# How to Spot a Flawed Data Strategy

I was recently preparing for an data-centric interview to be published as a podcast [watch this space]. A chat with the interviewer had prompted me to think about the question of how you can tell that there are issues with your Data Strategy. During the actual interview, we had so many things to talk about that we never got to this question. I thought that it was interesting enough to merit a mini-article, which is the genesis of this piece.

I have often had my services retained by organisations to develop a Data Strategy from scratch [1]. However, I have also gone into organisations who have an established Data Strategy, but are concerned about whether it is the right one and how it is being executed. In this latter case, my thought processes include the following.

The initial question to consider is, “are there any obvious alarm bells ringing?” Some alarm bells are ones that would apply to any strategy.

First of all, you need to be clear which problem you are addressing or which opportunity you want to seize (sometimes both). I have been brought into organisations where the Data Strategy consists of something like “build a Data Lake”. While I have nothing against data lakes myself, and indeed have helped to create them, the obvious question is “why does this organisation need a Data Lake?” If the answer is not something core to the operations of the organisation, it may well not need one.

Next implementing a technology is not a strategy. The data arena is unfortunately plagued by technology fan-boyism [2]. The latest and greatest visualisation tool is not going to sort out your data quality problems all by itself. Moving your back-end data platform from Oracle to Hadoop is not going to suddenly increase adoption of Analytics. All of these technologies have valuable parts to play, but the important thing to remember is that a Data Strategy must first and foremost be a business strategy. As such it must do at least one of: increase sales, optimise pricing, decrease costs, reduce risks or open new markets. A Data Lake will not in and of itself do any of these, what you chose to do with it may well contribute to many of these areas.

A further consideration is “what else is going on in the organisation?” This is important both in a business and a technological sense. If the organisation has just acquired another one, does the Data Strategy reflect this? If there is an ongoing Digital Transformation programme, then how does the Data Strategy align itself with this; is it an enabler, a Digital programme work-stream, or a stand-alone programme? In the same vein, it may well make sense to initially design the Data Strategy along purist lines (failing to do so at least initially may be a missed opportunity for radical change [3]), however there will then need to be an adjustment to take into account what else is going on in the organisation, its current situation and its culture.

Having introduced the word “culture”, the final observation is in this area. If the Data Strategy does not envisage impacting corporate culture (e.g. to shift it to focus more on the importance and potential value of data), then one must ask what are its chances of achieving anything tangible? All organisations are comprised of individuals and the best strategies both take this into account and were developed as a result of spending time thinking how best to influence people’s behaviour in a positive manner [4]. Absence of cultural and education / communication elements from a Data Strategy is more a 200 decibel claxon than a regular alarm bell.

Given I am generally brought in when organisations want to address a data problem or seize a data opportunity, I have to admit that I probably have a biassed set of experiences. Nevertheless one or more of the above issues has been present whenever I have started to examine an existing Data Strategy. In the (for me) hypothetical case where things are in better shape, then the next steps in evaluating a Data Strategy would be to get into the details of each of: the Data Strategy itself; the organisation and what makes it tick; and the people and personalities involved. However, if a Data Strategy does not suffer from any of the above flaws, it is already more sound than the majority of Data Strategies and the people who drew it up are to be congratulated.

If you would like help with your existing Data Strategy, or to kick-off the process of developing one from scratch, then please feel free to get in contact.

Notes

 [1] A matrix of the data-centric (and other) areas I have been accountable for at various organisations appears here. Just scroll down to Data Strategy, which the is the second row in the Data-centric Work section. [2] And fan-girlism, though this seems to be less of a thing TBH. [3] See: [4] I cover the cultural aspects of Data-centric work in many places on this site, perhaps start with 20 Risks that Beset Data Programmes and Ever tried? Ever failed?, both of which also link back to my earlier (and still relevant) writing on this subject.

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

# Building Momentum – How to begin becoming a Data-driven Organisation

Introduction

It is hard to find an organisation that does not aspire to being data-driven these days. While there is undoubtedly an element of me-tooism about some of these statements (or a fear of competitors / new entrants who may use their data better, gaining a competitive advantage), often there is a clear case for the better leverage of data assets. This may be to do with the stand-alone benefits of such an approach (enhanced understanding of customers, competitors, products / services etc. [1]), or as a keystone supporting a broader digital transformation.

However, in my experience, many organisations have much less mature ideas about how to achieve their data goals than they do about setting them. Given the lack of executive experience in data matters [2], it is not atypical that one of the large strategy consultants is engaged to shape a data strategy; one of the large management consultants is engaged to turn this into something executable and maybe to select some suitable technologies; and one of the large systems integrators (or increasingly off-shore organisations migrating up the food chain) is engaged to do the work, which by this stage normally relates to building technology capabilities, implementing a new architecture or some other technology-focussed programme.

Even if each of these partners does a great job – which one would hope they do at their price points – a few things invariably get lost along the way. These include:

1. A data strategy that is closely coupled to the organisation’s actual needs rather than something more general.

While there are undoubtedly benefits in adopting best practice for an industry, there is also something to be said for a more tailored approach, tied to business imperatives and which may have the possibility to define the new best practice. In some areas of business, it makes sense to take the tried and tested approach, to be a part of the herd. In others – and data is in my opinion one of these – taking a more innovative and distinctive path is more likely to lead to success.

2. Connective tissue between strategy and execution.

The distinctions between the three types of organisations I cite above are becoming more blurry (not least as each seeks to develop new revenue streams). This can lead to the strategy consultants developing plans, which get ripped up by the management consultants; the management consultants revisiting the initial strategy; the systems integrators / off-shorers replanning, or opening up technical and architecture discussions again. Of course this means the client paying at least twice for this type of work. What also disappears is the type of accountability that comes when the same people are responsible for developing a strategy, turning this into a practical plan and then executing this [3].

3. Focus on the cultural aspects of becoming more data-driven.

This is both one of the most important factors that determines success or failure [4] and something that – frankly because it is not easy to do – often falls by the wayside. By the time that the third external firm has been on-boarded, the name of the game is generally building something (e.g. a Data Lake, or an analytics platform) rather than the more human questions of who will use this, in what way, to achieve which business objectives.

Of course a way to address the above is to allocate some experienced people (internal or external, ideally probably a blend) who stay the course from development of data strategy through fleshing this out to execution and who – importantly – can also take a lead role in driving the necessary cultural change. It also makes sense to think about engaging organisations who are small enough to tailor their approach to your needs and who will not force a “cookie cutter” approach. I have written extensively about how – with the benefit of such people on board – to run such a data transformation programme [5]. Here I am going to focus on just one phase of such a programme and often the most important one; getting going and building momentum.

A Third Way

There are a couple of schools of thought here:

1. Focus on laying solid data foundations and thus build data capabilities that are robust and will stand the test of time.

2. Focus on delivering something ASAP in the data arena, which will build the case for further investment.

There are points in favour of both approaches and criticisms that can be made of each as well. For example, while the first approach will be necessary at some point (and indeed at a relatively early one) in order to sustain a transformation to a data-driven organisation, it obviously takes time and effort. Exclusive focus on this area can use up money, political capital and try the patience of sponsors. Few business initiatives will be funded for years if they do not begin to have at least some return relatively soon. This remains the case even if the benefits down the line are potentially great.

Equally, the second approach can seem very productive at first, but will generally end up trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear [6]. Inevitably, without improvements to the underlying data landscape, limitations in the type of useful analytics that be carried out will be reached; sometimes sooner that might be thought. While I don’t generally refer to religious topics on this blog [7], the Parable of the Sower is apposite here. Focussing on delivering analytics without attending to the broader data landscape is indeed like the seed that fell on stony ground. The practice yields results that spring up, only to wilt when the sun gets hot, given that they have no real roots [8].

So what to do? Well, there is a Third Way. This involves blending both approaches. I tend to think of this in the following way:

First of all, this is a cartoon, it is not intended to indicate actual percentages, just to illustrate a general trend. In real life, it is likely that you will cycle round multiple times and indeed have different parallel work-streams at different stages. The general points I am trying to convey with this diagram are:

1. At the beginning of a data transformation programme, there should probably be more emphasis on interim delivery and tactical changes. However, imoportantly, there is never zero strategic work. As things progress, the emphasis should swing more to strategic, long-term work. But again, even in a mature programme, there is never zero tactical work. There can also of course be several iterations of such shifts in approach.

2. Interim and tactical steps should relate to not just analytics, but also to making point fixes to the data landscape where possible. It is also important to kick off diagnostic work, which will establish how bad things are and also suggest areas which could be attacked sooner rather than later; this too can initially be done on a tactical basis and then made more robust later. In general, if you consider the span of strategic data work, it makes sense to kick off cut-down (and maybe drastically cut-down) versions of many activities early on.

3. Importantly, the tactical and strategic work-streams should not be hermetically sealed. What you actually want is healthy interplay. Building some early, “quick and dirty” analytics may highlight areas that should be covered by a data audit, or where there are obvious weaknesses in a data architecture. Any data assets that are built on a more strategic basis should also be leveraged by tactical work, improving its utility and probably increasing its lifespan.

Interconnected Activities

At the beginning of this article, I present a diagram (repeated below) which covers three types of initial data activities, the sort of work that – if executed competently – can begin to generate momentum for a data programme. The exhibit also references Data Strategy.

Let’s look at each of these four things in some more detail:

1. Analytic Point Solutions

Where data has historically been locked up in either hard-to-use repositories or in source systems themselves, liberating even a bit of it can be very helpful. This does not have to be with snazzy tools (unless you want to showcase the art of the possible). An anecdote might help to explain.

At one organisation, they had existing reporting that was actually not horrendous, but it was hard to access, hard to parameterise and hard to do follow-on analysis on. I took it upon myself to run 30 plus reports on a weekly and monthly basis, download the contents to Excel, front these with some basic graphs and make these all available on an intranet. This meant that people from Country A or Department B could go straight to their figures rather than having to run fiddly reports. It also meant that they had an immediate visual overview – including some comparisons to prior periods and trends over time (which were not available in the original reports). Importantly, they also got a basic pivot table, which they could use to further examine what was going on. These simple steps (if a bit laborious for me) had a massive impact. I later replaced the Excel with pages I wrote in a new web-reporting tool we built in house. Ultimately, my team moved these to our strategic Analytics platform.

This shows how point solutions can be very valuable and also morph into more strategic facilities over time.

2. Data Process Improvements

Data issues may be to do with a range of problems from poor validation in systems, to bad data integration, but immature data processes and insufficient education for data entry staff are often key conributors to overall problems. Identifying such issues and quantifying their impact should be the province of a Data Audit, which is something I would recommend considering early on in a data programme. Once more this can be basic at first, considering just superficial issues, and then expand over time.

While fixing some data process problems and making a stepped change in data quality will both probably take time an effort, it may be possible to identify and target some narrower areas in which progress can be made quite quickly. It may be that one key attribute necessary for analysis is poorly entered and validated. Some good communications around this problem can help, better guidance for people entering it is also useful and some “quick and dirty” reporting highlighting problems and – hopefully – tracking improvement can make a difference quicker than you might expect [9].

3. Data Architecture Enhancements

Improving a Data Architecture sounds like a multi-year task and indeed it can often be just that. However, it may be that there are some areas where judicious application of limited resource and funds can make a difference early on. A team engaged in a data programme should seek out such opportunities and expect to devote time and attention to them in parallel with other work. Architectural improvements would be best coordinated with data process improvements where feasible.

An example might be providing a web-based tool to look up valid codes for entry into a system. Of course it would be a lot better to embed this functionality in the system itself, but it may take many months to include this in a change schedule whereas the tool could be made available quickly. I have had some success with extending such a tool to allow users to build their own hierarchies, which can then be reflected in either point analytics solutions or more strategic offerings. It may be possible to later offer the tool’s functionality via web-services allowing it to be integrated into more than one system.

4. Data Strategy

I have written extensively about Data Strategy on this site [10]. What I wanted to cover here is the interplay between Data Strategy and some of the other areas I have just covered. It might be thought that Data Strategy is both carved on tablets of stone [11] and stands in splendid and theoretical isolation, but this should not ever be the case. The development of a Data Strategy should of course be informed by a situational analysis and a vision of “what good looks like” for an organisation. However, both of these things can be shaped by early tactical work. Taking cues from initial tactical work should lead to a more pragmatic strategy, more aligned to business realities.

Work in each of the three areas itemised above can play an important role in shaping a Data Strategy and – as the Data Strategy matures – it can obviously guide interim work as well. This should be an iterative process with lots of feedback.

Closing Thoughts

I have captured the essence of these thoughts in the diagram above. The important things to take away are that in order to generate momentum, you need to start to do some stuff; to extend the physical metaphor, you have to start pushing. However, momentum is a vector quantity (it has a direction as well as a magnitude [12]) and building momentum is not a lot of use unless it is in the general direction in which you want to move; so push with some care and judgement. It is also useful to realise that – so long as your broad direction is OK – you can make refinements to your direction as you pick up speed.

The above thoughts are based on my experience in a range of organisations and I am confident that they can be applied anywhere, making allowance for local cultures of course. Once momentum is established, it still needs to be maintained (or indeed increased), but I find that getting the ball moving in the first place often presents the greatest challenge. My hope is that the framework I present here can help data practitioners to get over this initial hurdle and begin to really make a difference in their organisations.

Notes

 [1] Way back in 2009, I wrote about the benefits of leveraging data to provide enhanced information. The article in question was tited Measuring the benefits of Business Intelligence. Everything I mention remains valid today in 2018. [2] See also: [3] If I many be allowed to blow my own trumpet for a moment, I have developed data / information strategies for eight organisations, turned seven of these into a costed / planned programme and executed at least the first few phases of six of these. I have always found being a consistent presence through these phases has been beneficial to the organisations I was helping, as well as helping to reduce duplication of work. [4] See my, now rather venerable, trilogy about cultural change in data / information programmes: together with the rather more recent: [5] See for example: [6] Dictionary.com offers a nice explanation of this phrase.. [7] I was raised a Catholic, but have been areligious for many years. [8] Much like $x^2+x+1=0$. For anyone interested, the two roots of this polynomial are clearly: $-\dfrac{1}{2}+\dfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\hspace{1mm}i\hspace{5mm}\text{and}\hspace{5mm}-\dfrac{1}{2}-\dfrac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\hspace{1mm}i$ neither of which is Real. [9] See my rather venerable article, Using BI to drive improvements in data quality, for a fuller treatment of this area. [10] For starters see: and also the Data Strategy segment of The Anatomy of a Data Function – Part I. [11] [12] See Glimpses of Symmetry, Chapter 15 – It’s Space Jim….

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

# Did GDPR highlight the robustness of your Data Architecture, the strength of your Data Governance and the fitness of your Data Strategy?

So GDPR Day is upon us – the sun still came up and the Earth is still spinning (these facts may be related of course). I hope that most GDPR teams and the Executives who have relied upon their work were able to go to bed last night secure in the knowledge that a good job had been done and that their organisations and customers were protected. Undoubtedly, in coming days, there will be some stories of breaches of the regulations, maybe some will be high-profile and the fines salutary, but it seems that most people have got over the line, albeit often by Herculean efforts and sometimes by the skins of their teeth.

Does it have to be like this?

A well-thought-out Data Architecture embodying a business-focussed Data Strategy and intertwined with the right Data Governance, should combine to make responding to things like GDPR relatively straightforward. Were they in your organisation?

If instead GDPR compliance was achieved in spite of your Data Architectures, Governance and Strategies, then I suspect you are in the majority. Indeed years of essentially narrow focus on GDPR will have consumed resources that might otherwise have gone towards embedding the control and leverage of data into the organisation’s DNA.

Maybe now is a time for reflection. Will your Data Strategy, Data Governance and Data Architecture help you to comply with the next set of data-related regulations (and it is inevitable that there will be more), or will they hinder you, as will have been the case for many with GDPR?

If you feel that the answer to this question is that there are significant problems with how your organisation approaches data, then maybe now is the time to grasp the nettle. Having helped many companies to both develop and execute successful Data Strategies, you could start by reading my trilogy on creating an Information / Data Strategy:

I’m also more than happy to discuss your data problems and opportunities either formally or informally, so feel free to 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

# Themes from a Chief Data Officer Forum – the 180 day perspective

The author would like to acknowledge the input and assistance of his fellow delegates, both initially at the IRM(UK) CDO Executive Forum itself and later in reviewing earlier drafts of this article. As ever, responsibility for any errors or omissions remains mine alone.

Introduction

Time flies as Virgil observed some 2,045 years ago. A rather shorter six months back I attended the inaugural IRM(UK) Chief Data Officer Executive Forum and recently I returned for the second of what looks like becoming biannual meetings. Last time the umbrella event was the IRM(UK) Enterprise Data and Business Intelligence Conference 2015 [1], this session was part of the companion conference: IRM(UK) Master Data Management Summit / and Data Governance Conference 2016.

This article looks to highlight some of the areas that were covered in the forum, but does not attempt to be exhaustive, instead offering an impressionistic view of the meeting. One reason for this (as well as the author’s temperament) is that – as previously – in order to allow free exchange of ideas, the details of the meeting are intended to stay within the confines of the room.

Last November, ten themes emerged from the discussions and I attempted to capture these over two articles. The headlines appear in the box below:

One area of interest for me was how things had moved on in the intervening months and I’ll look to comment on this later.

By way of background, some of the attendees were shared with the November 2015 meeting, but there was also a smattering of new faces, including the moderator, Peter Campbell, President of DAMA’s Belgium and Luxembourg chapter. Sectors represented included: Distribution, Extractives, Financial Services, and Governmental.

The discussions were wide ranging and perhaps less structured than in November’s meeting, maybe a facet of the familiarity established between some delegates at the previous session. However, there were four broad topics which the attendees spent time on: Management of Change (Theme 5); Data Privacy / Trust; Innovation; and Value / Business Outcomes.

While clearly the second item on this list has its genesis in the European Commission’s recently adopted General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR [2]), it is interesting to note that the other topics suggest that some elements of the CDO agenda appear to have shifted in the last six months. At the time of the last meeting, much of what the group talked about was foundational or even theoretical. This time round there was both more of a practical slant to the conversation, “how do we get things done?” and a focus on the future, “how do we innovate in this space?”

Perhaps this also reflects that while CDO 1.0s focussed on remedying issues with data landscapes and thus had a strong risk mitigation flavour to their work, CDO 2.0s are starting to look more at value-add and delivering insight (Theme 6). Of course some organisations are yet to embark on any sort of data-related journey (CDO 0.0 maybe), but in the more enlightened ones at least, the CDO’s focus is maybe changing, or has already changed (Theme 3).

Some flavour of the discussions around each of the above topics is provided below, but as mentioned above, these observations are both brief and impressionistic:

Management of Change

The title of Managing Change has been chosen (by the author) to avoid any connotations of Change Management. It was recognised by the group that there are two related issues here. The first is the organisational and behavioural change needed to both ensure that data is fit-for-purpose and that people embrace a more numerical approach to decision-making; perhaps this area is better described as Cultural Transformation. The second is the fact (also alluded to at the previous forum) that Change Programmes tend to have the effect of degrading data assets over time, especially where monetary or time factors lead data-centric aspects of project to be de-scoped.

On Cultural Transformation, amongst a number of issues discussed, the need to answer the question “What’s in it for me?” stood out. This encapsulates the human aspect of driving change, the need to engage with stakeholders [3] (at all levels) and the importance of sound communication of what is being done in the data space and – more importantly – why. These are questions to which an entire sub-section of this blog is devoted.

On the potentially deleterious impact of Change [4] on data landscapes, it was noted that whatever CDOs build, be these technological artefacts or data-centric processes, they must be designed to be resilient in the face of both change and Change.

Data Privacy / Trust

As referenced above, the genesis of this topic was GDPR. However, it was interesting that the debate extended from this admittedly important area into more positive territory. This related to the observation that the care with which an organisation treats its customers’ or business partners’ data (and the level of trust which this generates) can potentially become a differentiator or even a source of competitive advantage. It is good to report an essentially regulatory requirement possibly morphing into a more value-added set of activities.

Innovation

It might be expected that discussions around this topic would focus on perennials such as Big Data or Advanced Analytics. Instead the conversation was around other areas, such as distributed / virtualised data and the potential impact of Block Chain technology [5] on Data Management work. Inevitably The Internet of Things [6] also featured, together with the ethical issues that this can raise. Other areas discussed were as diverse as the gamification of Data Governance and Social Physics, so we cast the net widely.

Here we have the strongest link back into the original ten themes (specifically Theme 6). Of course the acme of data strategies is of little use if it does not deliver positive business outcomes. In many organisations, focus on just remediating issues with the current data landscape could consume a massive chunk of overall Change / IT expenditure. This is because data issues generally emanate from a wide variety of often linked and frequently long-standing organisational weaknesses. These can be architectural, integrational, procedural, operational or educational in nature. One of the challenges for CDOs everywhere is how to parcel up their work in a way that adds value, gets things done and is accretive to both the overall Business and Data strategies (which are of course intimately linked as per Theme 10). There is also the need to balance foundational work with more tactical efforts; the former is necessary for lasting benefits to be secured, but the latter can showcase the value of Data Management and thus support further focus on the area.

While the risk aspect of data issues gets a foot in the door of the Executive Suite, it is only by demonstrating commercial awareness and linking Data Management work to increased business value that any CDO is ever going to get traction. (Theme 6).

The next IRM(UK) CDO Executive Forum will take place on 9th November 2016 in London – if you would like to apply for a place please e-mail jeremy.hall@irmuk.co.uk.

Notes

 [1] I’ll be speaking at IRM(UK) ED&BI 2016 in November. Book early to avoid disappointment! [2] Wikipedia offers a digestible summary of the regulation here. Anyone tempted to think this is either a parochial or arcane area is encouraged to calculate what the greater of €20 million and 4% of their organisation’s worldwide turnover might be and then to consider that the scope of the Regulation covers any company (regardless of its domicile) that processes the data of EU residents. [3] I’ve been itching to use this classic example of stakeholder management for some time: [4] The capital “c” is intentional. [5] Harvard Business Review has an interesting and provocative article on the subject of Block Chain technology. [6] GIYF

# Forming an Information Strategy: Part III – Completing the Strategy

 Forming an Information Strategy I – General Strategy II – Situational Analysis III – Completing the Strategy

This article is the final of three which address how to formulate an Information Strategy. I have written a number of other articles which touch on this subject [1] and have also spoken about the topic [2]. However I realised that I had never posted an in-depth review of this important area. This series of articles seeks to remedy this omission.

The first article, Part I – General Strategy, explored the nature of strategy, laid some foundations and presented a framework of questions which will need to be answered in order to formulate any general strategy. The second, Part II – Situational Analysis, explained how to adapt the first element of this general framework – The Situational Analysis – to creating an Information Strategy. In Part I, I likened formulating an Information Strategy to a journey, Part III – Completing the Strategy sees us reaching the destination by working through the rest of the general framework and showing how this can be used to produce a fully-formed Information Strategy.

As with all of my other articles, this essay is not intended as a recipe for success, a set of instructions which – if slavishly followed – will guarantee the desired outcome. Instead the reader is invited to view the following as a set of observations based on what I have learnt during a career in which the development of both Information Strategies and technology strategies in general have played a major role.

A Recap of the Strategic Framework

I closed Part I of this series by presenting a set of questions, the answers to which will facilitate the formation of any strategy. These have a geographic / journey theme and are as follows:

1. Where are we?
2. Where do we want to be instead and why?
3. How do we get there, how long will it take and what will it cost?
4. Will the trip be worth it?
5. What else can we do along the way?

Part II explained the process of answering question 1 through the medium of a Situational Analysis. It is worth pointing out at this juncture that the Situational Analysis will also naturally form the first phase of the more lengthy process of gathering and analysing business requirements. For the purposes of the rest of this article, when such requirements are mentioned, they are taken as being the embryonic ones captured as part of the Situational Analysis.

In this final article I will focus on how to approach obtaining answers to questions 2 to 5. Having spent quite some time considering question 1 in the previous chapter, the content here will be somewhat briefer for the remaining questions; not least as I have covered some of this territory in earlier articles [3].

2. Where do we want to be instead and why?

My thoughts here split into two sub-sections. The second, What does Good look like?, is (as will be obvious from the title) more forward looking than backward. It covers reasons why the destination may be worth the journey. The first is more to do with why staying in the current location may not be a great idea [4]. However, one motivation for not staying put is that somewhere else may well be better. For this reason, there is not definitive border between these two sub-sections and it will be evident from the text that they instead bleed into each other.

2a. Drivers for Change

People often say that the gains that result from Information Programmes are intangible. Of course some may indeed be fairly intangible, but even the most ephemeral of these will not be entirely immune from some sort of valuation. Other benefits, when examined closely enough, can turn out to be surprisingly tangible [5]. In making a case for change (and of course the expenditure associated with this) it is good to try to have a balance of tangible and intangible factors. Here is a selection which may be applicable:

Internal IT drivers

• These often centre around both the cost and confusion associated with a fragmented and inconsistent Information Landscape; something which, even as we head in to 2015, is still not atypical.
• Opportunity costs may arise from an inability to combine data from different repositories or to roll up data to cover an entire organisation.
• There is also a case to be made here around things like the licensing costs that result from having too many information repositories and too many tools being used to access them.
• However, the cost of remediating such fragmentation can often appear in the shape of additional IT headcount devoted to maintaining a complex landscape and additional business headcount devoted to remediating information shortcomings.

Productivity gains

• Less number crunching, more business-focussed analysis. Often an organisation’s most highly qualified (and highly paid) staff can spend much of their time repeating quotidian tasks that computers could do far more reliably. Freeing up such able and creative people to add more business value should be an objective and should have benefits.
• At one company I estimated that teams would spend 5-7 days assembling the information necessary to support a meeting with one of a number of key business partners or a major client; our goal became to provide the same information effectively instantaneously; these types of benefits can be costed and also tend to resonate with business stakeholders.

Increasing sales / improving profitability

• All information programmes (indeed most any business activity) should be dedicated to increasing profitability of course. In some specific industries the leverage of high-quality information is more readily associated with profitability than others. However, with enough time spent understanding the dynamics of an organisation, I would suggest that it is possible to make this linkage in a credible manner in pretty much any industry sector.
• With respect to sales, sometimes if you want to increase say cross-selling, a very effective way is simply to measure it, maybe by department and salesperson. If there is some reliable way to track this, improvements in cross-selling will inevitably follow.

Mitigating operational risk

• More reliable, unbiased and transparent production of information can address a number of operational risks; what these are specifically will vary from organisation to organisation.
• However, most years see some organisation or another have to restate their results – there have been cases where adding two figures rather than subtracting them has led to a later restatement. Cases can often be built around the specific pain points in an organisation, or sometimes even near misses that were caught at the 11th hour.
• Equally the cost of checking and re-checking figures before publication can be extremely high.

It is also generally worth asking business users what value they would ascribe to improved information, for example what things could they do under new arrangements that they cannot do now? It is important here that any benefits – and in particular any ones which prove to be intangible – are expressed in business language, not technical jargon.

2b. What does Good look like?

Answering this question is predicated on both experience of successful information improvement programmes and a degree of knowledge about the general information market. There are two main elements here, what does good look like technically and what does it look like from a process / people perspective.

To cover the technical first, this is the simpler area, not least as we have understood how to develop robust, flexible and highly-performing information architectures for at least 15 years.

The basics are shown in the diagram above [6]. Questions to consider here include:

• What would a new information architecture look like?
• What are the characteristics of the new which would indicate that it is an improvement on the old, can these be articulated to non-technical people?
• What are required elements and how do they relate to the high-level needs captured in the Situational Analysis?
• How does the proposed architecture relate to incumbent technologies and current staff skills?
• Can any elements of existing information provision be leveraged, either temporarily or on an ongoing basis?
• What has worked for other organisations and why would this be pertinent to the organisation in question?
• Are any new developments in technology pertinent?

Arguably the more important area is the non-technical. Here there is a range of items to consider, some of which are captured in the following exhibit [7]:

I could spend an separate set of articles commenting on the elements of the above diagram; indeed I already have and interested readers are directed to the footnotes for links to some of these [8]. However it is worth pointing out the critical role to be played by both user education (a more apt phrase than training) and formal Data Governance. Also certain elements of information tend to work well when they sit within a regular business process; such as a monthly or quarterly review of specific aspects of results and future projections.

3. How do we get there, how long will it take and what will it cost?

3a. Outline an Indicative Programme of Work

I am not going to offer Programme Planning 101 here, but briefly the first step in putting together an indicative programme of work is to decompose the overall journey into chunks, each of which can then be estimated. Each chunk should cover a group of reports / analyses and include activities from requirements gathering through to testing and finally deployment [9]. For the purposes of an indicative programme within a strategy document, the strategist can rely upon both information gathered in the Situational Analysis and their own experience of how to best decompose such work. Ultimately the size and number of the chunks should be dictated by business need, but at this stage estimates can be based upon experience and reasonable assumptions.

It is important that each chunk (or sub-chunk) delivers value and offers an opportunity for the approach and progress to be reviewed. A further factor to consider when estimating these chunks is that they should be delivered at a pace which allows them to be properly digested by users; resource allocations should reflect this. For each chunk the strategist should consider the type and quantum of resource required and the timing with which these are applied.

The indicative programme plan should also include a first phase which relates to reviewing the plan itself. Forming a strategy involves less people than running a programme. Even if initial estimation is carried out very diligently, it is likely that further issues will emerge once more detailed work later commences. As the information programme team ramps up, it is important that time is allocated for new team members to kick the tyres on the plan and make recommendations for improvement.

3b. How much will it cost?

A big element of cost estimates will be a by-product of the indicative programme plan, which will cover programme duration and the amount of resource required at different points. Some further questions to consider when looking to catalogue costs include the following:

• What are baseline costs for current information provision?
• To what degree to these need to be incurred in parallel to an information improvement programme, are there ways to reduce these legacy costs to free up funds for the central programme?
• What transitional costs are needed to execute the Information Strategy?
• Hardware and software: is change necessary?
• People: what is the best balance between internal, contract and outsourced resources, to what degree can existing staff be leveraged without compromising their current responsibilities?
• How will costs vary by programme phase, will these taper as elements of older information systems are replaced by new facilities?
• Can costs be reduced by having people play different roles at different points in the programme?
• What costs will be ongoing once the strategy has been executed?
• How do these compare to the current baseline?
• Sometimes one aim of an Information Strategy will be to reduce to cost of ongoing support and maintenance, if so, how will this be achieved and how will any transition be managed?

A consideration here is whether the most important thing is to maximise speed of delivery or minimise risk? Things that will reduce risk could include: initial exploratory phases; starting with a small number of programme resources and increasing these based only on success; and instigating appropriate governance processes. However each of these will also increase duration and therefore cost. In some areas a trade off will be necessary and which side of these equations is more important will vary from organisation to organisation.

4. Will the trip be worth it?

Answering parts of question 2 will help with getting a handle on potential benefits of executing an Information Strategy. Work on question 3 will get us an idea of the timeframes and costs involved. There is a need to combine the two of these into a cost / benefit analysis. This should be an honest and transparent assessment of the potential payback of adopting the Information Strategy. Given that most Information Strategies will take more than a year to implement and that benefits may equally be realised on an ongoing basis, it will generally make sense to look at figures over a 3-5 year period. It may be possible to draw up a quasi-P&L statement showing the impact of adopting the strategy, such an approach can resonate with senior stakeholders.

Points to recall and questions to consider here include:

• Costs will emerge from the Indicative Programme Plan, but remember the ongoing costs of maintaining existing information capabilities.
• As with most initiatives, the benefits of information programmes split into tangible and intangible components:
• Where possible make benefits tangible even if this requires a degree of guesstimation [10].
• Remember that many supposed intangibles can be estimated with some thought.
• What benefits have other companies seen from similar programmes, particularly ones in the same industry sector?
• Is it possible to perform “what if?” scenarios with current and future capabilities; could better information could have led to better outcomes? [11]
• Intangible benefits resonate where they are expressed in clear business language, not IT speak.

It should be borne in mind here that the cost / benefit analysis may not add up. If this is the case, then either a less expensive approach is more suitable for the company, or the potential benefits need to be looked at again. Where progress can genuinely not be made on either of these areas, the responsible strategist will acknowledge that doing nothing may well be the logical approach for the organisation in question.

5. What else can we do along the way?

Finally, it is worth noting that short-term tactical deliveries can strongly support a strategy [12]. Interim work can meet urgent business needs in a timely manner. This is a substantial benefit in itself and also evidences progress in the area of improving information capabilities. It also demonstrates that that the programme team understands commercial pressures. This type of work is also complementary in that it can be used to:

• Validate some elements of the cost / benefit analysis.
• Round out requirements gathering.
• Highlight any areas which have been overlooked.
• Provide invaluable deployment and training experience, which can be leveraged for the implementation of more strategic capabilities.

It can also be useful make mistakes early and with small deliverables, not later with major ones. For these reasons, it is suggested that any Information Strategy should embrace “throw away” work. However this should be reflected in the overall programme plan and resources should be specifically allocated to this area. If this is not done, then tactical work can easily overwhelm the team and prevent progress on more strategic areas from being made; generally a death knell for a programme.

A Recap of the Main Points

1. Carry out a Situational Analysis.
2. As part of this, start the process of capturing High-level Business Requirements.
3. Establish Drivers for Change, what benefits can be realised by better information, or by producing information in a better way?
4. Ask “What Does Good Look Like?”, from both a technical and a process / people point of view.
5. Develop an Indicative Programme of Work with realistic resource estimates and durations.
6. Estimate Current, Transitional and Ongoing Costs.
7. Itemise some of the major Interim Deliverables.
8. Create a Cost / Benefits Analysis.

Bringing everything together

There is a need to take the detailed work described over the course of the last three articles and the documentation which has been created as part of the process and to distill these down into a format that is digestible by senior management. There is no silver bullet here, summarising screeds of detail in a way that preserves the main points and presents them in a way that resonates is not easy. It takes judgement, an understanding of how businesses operate and strong analytical, writing and often diagrammatic skills. These will not be acquired by reading a blog article, but by honing experience and expertise over many years of work. To an extent, producing relevant and cogent summaries is where good IT professionals earn their money.

Unfortunately, at the time of writing, there is no book entitled Summarising Complex Issues for Dummies [13], [14].

This article and its two predecessors have been akin to listing the ingredients required to make a complex meal. While it is difficult to make great food without good ingredients or with some key spice missing, these things are not sufficient to ensure culinary excellence; what is also needed is a competent chef [15]. I cook a lot myself and, whenever I try a recipe for the first time, it can be a bit fraught. Sometimes I don’t get all of the elements of the meal ready at the same time, sometimes while I’m paying attention to reading the instructions for one part, another part boils over, or gets burnt. These problems with cooking tend dissipate with repetition. In the same way, what is generally needed in developing a sound Information Strategy is the equivalents great ingredients, a competent chef and an experienced one as well.

 Forming an Information Strategy I – General Strategy II – Situational Analysis III – Completing the Strategy

Notes

 [1] These include (in chronological order): [2] IRM European Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence Conference – November 2012 [3] Where this is the case, I will of course provide links back to my previous work. [4] Some of the factors here may come to light as a result of the previous Situational Analysis of course. [5] I grapple with estimating the potential payback of Information Programmes in a series of earlier articles: Measuring the benefits of Business Intelligence   – this is one of the most frequently read articles on this site   Using historical data to justify BI investments – Part I Using historical data to justify BI investments – Part II Using historical data to justify BI investments – Part III   – this series of articles presents a specific example drawn from Insurance, but the general approach can be adapted to fit other industry sectors [6] This is an expanded version of the diagram I posted as part of Using multiple business intelligence tools in an implementation – Part I back in May 2009. I have elided details such as the fine structure of the warehouse (staging, relational, multidimensional etc.), master data sources and also which parts of it are accessed by different tools and different types of users. In a severe breach with the traditional IT approach, I have also left some arrows out. [7] This is an updated version of an exhibit I put together working with an actuarial colleague back in 2001, early in my journey into information improvement programmes. [8] These include my trilogy on the change management aspects of information programmes: and a number of articles relating to Data Governance / Data Quality, notably: [9] Sometimes the first level of decomposition will need to be broken up into further and smaller chunks with this process iterating until the strategist reaches tasks which they are happy to estimate with a degree of certainty. [10] It may make sense to have different versions of the cost / benefit analysis, more conservative ones including only the most tangible benefits and more aggressive ones taking in to account benefits which have to be somewhat less certain. [11] Again see the series of three articles starting with Using historical data to justify BI investments – Part I. [12] For further thoughts on the strategic benefits of tactical work see: [13] Given both the two interpretations of this phrase and the typical audience for summaries of strategies, perhaps this is a fortunate thing. [14] I did however find the following title: [15] Contrary to the image above, a muppet (in the English sense of the word) won’t suffice.

# Forming an Information Strategy: Part II – Situational Analysis

 Forming an Information Strategy I – General Strategy II – Situational Analysis III – Completing the Strategy

This article is the second of three which address how to formulate an Information Strategy. I have written a number of other articles which touch on this subject[1] and have also spoken about the topic[2]. However I realised that I had never posted an in-depth review of this important area. This series of articles seeks to remedy this omission.

The first article, Part I – General Strategy, explored the nature of strategy, laid some foundations and presented a framework of questions which will need to be answered in order to formulate any general strategy. This chapter, Part II – Situational Analysis, explains how to adapt the first element of this general framework – The Situational Analysis – to creating an Information Strategy. In Part I, I likened formulating an Information Strategy to a journey, Part III – Completing the Strategy sees us reaching the destination by working through the rest of the general framework and showing how this can be used to produce a fully-formed Information Strategy.

As with all of my other articles, this essay is not intended as a recipe for success, a set of instructions which – if slavishly followed – will guarantee the desired outcome. Instead the reader is invited to view the following as a set of observations based on what I have learnt during a career in which the development of both Information Strategies and technology strategies in general have played a major role.

A Recap of the Strategic Framework

I closed Part I of this series by presenting a set of questions, the answers to which will facilitate the formation of any strategy. These have a geographic / journey theme and are as follows:

1. Where are we?
2. Where do we want to be instead and why?
3. How do we get there, how long will it take and what will it cost?
4. Will the trip be worth it?
5. What else can we do along the way?

In this article I will focus on how to answer the first question, Where are we? This is the province of a Situational Analysis. I will now move on from general strategy and begin to be specific about how to develop a Situational Analysis in the context of an overall Information Strategy.

But first a caveat: if the last article was prose-heavy, this one is question-heavy; the reader is warned!

Where are we? The anatomy of an Information Strategy’s Situational Analysis

If we take this question and, instead of aiming to plot our celestial coordinates, look to consider what it would mean in the context of an Information Strategy, then a number of further questions arise. Here are just a few examples of the types of questions that the strategist should investigate, broken down into five areas:

• What do business people use current information to do?
• In their opinion, is current information adequate for this task and if not in what ways is it inadequate?
• Are there any things that business people would like to do with information, but where the figures don’t exist or are not easily accessible?
• How reliable and trusted is existing information, is it complete, accurate and suitably up-to-date?
• If there are gaps in information provision, what are these and what is the impact of missing data?
• How consistent is information provision, are business entities and calculated figures ambiguously labeled and can you get different answers to the same question in different places?
• Is existing information available at the level that different people need, e.g. by department, country, customer, team or at at a transactional level?
• Are there areas where business people believe that data is available, but no facilities exist to access this?
• What is the extent of End User Computing, is this at an appropriate level and, if not, is poor information provision a driver for work in this area?
• Related to this, are the needs of analytical staff catered for, or are information facilities targeted mostly at management reporting only?
• How easy do business people view it as being to get changes made to information facilities, or to get access to the sort of ad hoc data sets necessary to support many business processes?
• What training have business people received, what is the general level of awareness of existing information facilities and how easy is it for people to find what they need?
• How intuitive are existing information facilities and how well-structured are menus which provide access to these?
• Is current information provision something that is an indispensable part of getting work done, or at best an afterthought?

Design questions

• How were existing information facilities created, who designed and built them and what level of business input was involved?
• What are the key technical design components of the overall information architecture and how do they relate to each other?
• If there is more than one existing information architecture (e.g. in different geographic locations or different business units), what are the differences between them?
• How many different tools are used in various layers of the information architecture? E.g.
• Databases
• Multidimensional data stores
• Reporting and Analysis tools
• Data Visualisation tools
• Dashboard tools
• Tools to provide information to applications or web-portals
• What has been the role of data modeling in designing and developing information facilities?
• If there is a target data model for the information facilities, is this fit for purpose and does it match business needs?
• Has a business glossary been developed in parallel to the design of the information capabilities and if so is this linked to reporting layers?
• What is the approach to master data and how is this working?

Technical questions

• What are the key source systems and what are their types, are these integrated with each other in any way?
• How does data flow between source systems?
• Is there redundancy of data and can similar datasets in different systems get out of synch with each other, if so which are the master records?
• How robust are information facilities, do they suffer outages, if so how often and what are the causes?
• Are any issues experienced in making changes to information facilities, either extended development time, or post-implementation failures?
• Are there similar issues related to the time taken to fix information facilities when they go wrong?
• Are various development tools integrated with each other in a way that helps developers and makes code more rigourous?
• How are errors in input data handled and how robust are information facilities in the face of these challenges?
• How well-optimised is the regular conversion of data into information?
• How well do information facilities cope with changes to business entities (e.g. the merger of two customers)?
• Is the IT infrastructure(s) underpinning information facilities suitable for current data volumes, what about future data volumes?
• Is there a need for redundancy in the IT infrastructure supporting information facilities, if so, how is this delivered?
• Are suitable arrangements in place for disaster recovery?

Process questions

• Is there an overall development methodology applied to the creation of information facilities?[3]
• If so, is it adhered to and is it fit for purpose?
• What controls are applied to the development of new code and data structures?
• How are requests for new facilities estimated and prioritised?
• How do business requirements get translated into what developers actually do and is this process working?
• Is the level, content and completeness of documentation suitable, is it up-to-date and readily accessible to all team members?
• What is the approach to testing new information facilities?
• Are there any formal arrangements for Data Governance and any initiatives to drive improvements in data quality?
• How are day-to-day support and operational matters dealt with and by whom?

Information Team questions

• Is there a single Information Team or many, if many, how do they collaborate and share best practice?
• What is the demand for work required of the existing team(s) and how does this relate to their capacity for delivery?
• What are the skills of current team members and how do these complement each other?
• Are there any obvious skill gaps or important missing roles?
• How do information people relate to other parts of IT and to their business colleagues?
• How is the information team(s) viewed by their stakeholders in terms of capability, knowledge and attitude?

An Approach to Geolocation

So that’s a long list of questions[4], to add to the list: what is the best way of answering them? Of course it may be that there is existing documentation which can help in some areas, however the majority of questions are going to be answered via the expedient of talking to people. While this may appear to be a simple approach, if these discussions are going to result in an accurate and relevant Situational Analysis, then how to proceed needs to be thought about up-front and work needs to be properly structured.

A challenge here is the range and number of people[5]. It is of course crucial to start with the people who consume information. These discussions would ideally allow the strategist to get a feeling for what different business people do and how they do it. This would cover their products/services, the markets that they operate in and the competitive landscape they face. With some idea of these matters established, the next item is their needs for information and how well these are met at present. Together feedback in these areas will begin to help to shape answers to some of the business-focussed questions referenced above (and to provide pointers to guide investigations in other areas). However it is not as simple an equation as:

The feedback from different people will not be identical, variations may be driven by their personal experience, how long they have been at the company and what part of its operations they work in. Different people will also approach their work in different ways, some will want to be very numerically focussed in decision-making, others will rely more on experience and relationships. Also even getting information out of people in the first place is a skill in itself; it is a capital mistake for even the best analyst to theorise before they have data[6].

This heterogeneity means that one challenge in writing the business-focussed component of a Situational Analysis within an overall Information Strategy is sifting through the different feedback looking for items which people agree upon, or patterns in what people said and the frequency with which different people made similar points. This work is non-trivial and there is no real substitute for experience. However, one thing that I would suggest can help is to formally document discussions with business people. This has a number of advantages, such as being able to run this past them to check the accuracy and completeness of your notes[7] and being able to defend any findings as based on actual fact. However, documenting meetings also facilitates the analysis and synthesis process described above. These meeting notes can be read and re-read (or shared between a number of people collectively engaged in the strategy formulation process) and – when draft findings have been developed – these can be compared to the original source material to ensure consistency and completeness.

IT conversations

Depending on circumstances, talking to business people can often be the largest activity and will do most to formulate proposals that will appear in other parts of the Information Strategy. However the other types of questions also need to be considered and parallel discussions with general IT people are a prerequisite. An objective here is for the strategist to understand (and perhaps document) the overall IT landscape and how this flows into current information capabilities. Such a review can also help to identify mismatches between business aspirations and system capabilities; there may be a desire to report on data which is captured nowhere in the organisation for example.

The final tranche of discussions need to be with the information professionals who have built the current information landscape (assuming that they are still at the company, if not then the people to target are those who maintain information facilities). There can sometimes be an element of defensiveness to be overcome in such discussions, but equally no one will have a better idea about the challenges with existing information provision than the people who deal with this area day in and day out. It is worth taking the time to understand their thoughts and opinions. With both of these groups of IT people, formally documented notes and/or schematics are just as valuable as with the business people and for the same reasons.

Rinse and Repeat

The above conversations have been described sequentially, but some element of them will probably be in parallel. Equally the process is likely to be somewhat iterative. It is perhaps a good idea to meet with a subset of business people first, draw some very preliminary conclusions from these discussions and then hold some initial meetings with various IT people to both gather more information and potentially kick the tyres on your embryonic findings. Sometimes after having done a lot of business interviews, it is also worth circling back to the first cohort both to ask some different questions based on later feedback and also to validate the findings which you are hopefully beginning to refine by now.

Of course a danger here is that you could spend an essentially limitless time engaging with people and not ever landing your Situational Analysis; in particular person A may suggest what a good idea it would be for you to also meet with person B and person C (and so on exponentially). The best way to guard against this is time-boxing. Give your self a deadline, perhaps arrange for a presentation of an initial Situational Analysis to an audience at a point in the not-so-distance future. This will help to focus your efforts. Of course mentioning a presentation, or at least some sort of abridged Situational Analysis, brings up the idea of how to summarise the detailed information that you have uncovered through the process described above. This is the subject of the final section of this article.

In Summary

I will talk further about how to summarise findings and recommendations in Part III, for now I wanted to focus on just two aspects of this. First a mechanism to begin to identify areas of concern and second a simple visual way to present the key elements of an information-focussed Situational Analysis in a relatively simple exhibit.

Sorting the wheat from the chaff

To an extent, sifting through large amounts of feedback from a number of people is one way in which good IT professionals earn their money. Again experience is the most valuable tool to apply in this situation. However, I would suggest some intermediate steps would also be useful here both to the novice and the seasoned professional. If you have extensive primary material from your discussions with a variety of people and have begun to discern some common themes through this process, then – rather than trying to progress immediately to an overall summary – I would recommend writing notes around each of these common themes as a good place to start. These notes may be only for your own purposes, or they may be something that you also later choose to circulate as additional information; if you take the latter approach, then bear the eventual audience in mind while writing. Probably while you are composing these intermediate-level notes a number of things will happen. First it may occur to you that some sections could be split to more precisely target the issues. Equally other sections may overlap somewhat and could benefit from being merged. Also you may come to realise that you have overlooked some areas and need to address these.

Whatever else is happening, this approach is likely to give your subconscious some time to chew over the material in parallel. It is for this reason that sometimes the strategist will wake at night with an insight that had previously eluded them. Whether or not the subconscious contributes this dramatically, this rather messy and organic process will leave you with a number of paragraphs (or maybe pages) on a handful of themes. This can then form the basis of the more summary exhibit which I describe in the next section; namely a scorecard.

An Information Provision Scorecard

Of course a scorecard about the state of information provision approaches levels of self-reference that Douglas R Hofstadter[8] would be proud of. I would suggest that such a scorecard could be devised by thinking about each of the common themes that have arisen, considering each of the areas of questioning described above (business, design, technical, process and team), or perhaps a combination of both. The example scorecard which I provide above uses the areas of questions as its intermediate level. These are each split out into a number of sub-categories (these will vary from situation to situation and hence I have not attempted to provide actual sub-category names). A score can be allocated (based on your research) to each of these on some scale (the example uses a 5 point one) and these base figures can be rolled up to get a score for each of the intermediate categories. These can then be further summarised to give a single, overall score [9].

While a data visualisation such as the one presented here may be a good way to present overall findings, it is important that this can be tied back to the notes that have been compiled during the analysis. Sometimes such scores will be challenged and it is important that they are based in fact and can thus be defended.

Next steps

Of course your scorecard, or overall Situational Analysis, could tell you that all is well. If this is the case, then our work here may be done[10]. If however the Situational Analysis reveals areas where improvements can be made, or if there is a desire to move the organisation forward in a way that requires changes to information provision, then thought must be given to either what can be done to remediate problems or what is necessary to seize opportunities; most often a mixture of both. Considering these questions will be the subject of the final article in this series, Forming an Information Strategy: Part III – Completing the Strategy.

When I published the first part of this series, I received an interesting comment from Gary Nuttall, Head of Business Intelligence at Chaucer Syndicates (you can view Gary’s profile on LinkedIn and he posts as @gpn01 on Twitter). I reproduce an extract from this verbatim below:

[When considering questions such as “Where are we?”] one thing I’d add, which for smaller organisations may not be relevant, is to consider who the “we” is (are?). For a multinational it can be worth scoping out whether the strategy is for the legal entity or group of companies, does it include the ultimate parent, etc. It can also help in determining the culture of the enterprise too which will help to shape the size, depth and span of the strategy too – for some companies a two pager is more than enough for others a 200 pager would be considered more appropriate.

I think that this is a valuable additional perspective and I thank Gary for providing this insightful and helpful feedback.

 Forming an Information Strategy I – General Strategy II – Situational Analysis III – Completing the Strategy

Notes

# Forming an Information Strategy: Part I – General Strategy

 Forming an Information Strategy I – General Strategy II – Situational Analysis III – Completing the Strategy

This article is the first of three which address how to formulate an Information Strategy. I have written a number of other articles which touch on this subject[1] and have also spoken about the topic[2]. However I realised that I had never posted an in-depth review of this important area. This series of articles seeks to remedy this omission.

Part I – General Strategy explores the nature of strategy, lays some foundations and presents a framework of questions which will need to be answered in order to form any general strategy. Part II – Situational Analysis adapts the first part of this general framework – The Situational Analysis – to the task of starting to form an Information Strategy. The final chapter, Part III – Completing the Strategy, rounds out this process by working through the rest of the general framework and explaining how this can be used to produce a fully-formed Information Strategy.

As with all of my other articles, this essay is not intended as a recipe for success, a set of instructions which – if slavishly followed – will guarantee the desired outcome. Instead the reader is invited to view the following as a set of observations based on what I have learnt during a career in which the development of both Information Strategies and technology strategies in general have played a major role.

What is a Strategy?

This would seem to be a relatively easy question to answer as the word is used (more likely over-used) in many areas of human endeavour and in business in particular. Let’s start by seeing if we can reach a consensus by the power of Google:

 Wikipedia Strategy (from Greek στρατηγία stratēgia, “art of troop leader; office of general, command, generalship”) is a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty. [and also later in the same article] Max McKeown (2011) argues that “strategy is about shaping the future” and is the human attempt to get to “desirable ends with available means”. The Oxford English Dictionary[3] /stráttiji/ n. 1 the art of war. 2 a the management of an army or armies in a campaign. b the art of moving troops, ships, aircraft, etc. into favourable positions (cf. TACTICS). c an instance of this or a plan formed according to it. 3 a plan of action or policy in business or politics etc. (economic strategy) [F stratégie f. Gk strātegia generalship f. stratēgeos] Meta-entry […] a plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim. “time to develop a coherent economic strategy” […] The Business Dictionary […] a method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem. […]

So – assuming we decide, in the context of this blog, that the objective is probably not to better order military affairs, or to teach infantry men and women to write MDX – some sort of loose consensus emerges from the various definitions above. It seems that a strategy is something which seeks to influence the future, to bring about some conditions or cause an event, neither of which would manifest themselves without some action being taken[4]. I am going to adopt the definition that a strategy is a method to achieve some future objective; or at least to make the realisation of this aim more likely. This means that a strategy implies change. If the situation is now X then after the strategy has been successfully enacted then the situation will then be Y[5].

A Metaphor for Strategy

The role of change in strategy leads me to think about strategy formulation in the following way[6]. I think of situation X (the current one) as a place on a map. Then situation Y (the desired one) is a second place on the same map. We are at X and we want to get to Y, we have a starting point and a destination, an origin and a terminus. The shortest distance between two points is of course a straight line[7]. However a straight line between between X and Y may not exist (there could be a lake in between with no method to traverse this), or it might not be the quickest route (if the line passes over an intervening mountain, which could instead be more quickly circumnavigated). In general there may be more than one route between X and Y and each may have its advantages and disadvantages. I tend to think of strategy formation as the process by which the best (or, if this is all that is achievable, least bad) route is established.

Of course a challenge here is that – outside the realms of mathematics (or indeed SatNav) – there may not be an optimum route and equally no optimum strategy. Even if an optimum strategy does exist, the strategist may not have enough information[8] to hand to discern this. Also, while effecting change is the objective of a strategy, this aim may itself be impacted by change; to employ our metaphor of travel, change to the destination, or to the territory in between. This may mean that the route (the strategy) must be adjusted, or in some cases wholly abandoned in favour of a different approach. Strategy formulation has some scientific-like qualities and I will focus on some of these shortly. However for the reasons just put forward (and indeed others we will examine later) elements of the strategy formation process can sometimes be more of an art form.

Of course another problem could be that you don’t have a map!

Having introduced a geographic quality to describing strategy formation, I’ll leverage this analogy[9] for the rest of the article. However, first a slight detour to establish the credentials of your guide to the terrain of Information Strategy; namely me. Any readers who are already familiar with my work are encouraged to scroll past the next section.

So what do I know about Information Strategies anyway?

I have worked in IT for over quarter of a century with much of that related to turning data into information. Indeed one of my early tasks during my first job at a software house was to help design and develop the automated Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss statements provided as part of the company’s flagship product. These took the transactions entered into the company’s General Ledger system and assembled them into sensible Financial statements, which could be sliced and diced[10] by period, cost centre or project code. However, my full initiation to the related areas of Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing was not until the beginning of 2000, when I was asked to establish a Management Information function for a pan-European insurance organisation. This means that I don’t reach my 15-year BI/DW milestone until New Year (actually probably some point in the middle of January 2015)[11].

Having both developed and executed an Information Strategy for the European part of this company, I extended both of these processes to encompass Latin America. I then developed a broader Information Strategy which included all of their International operations. It is gratifying to note that this strategy still guides information provision at this organisation to this day. After this, I went on to shape Information Strategies for other companies in sectors such as Manufacturing, Retail and back to Reinsurance / Insurance again. In each of these cases, I either saw the execution of these strategies through to at least their first delivery, or the programmes of work that I crafted were then executed by the teams that I had built.

My teams also won a couple of awards for this work along the way.

The Questions driving Strategy Formation

There are many good resources available in printed form and on-line for those who want to understand various approaches to general strategy formulation. For readers who are interested in strategy outside of a technology context and specifically outside of the area of Information Strategy, then Google is your friend. For anyone who is still with us, then while I would not claim to be an all-purpose strategy guru, I think that it is worth starting by presenting some general questions that pertain to the area of strategy formation. I am going to cast these in the shape of the geographic / journey metaphor that I developed above. Adopting this framework, any general strategy will have to answer the following questions:

1. Where are we?
Answering this question is the province of a Situational Analysis. Such a study will highlight what is good about the current situation as well as what needs to be changed.

2. Where do we want to be instead and why?
Here it is useful to consider two things: first Drivers for Change (which may emerge from the Situational Analysis); second a further question, What does good look like? This area is thus a mixture of what is wrong with the current situation and what would be good about the one proposed as the objective of the strategy[12].

3. How do we get there, how long will it take and what will it cost?
Thinking of the most perfect of destinations is going to be of little use if it costs too much to get there or the journey time is prohibitive. Here the strategist needs to get more concrete and consider realistic estimates of time and money.

4. Will the trip be worth it?
There is a relation here to areas covered under the earlier bullet points, but answering this question will normally require some sort of cost/benefit analysis. In describing what good looks like, many potential benefits may be articulated, here there is a need to quantify them as best as is possible.

5. What else can we do along the way?
Some might quibble at the inclusion of this item. However I think that the metaphor of a journey lends itself to considering what tactical work can help buttress the central activities of the strategy.

The framing of the above in terms pertinent to a journey may not be familiar[13], but I think that it is useful. This metaphor also has the benefit of alluding to what is inevitably the case with each of strategy development, strategy execution and the most worthwhile of journeys; they seldom happen overnight.

Having laid some general foundations, the next article in this series, Part II, will begin to be more specific and consider how these questions can be applied to forming the first element an Information Strategy, a Situational Analysis.

 Forming an Information Strategy I – General Strategy II – Situational Analysis III – Completing the Strategy

Notes

 [1] These include (in chronological order): [2] IRM European Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence Conference – November 2012 [3] Actually The Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus (1997). Ink on cellulose pulp edition (this format used to be quite popular once upon a time). Also still available from antiquarian booksellers. [4] Here I assume that waiting around for something to happen, when it was going to happen anyway, is not a strategic approach; “that would be to mistake lethargy for strategy” (© Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. Yes Minister – The Writing on the Wall) [5] I suppose the assumption here is that situation Y is preferable to situation X; at least from the point of view of the strategist. [6] Amongst many other articles on this site, see The confluence of BI and change management for an explicit link between change and Business Intelligence. [7] Assuming Euclidean Geometry, if not then maybe try this instead. [8] Here I am using the term generally rather than in the sense of information generated by systems, which even today remains mostly numeric; albeit that other forms of data have streaked ahead of dowdy old numbers some time ago. Numeric data tends to be somewhat easier to transform into information than non-numeric; at least for now. [9] Perhaps it is worth introducing a note of caution about the over-extension of analogies here – I do this in an earlier article bearing the same name. [10] To this day, I have a compulsion to write “dice and slice” as opposed to “slice and dice”, despite the latter being a more logical sequence of events when approaching – say – a butternut squash. [11] I am looking forward to my engraved TDWI decanter immensely. [12] Sometimes the current situation is so bad that simply addressing its shortcomings is enough work for a strategy to consider. More often a strategy will look to ad value beyond just remediating current issues. [13] Though I can hardly claim to be the first person to come up with this metaphor.