machine Learning can be quite good at dealing with some types or bad or missing data. But no technology or approach is going to be able to paper over all of the cracks if your data is essentially incomplete and of poor quality. This point (together with some others below) speaks to the need to not approach Data Science on a stand-alone basis, but as part of a more holistic approach to data matters [4].

• The Human angle and a focus on Culture are imperative(3, 6, 7, 14 and 15)

Findings are one thing; using these to take action is quite another. At the end of the day, most ventures are successful or fail because of people; the people conducting the venture, the people receiving its intended benefits and so on. Ignore this dimension of data work (or any type of work) at your peril [5].

While in some circumstances the data can indeed “speak for itself”, it makes a lot more sense for Data Scientists to partner with business colleagues to both get direction and to help ensure that their findings lead to action [6].

• Tools & Technology typically Trumped(11, 12 and 18)

These first appear outside of the Top 10 (and 11 is a bit dubious to include here – it relates more to a proliferation of tools than to issues with any of them). I would never say that tools and technology are unimportant, but they are typically much less important than other considerations [7].

The overriding point is of course that – much as I noted out recently in Convergent Evolution – there is little new under the Sun. A survey of Business Intelligence / Data Warehousing professionals back in 2010 would have generated something very like the list above. A survey of EIS [8] professionals back in 2000 would have done the same.

The important things to do – regardless of the technologies and approaches employed – are to:

1. Understand what questions are key to the running of an organisation [9]

2. Determine what data is available to support decisions in these key areas

3. Ensure that the data is in a “good enough” state, appropriately consolidated / made consistent, augmented / corrected by any useful external data and made available to the right people in a timely manner

4. Focus on the human aspects of acting on what data is telling us and how to use data outputs to drive positive actions

Here too, little is new under the Sun. I have been referring to essentially these same four pillars of good practice since the mid 2000s. Some of our technological advances since then have been amazing. The prospect of leveraging the power of both Data Science and Artificial Intelligence in a business context is very exciting. But to truly succeed with these newer approaches, it helps to recall the eternal verities that have always underpinned good data-centric work [10]. The survey above makes this point crystal clear.

A final corollary to this observation is something I covered in A truth universally acknowledged…. The replies to the Kaggle survey highlight the fact that, much like the conductor of an orchestra does not need to be able to play the violin to a virtuoso level, people leading Data Science teams (and broader Data Functions) need a set of rounded skills, ones honed to address the types of issues appearing in the exhibits above. The skill-set that makes for an excellent Data Scientist does not necessarily help so much with many of the less technical issues that will determine the success or failure of Data Science teams.

Notes

 [1] Other Yogi-isms included, “Always go to other people’s funerals; otherwise they won’t go to yours”, “You can observe a lot by watching” and “If you can’t imitate him, don’t copy him”. [2] A Data Visualisation challenge to include that much text I realise. I think I might have been tempted to come up with pithier categories to aid legibility. [3] Ignoring “I prefer not to say” and “Other”. [4] As laid out in my many articles about the importance of Cultural Transformation. [5] See: Building Momentum – How to begin becoming a Data-driven Organisation. [6] I make precisely this point in my recent interview for Venturi Voice (starting just after 31:38). [7] I make this point most forcibly back in: A bad workman blames his [Business Intelligence] tools. The technology may be different, but the learnings are just as relevant today. [8] Executive Information Systems for those of tender years. [9] Machine learning techniques can clearly help here, but only if in concert with dialogue with people actually on the front-line and leading business areas. [10] In your search for such eternal verities, you could do much worse than starting with: 20 Risks that Beset Data Programmes.

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

# Latest Interviews / Podcasts

The interviews that I conduct with leaders in their fields as part of my “In-depth” series have hopefully brought a new and interesting aspect to this site. However, often the boot is on the other foot and I am the person being interviewed about my experience and expertise in the data field and related matters [1]. Maybe interviewing other people helps me when I am in turn interviewed, maybe it’s the other way round. Whatever the case, I enjoyed recording the two conversations appearing below (thanks to the interviewers in both cases) and hope that the content is of interest to readers.

In both instances a link to the site originally publishing the interview is followed by a locally hosted version of the audio track and then a download option. I’d encourage readers to explore the other excellent interviews contained on both sites.

Enterprise Management 360° Podcast – 31st July 2018

Venturi Voice 3650° Podcast – 22nd April 2018

If you would like to interview me for your site or periodical, of if you are just interested in further exploring some of the themes I discuss in these two interviews, then please feel free to get in contact.

Notes

 [1] A list of other video interviews and podcasts I have taken part in can be viewed in the Media section of this site.

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

# Convergent Evolution

No this article has not escaped from my Maths & Science section, it is actually about data matters. But first of all, channeling Jennifer Aniston [1], “here comes the Science bit – concentrate”.

Shared Shapes

The Theory of Common Descent holds that any two organisms, extant or extinct, will have a common ancestor if you roll the clock back far enough. For example, each of fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals had a common ancestor over 500 million years ago. As shown below, the current organism which is most like this common ancestor is the Lancelet [2].

To bring things closer to home, each of the Great Apes (Orangutans, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Humans) had a common ancestor around 13 million years ago.

So far so simple. As one would expect, animals sharing a recent common ancestor would share many attributes with both it and each other.

Convergent Evolution refers to something else. It describes where two organisms independently evolve very similar attributes that were not features of their most recent common ancestor. Thus these features are not inherited, instead evolutionary pressure has led to the same attributes developing twice. An example is probably simpler to understand.

The image at the start of this article is of an Ichthyosaur (top) and Dolphin. It is striking how similar their body shapes are. They also share other characteristics such as live birth of young, tail first. The last Ichthyosaur died around 66 million years ago alongside many other archosaurs, notably the Dinosaurs [3]. Dolphins are happily still with us, but the first toothed whale (not a Dolphin, but probably an ancestor of them) appeared around 30 million years ago. The ancestors of the modern Bottlenose Dolphins appeared a mere 5 million years ago. Thus there is tremendous gap of time between the last Ichthyosaur and the proto-Dolphins. Ichthyosaurs are reptiles, they were covered in small scales [4]. Dolphins are mammals and covered in skin not massively different to our own. The most recent common ancestor of Ichthyosaurs and Dolphins probably lived around quarter of a billion years ago and looked like neither of them. So the shape and other attributes of Ichthyosaurs do not come from a common ancestor, they have developed independently (and millions of years apart) as adaptations to similar lifestyles as marine hunters. This is the essence of Convergent Evolution.

That was the Science, here comes the Technology…

A Brief Hydrology of Data Lakes

From 2000 to 2015, I had some success [5] with designing and implementing Data Warehouse architectures much like the following:

As a lot of my work then was in Insurance or related fields, the Analytical Repositories tended to be Actuarial Databases and / or Exposure Management Databases, developed in collaboration with such teams. Even back then, these were used for activities such as Analytics, Dashboards, Statistical Modelling, Data Mining and Advanced Visualisation.

Overlapping with the above, from around 2012, I began to get involved in also designing and implementing Big Data Architectures; initially for narrow purposes and later Data Lakes spanning entire enterprises. Of course some architectures featured both paradigms as well.

One of the early promises of a Data Lake approach was that – once all relevant data had been ingested – this would be directly leveraged by Data Scientists to derive insight.

Over time, it became clear that it would be useful to also have some merged / conformed and cleansed data structures in the Data Lake. Once the output of Data Science began to be used to support business decisions, a need arose to consider how it could be audited and both data privacy and information security considerations also came to the fore.

Next, rather than just being the province of Data Scientists, there were moves to use Data Lakes to support general Data Discovery and even business Reporting and Analytics as well. This required additional investments in metadata.

The types of issues with Data Lake adoption that I highlighted in Draining the Swamp earlier this year also led to the advent of techniques such as Data Curation [6]. In parallel, concerns about expensive Data Science resource spending 80% of their time in Data Wrangling [7] led to the creation of a new role, that of Data Engineer. These people take on much of the heavy lifting of consolidating, fixing and enriching datasets, allowing the Data Scientists to focus on Statistical Analysis, Data Mining and Machine Learning.

All of which leads to a modified Big Data / Data Lake architecture, embodying people and processes as well as technology and looking something like the exhibit above.

This is where the observant reader will see the concept of Convergent Evolution playing out in the data arena as well as the Natural World.

In Closing

Lest it be thought that I am saying that Data Warehouses belong to a bygone era, it is probably worth noting that the archosaurs, Ichthyosaurs included, dominated the Earth for orders of magnitude longer that the mammals and were only dethroned by an asymmetric external shock, not any flaw their own finely honed characteristics.

Also, to be crystal clear, much as while there are similarities between Ichthyosaurs and Dolphins there are also clear differences, the same applies to Data Warehouse and Data Lake architectures. When you get into the details, differences between Data Lakes and Data Warehouses do emerge; there are capabilities that each has that are not features of the other. What is undoubtedly true however is that the same procedural and operational considerations that played a part in making some Warehouses seem unwieldy and unresponsive are also beginning to have the same impact on Data Lakes.

If you are in the business of turning raw data into actionable information, then there are inevitably considerations that will apply to any technological solution. The key lesson is that shape of your architecture is going to be pretty similar, regardless of the technical underpinnings.

Notes

 [1] The two of us are constantly mistaken for one another. [2] To be clear the common ancestor was not a Lancelet, rather Lancelets sit on the branch closest to this common ancestor. [3] Ichthyosaurs are not Dinosaurs, but a different branch of ancient reptiles. [4] This is actually a matter of debate in paleontological circles, but recent evidence suggests small scales. [5] See: [6] A term that is unaccountably missing from The Data & Analytics Dictionary – something to add to the next release. UPDATE: Now remedied here. [7] Ditto. UPDATE: Now remedied here

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

# Version 2 of The Anatomy of a Data Function

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# Fact-based Decision-making

This article is about facts. Facts are sometimes less solid than we would like to think; sometimes they are downright malleable. To illustrate, consider the fact that in 98 episodes of Dragnet, Sergeant Joe Friday never uttered the words “Just the facts Ma’am”, though he did often employ the variant alluded to in the image above [1]. Equally, Rick never said “Play it again Sam” in Casablanca [2] and St. Paul never suggested that “money is the root of all evil” [3]. As Michael Caine never said in any film, “not a lot of people know that” [4].

 Up-front Acknowledgements These normally appear at the end of an article, but it seemed to make sense to start with them in this case: Recently I published Building Momentum – How to begin becoming a Data-driven Organisation. In response to this, one of my associates, Olaf Penne, asked me about my thoughts on fact-base decision-making. This piece was prompted by both Olaf’s question and a recent article by my friend Neil Raden on his Silicon Angle blog, Performance management: Can you really manage what you measure? Thanks to both Olaf and Neil for the inspiration.

Fact-based decision making. It sounds good doesn’t it? Especially if you consider the alternatives: going on gut feel, doing what you did last time, guessing, not taking a decision at all. However – as is often the case with issues I deal with on this blog – fact-based decision-making is easier to say than it is to achieve. Here I will look to cover some of the obstacles and suggest a potential way to navigate round them. Let’s start however with some definitions.

 Fact NOUN A thing that is known or proved to be true. (Oxford Dictionaries) Decision NOUN A conclusion or resolution reached after consideration. (Oxford Dictionaries)

So one can infer that fact-based decision-making is the process of reaching a conclusion based on consideration of things that are known to be true. Again, it sounds great doesn’t it? It seems that all you have to do is to find things that are true. How hard can that be? Well actually quite hard as it happens. Let’s cover what can go wrong (note: this section is not intended to be exhaustive, links are provided to more in-depth articles where appropriate):

Accuracy of Data that is captured

A number of factors can play into the accuracy of data capture. Some systems (even in 2018) can still make it harder to capture good data than to ram in bad. Often an issue may also be a lack of master data definitions, so that similar data is labelled differently in different systems.

A more pernicious problem is combinatorial data accuracy, two data items are both valid, but not in combination with each other. However, often the biggest stumbling block is a human one, getting people to buy in to the idea that the care and attention they pay to data capture will pay dividends later in the process.

These and other areas are covered in greater detail in an older article, Using BI to drive improvements in data quality.

Honesty of Data that is captured

Data may be perfectly valid, but still not represent reality. Here I’ll let Neil Raden point out the central issue in his customary style:

People find the most ingenious ways to distort measurement systems to generate the numbers that are desired, not only NOT providing the desired behaviors, but often becoming more dysfunctional through the effort.

[…] voluntary compliance to the [US] tax code encourages a national obsession with “loopholes”, and what salesman hasn’t “sandbagged” a few deals for next quarter after she has met her quota for the current one?

Where there is a reward to be gained or a punishment to be avoided, by hitting certain numbers in a certain way, the creativeness of humans often comes to the fore. It is hard to account for such tweaking in measurement systems.

Timing issues with Data

Timing is often problematic. For example, a transaction completed near the end of a period gets recorded in the next period instead, one early in a new period goes into the prior period, which is still open. There is also (as referenced by Neil in his comments above) the delayed booking of transactions in order to – with the nicest possible description – smooth revenues. It is not just hypothetical salespeople who do this of course. Entire organisations can make smoothing adjustments to their figures before publishing and deferral or expedition of obligations and earnings has become something of an art form in accounting circles. While no doubt most of this tweaking is done with the best intentions, it can compromise the fact-based approach that we are aiming for.

Reliability with which Data is moved around and consolidated

In our modern architectures, replete with web-services, APIs, cloud-based components and the quasi-instantaneous transmission of new transactions, it is perhaps not surprising that occasionally some data gets lost in translation [5] along the way. That is before data starts to be Sqooped up into Data Lakes, or other such Data Repositories, and then otherwise manipulated in order to derive insight or provide regular information. All of these are processes which can introduce their own errors. Suffice it to say that transmission, collation and manipulation of data can all reduce its accuracy.

Again see Using BI to drive improvements in data quality for further details.

Pertinence and fidelity of metrics developed from Data

Here we get past issues with data itself (or how it is handled and moved around) and instead consider how it is used. Metrics are seldom reliant on just one data element, but are often rather combinations. The different elements might come in because a given metric is arithmetical in nature, e.g.

$\text{Metric X} = \dfrac{\text{Data Item A}+\text{Data Item B}}{\text{Data Item C}}$

Choices are made as to how to construct such compound metrics and how to relate them to actual business outcomes. For example:

$\text{New Biz Growth} = \dfrac{(\text{Sales CYTD}-\text{Repeat CYTD})-(\text{Sales PYTD}-\text{Repeat PYTD})}{(\text{Sales PYTD}-\text{Repeat PYTD})}$

Is this a good way to define New Business Growth? Are there any weaknesses in this definition, for example is it sensitive to any glitches in – say – the tagging of Repeat Business? Do we need to take account of pricing changes between Repeat Business this year and last year? Is New Business Growth something that is even worth tracking; what will we do as a result of understanding this?

The above is a somewhat simple metric, in a section of Using historical data to justify BI investments – Part I, I cover some actual Insurance industry metrics that build on each other and are a little more convoluted. The same article also considers how to – amongst other things – match revenue and outgoings when the latter are spread over time. There are often compromises to be made in defining metrics. Some of these are based on the data available. Some relate to inherent issues with what is being measured. In other cases, a metric may be a best approximation to some indication of business health; a proxy used because that indication is not directly measurable itself. In the last case, staff turnover may be a proxy for staff morale, but it does not directly measure how employees are feeling (a competitor might be poaching otherwise happy staff for example).

Robustness of extrapolations made from Data

I have used the above image before in these pages [6]. The situation it describes may seem farcical, but it is actually not too far away from some extrapolations I have seen in a business context. For example, a prediction of full-year sales may consist of this year’s figures for the first three quarters supplemented by prior year sales for the final quarter. While our metric may be better than nothing, there are some potential distortions related to such an approach:

1. Repeat business may have fallen into Q4 last year, but was processed in Q3 this year. This shift in timing would lead to such business being double-counted in our year end estimate.

2. Taking point 1 to one side, sales may be growing or contracting compared to the previous year. Using Q4 prior year as is would not reflect this.

3. It is entirely feasible that some market event occurs this year ( for example the entrance or exit of a competitor, or the launch of a new competitor product) which would render prior year figures a poor guide.

Of course all of the above can be adjusted for, but such adjustments would be reliant on human judgement, making any projections similarly reliant on people’s opinions (which as Neil points out may be influenced, conciously or unconsciously, by self-interest). Where sales are based on conversions of prospects, the quantum of prospects might be a more useful predictor of Q4 sales. However here a historical conversion rate would need to be calculated (or conversion probabilities allocated by the salespeople involved) and we are back into essentially the same issues as catalogued above.

I explore some similar themes in a section of Data Visualisation – A Scientific Treatment

Integrity of statistical estimates based on Data

Having spent 18 years working in various parts of the Insurance industry, statistical estimates being part of the standard set of metrics is pretty familiar to me [7]. However such estimates appear in a number of industries, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly. A clear parallel would be credit risk in Retail Banking, but something as simple as an estimate of potentially delinquent debtors is an inherently statistical figure (albeit one that may not depend on the output of a statistical model).

The thing with statistical estimates is that they are never a single figure but a range. A model may for example spit out a figure like £12.4 million ± £0.5 million. Let’s unpack this.

Well the output of the model will probably be something analogous to the above image. Here a distribution has been fitted to the business event being modelled. The central point of this (the one most likely to occur according to the model) is £12.4 million. The model is not saying that £12.4 million is the answer, it is saying it is the central point of a range of potential figures. We typically next select a symmetrical range above and below the central figure such that we cover a high proportion of the possible outcomes for the figure being modelled; 95% of them is typical [8]. In the above example, the range extends plus £0. 5 million above £12.4 million and £0.5 million below it (hence the ± sign).

Of course the problem is then that Financial Reports (or indeed most Management Reports) are not set up to cope with plus or minus figures, so typically one of £12.4 million (the central prediction) or £11.9 million (the most conservative estimate [9]) is used. The fact that the number itself is uncertain can get lost along the way. By the time that people who need to take decisions based on such information are in the loop, the inherent uncertainty of the prediction may have disappeared. This can be problematic. Suppose a real result of £12.4 million sees an organisation breaking even, but one of £11.9 million sees a small loss being recorded. This could have quite an influence on what course of action managers adopt [10]; are they relaxed, or concerned?

Beyond the above, it is not exactly unheard of for statistical models to have glitches, sometimes quite big glitches [11].

This segment could easily expand into a series of articles itself. Hopefully I have covered enough to highlight that there may be some challenges in this area.

And so what?

Even if we somehow avoid all of the above pitfalls, there remains one booby-trap that is likely to snare us, absent the necessary diligence. This was alluded to in the section about the definition of metrics:

Is New Business Growth something that is even worth tracking; what will we do as a result of understanding this?

Unless a reported figure, or output of a model, leads to action being taken, it is essentially useless. Facts that never lead to anyone doing anything are like lists learnt by rote at school and regurgitated on demand parrot-fashion; they demonstrate the mechanism of memory, but not that of understanding. As Neil puts it in his article:

[…] technology is never a solution to social problems, and interactions between human beings are inherently social. This is why performance management is a very complex discipline, not just the implementation of dashboard or scorecard technology.

How to Measure the Unmeasurable

Our dream of fact-based decision-making seems to be crumbling to dust. Regular facts are subject to data quality issues, or manipulation by creative humans. As data is moved from system to system and repository to repository, the facts can sometimes acquire an “alt-” prefix. Timing issues and the design of metrics can also erode accuracy. Then there are many perils and pitfalls associated with simple extrapolation and less simple statistical models. Finally, any fact that manages to emerge from this gantlet [12] unscathed may then be totally ignored by those whose actions it is meant to guide. What can be done?

As happens elsewhere on this site, let me turn to another field for inspiration. Not for the first time, let’s consider what Science can teach us about dealing with such issues with facts. In a recent article [13] in my Maths & Science section, I examined the nature of Scientific Theory and – in particular – explored the imprecision inherent in the Scientific Method. Here is some of what I wrote:

It is part of the nature of scientific theories that (unlike their Mathematical namesakes) they are not “true” and indeed do not seek to be “true”. They are models that seek to describe reality, but which often fall short of this aim in certain circumstances. General Relativity matches observed facts to a greater degree than Newtonian Gravity, but this does not mean that General Relativity is “true”, there may be some other, more refined, theory that explains everything that General Relativity does, but which goes on to explain things that it does not. This new theory may match reality in cases where General Relativity does not. This is the essence of the Scientific Method, never satisfied, always seeking to expand or improve existing thought.

I think that the Scientific Method that has served humanity so well over the centuries is applicable to our business dilemma. In the same way that a Scientific Theory is never “true”, but instead useful for explaining observations and predicting the unobserved, business metrics should be judged less on their veracity (though it would be nice if they bore some relation to reality) and instead on how often they lead to the right action being taken and the wrong action being avoided. This is an argument for metrics to be simple to understand and tied to how decision-makers actually think, rather than some other more abstruse and theoretical definition.

A proxy metric is fine, so long as it yields the right result (and the right behaviour) more often than not. A metric with dubious data quality is still useful if it points in the right direction; if the compass needle is no more than a few degrees out. While of course steps that improve the accuracy of metrics are valuable and should be undertaken where cost-effective, at least equal attention should be paid to ensuring that – when the metric has been accessed and digested – something happens as a result. This latter goal is a long way from the arcana of data lineage and metric definition, it is instead the province of human psychology; something that the accomploished data professional should be adept at influencing.

I have touched on how to positively modify human behaviour in these pages a number of times before [14]. It is a subject that I will be coming back to again in coming months, so please watch this space.

Notes

[1]

According to Snopes, the phrase arose from a spoof of the series.

[2]

The two pertinent exchanges were instead:

 Ilsa: Play it once, Sam. For old times’ sake. Sam: I don’t know what you mean, Miss Ilsa. Ilsa: Play it, Sam. Play “As Time Goes By” Sam: Oh, I can’t remember it, Miss Ilsa. I’m a little rusty on it. Ilsa: I’ll hum it for you. Da-dy-da-dy-da-dum, da-dy-da-dee-da-dum… Ilsa: Sing it, Sam.

and

 Rick: You know what I want to hear. Sam: No, I don’t. Rick: You played it for her, you can play it for me! Sam: Well, I don’t think I can remember… Rick: If she can stand it, I can! Play it!

[3]

Though he, or whoever may have written the first epistle to Timothy, might have condemned the “love of money”.

[4]

The origin of this was a Peter Sellers interview in which he impersonated Caine.

[5]

One of my Top Ten films.

[6]

Especially for all Business Analytics professionals out there (2009).

[7]

See in particular my trilogy:

[8]

Without getting into too many details, what you are typically doing is stating that there is a less than 5% chance that the measurements forming model input match the distribution due to a fluke; but this is not meant to be a primer on null hypotheses.

[9]

Of course, depending on context, £12.9 million could instead be the most conservative estimate.

[10]

This happens a lot in election polling. Candidate A may be estimated to be 3 points ahead of Candidate B, but with an error margin of 5 points, it should be no real surprise when Candidate B wins the ballot.

[11]

Try googling Nobel Laureates Myron Scholes and Robert Merton and then look for references to Long-term Capital Management.

[12]

Yes I meant “gantlet” that is the word in the original phrase, not “gauntlet” and so connections with gloves are wide of the mark.

[13]

Finches, Feathers and Apples (2018).

[14]

For example:

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

# In-depth with CDO Jo Coutuer

Part of the In-depth series of interviews

 Today’s guest on In-depth is Jo Coutuer, Chief Data Officer and Member of the Executive Committee of BNP Paribas Fortis, a leading Belgian bank. Given the importance of the CDO role in Financial Services, I am very happy that Jo has managed to spare us some of his valuable time to talk.
 Jo, you have had an interesting career in a variety of organisations from consultancies to start-ups, from government to major companies. Can you give readers a pen-picture of the journey that has taken you to your current role? For me, the variety of contexts has been the most rewarding. I started in an industry that has now sharply declined in Europe (Telco Manufacturing), continued in the consulting world of ERP tools, switched into a very interesting job for the government, became an entrepreneur and co-created a data company for 13 years, merged that data company into a big 4 consultancy and finally decided to apply my life’s learnings to the fascinating industry of banking. The most remarkable aspect of my career is the fact that my current role and the attention to data that goes with it, did not exist when I started my career. It illustrates how young people today can also build a future, without really knowing what lies ahead. All it takes is the mental flexibility to switch contexts when it is needed.
 Do you collaborate with other Executives in the data arena, or is the CDO primus inter pares when it comes to data matters? I would not speak of a hierarchical order when it comes to data. It helps to distinguish three identities of a Data department. The first one is the identity of the “Governor”. In that identity, peers accept that the CDO translates external duties into internal best practices, as long as this happens in a co-creation mode. We have established a “College of Data Managers”, who are 13 senior managers, representing each a specific “data perimeter”, which in its turn rather well maps to our fields of business or our internal functions. These senior managers intimately link the Data activities to the day-to-day business functions and their respective executives. A second identity is that of the “Expert”. In that identity, we offer expertise in fields of data integration, data warehousing, reporting, visualisation, data science, … It means that I see my fellow executives as clients and partners and the Data department helps them achieve their business objectives. Mentally (and sometimes practically), we measure up to external professional services or IT companies. A third identity is that of the “Integrator”. As an integrator, we actively make the link between the business of today, the technological and data potential of today and the business of tomorrow. We actively try to question existing practices and we introduce new concepts for a variety of business applications. And although we are more driving in this role than we are in the role of the “Expert”, we still are fully at the service of our clients.
 More generally, how do you see the CDO role changing in coming years, what would 2020’s CDO be doing? Will we even need CDOs in 2020? Ahah! One of the most frequently asked questions on CDO related social media! If previous two years are any predictor of the future, I would say that the CDO of 2020 is one who has solidly matured the governance aspects of Data, just like the CFO and CRO have done that for financial management or risk management. Let’s say that Data has become “routine”. At the same time, the 2020 CDO will need to offer to his peers, the technical and expert capabilities that are data centric and essential to running a digital business. And on top of that, I believe that 2020 will be the timeframe in which data valorisation will become an active topic. I explicitly do not use the word “monetisation” because we currently associate data to often with “selling data for advertising purposes”. In our industry, PSD2 [1] will define our duties to be able to exchange data with third party service providers, at the explicit request of our clients. From that new reality, an API-driven ecosystem will surface in which data will be actively valorised, to the direct service of our clients, not to the indirect service of our marketing departments. The 2020 CDO will be instrumental in shaping his or her company’s ecosystem to make sure this happens in a well governed, trusted and safe way. Clients will seek that reassurance and will reward companies who take data management seriously.
 Of course, senior roles tend to exist because they add value to their organisations, what do you feel is the value that a CDO brings to the table? I have already mentioned the CDO’s challenge to be schizophrenic ally split between his or her various identities. But it is exactly that breadth of scope that can add value. The CDO should be an “executive integrator”. He can employ “governors” and “experts”, but his or her role in the peer team of executives is to represent the transversality of data’s nature. Data “flows”, data “unites”. More than it is “oil”, data is “water”. It flows through the company’s ecosystem and it nourishes the business and the future business potential. As such, the CDO needs to keep the water clean and make sure it gets pumped across the organisation, so that others can benefit from the nutrients it. And while doing so, the CDO has a duty to add nutrients to the water, in the form of analytical or artificial intelligence induced insights.
 Focussing on Analytics, I know you have written about how to build the ideal Analytics team and have mentioned that “purple people” are the key. Can you explain more about this? Purple people are people that integrate the skills of “red” people and “blue” people. Red people bring the scientific data methodologies to the table. Blue people bring the solid frameworks of the business. Data people as individuals and a Data department as an entity, must have as a mission to be “purple” and to actively bridge the gap between the fast growing set of data technologies and methodologies on the one hand and the rapidly evolving and transforming business challenges on the other hand. And of course, if you like Prince [2] as a musician, that can be an asset too!
 In my discussions with other CDOs [3] and indeed in my own experience, it seems that teamwork is crucial for a CDO. Of course, this is important for many senior roles, but it does seem central to what a CDO does. My perspective is that both a CDO’s own team and the virtual teams that he or she forms with colleagues are going to have a big say in whether things go well or not. What are your views on this topic? You are absolutely right. A CDO or data function cannot exist in isolation. At some times, transversality feels a burden because it imposes a daily attention to stakeholders. However, in reality, it’s exactly the transversal effect that can generate the added value to an organisation. At the end of the day, the integration aspects between departments and people will generate positive side effects, above and beyond the techniques of data management.
 Artificial Intelligence in its various guises has been the topic of conversation recently. This is something with strong linkage to the data field. Obviously without divulging any commercial secrets, what role do you see AI playing in banking going forwards? What about in our lives in general? It’s funny that AI is being discovered as a new topic. I remember writing my Master thesis on the topic a long time ago. Of course, things have evolved since the 90s, with a storage and computing capacity that is approximately 50,000 times stronger for the same price point. This capacity explosion, combined with the connectivity of the internet and the cloud, combined with the increased awareness that data and algorithms have become central elements in a many business strategies, has fundamentally re-calibrated the potential of AI. In banking, AI and Analytics will soon help clients understand their finances better, will help them to take better and faster decisions, will generate a better (less friction) client experience for “the easy stuff” and it will allow the banks to put humans on “the hard stuff” or on those interactions with their clients that require true human interaction. Behind the scenes, Analytics and AI are already helping to prevent fraud, monitoring suspicious transactions to detect crime, money laundering and fraud. And even deeper inside the mechanics of a bank, Analytics and AI are helping prevent cyber-crimes and are monitoring the stability of the technological platforms onto which our modern financial and societal system is built. I am convinced that the societal role of banks will continue to exists, despite innovative peer-to-peer or blockchain driven schemes. As such, Analytics and AI will contribute to society as a whole, through their contribution to a reliable and stable financial services system.
 With GDPR [4] coming into force only a couple of months ago, the subject of customer data and how it is used is a topical one. Taking BNP Paribas Fortis to one side, what are your thoughts on the balance between data privacy and the “free” services that we all pay for by allowing our data to be sold? I believe that GDPR is both important legislation and brings benefits to customers. First of all, we have good historical reasons to care about our privacy. In times of societal crises or wars, it is the first weapon that is used against society and its citizens. So we should care for it deeply. Second, being in an industry for which “trust” is the most essential element of identity, protecting and respecting the data and the privacy of clients is a natural reflex. And putting the banking question aside for a moment, we should continue to educate aggressively about the fact that services never come for free. As long as consumers are well informed that they pay for their convenience with their data, there is no fundamental concern. But because there is still no real “paid” economy surfacing, the consumer does not really have a choice between “pay-for-service” or “give-data-for-service”. I believe that the market potential for paid services, that guarantee non-exploitation of personal data, is quietly growing. And when it finally appears, consumers will start making choices. Personally, I admit to having moved from being on all possible digital channels and tools, towards being much more selective. And I must admit that digital life with a privacy aware mind is still possible and still fun.
 It seems to me that a key capability of a CDO is as an influencer. Influence can take many shapes, from being an acknowledged expert in an area, to the softer skills of being someone that others can talk to openly. Do you agree about this observation? If so, how do you seek to be an influencer? It’s a thin line to walk and it depends on the type of CDO that you are and the mandate that you have. If you have a mandate to do “governance only”, then you should have the confidence of delivering on your mandate, just like a CRO or a CFO does. For that I always revert to the phrase: “we agreed that data is a valuable asset, just like money or people or buildings, … so let’s then act like it.” If you have mandate to “change”, to “create value”, then you have to be an integrator and influencer because you can never change an organisation and its people on your own.
 Before letting you go, a quick personal question. I know you spent some time at the University of Cambridge. I lived in this town while my wife was working on her PhD. Like Cambridge, Leuven [5] is a historic town just outside of a major capital city. What parallels do you see between the two and what did you think of the locals? Cambridge is famous for its “punts”, Leuven for its Stella Artois “pints”. And both central churches (or chapels) are home to iconic paintings by Flemish masters, Rubens in Cambridge and Bouts in Leuven. Visit both!
 Jo, thank you so much for talking to me and giving readers the benefit of your ideas and experience.

Jo Coutuer can be reached at via his LinkedIn profile.

Disclosure: At the time of publication, neither peterjamesthomas.com Ltd. nor any of its Directors had any shared commercial interests with Jo Coutuer, BNP Paribas Fortis or any entities associated with either of these.

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

Notes

 [1] Payment Services Directive 2. [2] Prince Rogers Nelson. [3] Two recent examples include: [4] General Data Protection Regulation. [5] Leuven.

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

# Link directly to entries in 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:

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

# A Retrospective of 2017’s Articles

This article was originally intended for publication late in the year it reviews, but, as they [1] say, the best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley…

In 2017 I wrote more articles [2] than in any year since 2009, which was the first full year of this site’s existence. Some were viewed by thousands of people, others received less attention. Here I am going to ignore the metric of popular acclaim and instead highlight a few of the articles that I enjoyed writing most, or sometimes re-reading a few months later [3]. Given the breadth of subject matter that appears on peterjamesthomas.com, I have split this retrospective into six areas, which are presented in decreasing order of the number of 2017 articles I wrote in each. These are as follows:

In each category, I will pick out two or three of pieces which I feel are both representative of my overall content and worth a read. I would be more than happy to receive any feedback on my selections, or suggestions for different choices.