MDM Workshop 05-Best Practices (לקריאה בלבד) (מצב תאימות)

DataDelta Master Data Management (MDM) Workshop
Session 5:
MDM Best Practices
Aaron Zornes Ed Allburn

Chief Research Officer President & CEO
The CDI-MDM Institute DataDelta, Inc.
aaron.zornes@tcdii.com allburn@datadelta.com
DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 1

Best Practices
“Superheroes” are no longer enough

Best Practices
• Executive-level • Data cleanliness

sponsorship • Communication
• Business partnerships • Metrics
• Data governance • Manage the SI partner(s)
• Evolution • Staffing
g
• Policy/process hub

Emerging Implementation Issues
CDI-MDM Urgency detracting from Data Fundamentals:

• Strong pressure & focus to quickly start CDI mechanics
Data Quality
• CDI-MDM focus causing DQ shortcuts & afterthoughts
• Treat all data same vs treat different data differently
y
Record Match Accuracy

• Goals
G l – Business
B i U
User Di
Direction
ti vs “Y
“You (th
(the vendor)
d )T Tellll U
Us””
• Logic – “On-Going Refinement” vs “Static”
• Results - "Full
Full Refresh"
Refresh vs "On-going
On going Incremental
Incremental"
• Accuracy - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell“ vs True Due-Diligence
• 3rd-Party Review – Increasing Interest & More Resistance
– “We can audit our results ourselves…”
Bottom Line: Active BU Participation in Data
Governance & Data Steward Functions is Vital
• Plan for IT organizational change mgmt to support CDI/MDM efforts
• Workk with
W ith business
b i lleadership
d hi tto d
design
i & refine
fi ththe “f
“future
t state”
t t ”
business processes associated with new CDI/MDM commitments
• To a greater degree than traditional application development
initiatives, organizational readiness & acceptance has huge impact
on both success & sustainability of CDI/MDM initiative
• Withoutt C-level
With Cl l support,t BU
BUs will
ill fi
find
d it diffi
difficult
lt tto contribute
t ib t ffunding
di
& resources necessary to launch a CDI/MDM initiative – resulting in
status quo with each business unit continuing to address issue at
division-level (if at all)
• After initial development of a CDI/MDM system, continued support by
BUs is essential & must include:
– Ongoing participation in development of business rules and resolution of
master data match/merge issues
– Ongoing
O i commitment
it t to
t update
d t both
b th applications
li ti and
dbbusiness
i
processes to leverage core data stored in master data hub
Common Factors of Success
• Strong, active executive support

• Long-term (5-10yr) strategy
• Early Rigorous Data Governance
Early,
• Narrowly focused, phased implementations
– N
No “Bi
“Big B
Bang”” projects
j t ththatt ttry to
t “boil
“b il th
the ocean”” b
before
f
showing tangible, valuable results
• On-going
On going communication & education
• Take credit for your success
– And leverage that success to win more funding &
support for the next phase

Managing the SI Relationship
• Determining the evaluation criteria for selecting SI partners

for CDI-MDM projects
• Identifying which SIs are market leaders in your industry &
your chosen software technologies
• Managing the SI relationship – esp. avoiding “brain drain” &
inflationary “blended rates”
P
Preparing
i ffor ttalent
l t shortages
h t now iis th
the savvy way to
t avoid
id
the CDI-MDM "money pit" later
Why Focus on “SI” Cost Component?
• CDI-MDM projects typically incur substantial amt of systems

integration in first 12-24
12 24 months as businesses wire data sources
into enterprise's data hub
• CDI-MDM Institute research finds G5000 enterprise spends
average of US$1.2 million for CDI-MDM software solutions - with
addt’l investment of 4X in SI services
• CDI-MDM
CDI MDM is one of few remaining growth areas for both software
vendors & systems integrators (SIs)
• Recent buzz around CDI-MDM is rivaled only by intensity with
which
hi h systems
t iintegrators
t t h
have "f
"found
d CDI
CDI-MDM
MDM religion"
li i "
Given substantial investment businesses undertake with SI

partners, this must be scrutinised – not only in effort to
contain
t i costs,
t b
butt also
l tto insure
i success off this
thi vital
it l
infrastructure investment
Post "Phase Zero" Tasks
• Determine the CDI-MDM product short list

• Perform gap analysis to determine which software must be
developed internally & which can be purchased
• Identify a systems integrator (SI) consultancy partner
• Plan for IT organizational change management
• Work with the business leadership to design & refine "future
state" business processes associated with new CDI
state CDI-MDM
MDM
commitments
After determining/aligning business strategy …

Areas Where SIs May Provide Value
• Identify & prioritize business functional requirements

• Recommend build vs. buy
• Provide a solution selection methodology that balances business &
technical requirements
• Develop detailed request for proposal (RFP)
• Evaluate & select the right
g CDI-MDM software solution vendor(s)
( )

Areas Where SI Provides Implementation Value
• Pilot the CDI-MDM solution & application integration

• Develop IT & business user communications in addition to training
materials
• Define & establish user job roles – e.g.,
e g MDM project leads
leads,
corporate/LOB data stewards
• Define metrics for ROI or other measurements
• Structure change management & system tuning strategies

Understanding Your SI’s Business Model
• Significant challenge for SI is to Typical SI Team

Drawn From Various
d t
determine
i mega vendord &/ &/or b
best-of-
t f Other Practice Teams
breed/vertical niche CDI-MDM software
• Enterprise architecture
vendors with which to align planning, esp. SOA experts
• Each CDI-MDM vendor has • Enterprise data modeling

• Legacy app reengineering
– Vertical industry – e.g., banking or • Data conversion & application
pharmaceutical
p a aceut ca g
migration
• Data quality
– Corporate horizontal functional • EAI middleware & BPM
specialization – e.g., B2B hierarchy experts.
rationalization) • Analytics & ETL experts
– Mind share & brand recognition by virtue • Testing & QA

• Systems infrastructure mgmt
of early successes
• Performance engineering
• ROI & cost-model generation
(business value articulation)

How to Keep Staff from Being Shanghai’ed
• Financial handcuffs
• Personal/corporate recognition
• Career tracks
• Contractual non
non-compete/
compete/”hands
hands-off
off my people”
people

Data Governance Will Become a Major Investment
• Defining master data governance IT processes

• Establishing & training the data stewardship function
• Designing future state business processes tied to newly founded master
data management (MDM) commitments regarding customer data

1Q2006 Data Governance Survey
• Objective = scorecard for FSP vs

vs. non-FSP
• Methodology = online surveys & interviews
– Pre-qualified,
Pre qualified pre
pre-existing
existing relationship
– C-level or next level
• Survey pool of fifty+ G5000 enterprises
– IBM Data Governance Council
– IBM WebSphere Customer Center Advisory Board
– CDI-MDM Institute Advisory Council
Pre qualified senior IT executives – not random IT personnel

Pre-qualified
Survey Participants – CISOs, CIOs, CTOs,
Enterprise Architects, VPs & Directors of IT
50% enterprise-level
enterprise level perspective; 25% LOB/divisional
1Q2006 Data Governance Survey
Business
Pilot Program
Initiative within
10%
Corporate
Governance
Program
20%
Business
Initiative within
Operational Initiative
Ri k &
Risk Within IT
Compliance 30%
40%
60% do not measure DG processes against KPIs – e.g., ''accuracy of data over
time'' ''data completeness'‘ – such
time'', s ch inabilit
inability to measure
meas re begs for basic DG cons
consulting
lting
services
Data Governance Challenges
Data Governance
• Adjudicating between centralized In Practice
vs. decentralized data
stewardship CIO
Business
Exec
• Evolving key stakeholders from
“data ownership” to “data
stewardship”
Chief VP of VP of
• Upgrading notion off “data”
“ to Data Infra- Appli-
Officer structure cations
Dept’l Dept’l Dept’l
Exec Exec Exec
“policy/process”
Data Governance
Steering Committee
Corporate BU BU
Data Data Data
Steward Steward Steward
20% of FSPs use CTO to drive DG process – both FSP & non-FSP
non FSP modestly rely upon
Steering Committees (15-25%)
Data Governance Enables Information Integration
Privacy
Preferences
Pricing
Bundles
Discount
Policies
Compatibility
Process /
Next Best
Offer Policy
o cy Hub
ub
Legacy
Upgrade/
pg
Downgrade
Shipping
Approvals
Eligibility
Methodology is needed to bind process steps, skills & software to produce

d t governance deliverables
data d li bl

“Top 5” Business Drivers
Create value from integrated, high

high-quality
quality 56%
information 46%
Increase marketing
g effectiveness 62%
53%
Enable consistent usage of data across 75%

the enterprise 60%
38%
Reduce regulatory risk 66%
“Single version of the truth” 88%

40%
Non FSP
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
FSP
Source: February 2006 CDI –MDM-Institute survey of 50 Global 5000 IT organizations
Data quality
quality-enabled
enabled information integration is fundamental
to ability to "leverage data as an enterprise asset”
“Top 5” IT Drivers
Developing architecture best practices & 31%

standards 47%
Monitoring to improve data quality 56%

46%
Building governance infrastructure, technology 56%

& supporting organization 60%
63%
Developing standard metadata mgmt 47%
Defining processes & business rules for 81%

ongoing governance 67%
N FSP
Non-FSP
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
FSP
Source: February 2006 CDI-MDM Institute survey of 50 Global 5000 IT organizations
IT organizations cannot “go

go it alone”
alone –
data governance experience & accelerators are needed
Technical Maturity Level
50%
40%
30%
FSP
20% Non-FSP
10%
0%
Basic Foundational Advanced Distinctive
Source: February 2006 CDI-MDM

CDI MDM Institute survey of 50 Global 5000 IT organizations
• BASIC (“anarchy”) – App-centric approach; meets business needs only on project-specific basis
• FOUNDATIONAL (“IT monarchy”) – Policy-driven standardization on technology & methods; common usage of tools
& procedures across projects
• ADVANCED ((“business
business monarchy
monarchy”)) – Rationalized data with data & metadata actively shared in production across
sources
• DISTINCTIVE (“Federalist”) – SOA (modular components), integrated view of compliance requirements, formalized
organization with defined roles & responsibilities, clearly defined metrics, iterative learning cycle
Overall, FSPs are leading the way for non-FSPs

Data Type Focus
3rd
3 d party
t
Financial reference
16% data
10%
Product Customer
23% 51%
DG is primarily focused on customer, product & chart of accounts (financial)

Customer Data Redundancy
Is there REDUNDANCY in your CUSTOMER DATA (is the same information in

more than
h one place
l in the
h various databases
d b that
h you are drawing
d from)?
f )
n/a 0%
Don't know 6%
Yes - to a great extent 41%
Yes - somewhat 38%
No 16%
%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Focus is on acknowledged problem area of “customer” data

Data Governance Expertise
60%
50%
40% FSP
30% Non-FSP
20%
10%
0%
Internal Industry- Systems Training
specific integrator classes
consultants
lt t
Source: February 2006 CDI –MDM Institute survey of 50 Global 5000 IT organizations
Overall, 50% of expertise is internal vs. 35% from external sources

Data Steward Residence & Specific Role
Developing architecture best practices & 31%

standards 47%
56%
Monitoring to improve data quality 46%
Building governance infrastructure, technology 56%

& supporting organization 60%
Developing standard metadata mgmt 63%

47%
Defining processes & business rules for 81%

ongoing governance 67%
Non-FSP
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
FSP
DS is a business-oriented function – concept p is embraced,, active,, generally

g ypproject-oriented
j &
within the BU (not within IT ) – clearly, business is stepping up more on a project basis to take
responsibility for the data
Survivorship of Trusted Sources
User originated master data update

User-originated 13%
Rules engine of legacy system 13%
Not applicable
16%
Rules engine of enterprise CRM suite 19%
Rules engine of data integration tool 23%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Rules themselves are in manyy different places

p & need to be extracted out into
horizontal layer & then replicated back to individual units – this is “true MDM” in the long
run
Regular Correction/Purge of Inaccurate Data
Not applicable
Don't know
N
No
Yes
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Source: February 2006 CDI Institute survey of 50 Global 5000 IT organizations
A lot of effort is spent

p on remediation efforts; yyet without a DG p
policyy how can
inaccuracies be remediated when occurring outside the local application? ANSWER =
data governance-driven MDM
Data Governance Survey Findings
• Large #’s of high-ranking management recognize poor data

governance as a problem
bl
– Yet only 38% have dedicated stewards
– FSPs (50%) are more likely than non-FSPs
non FSPs (30%) to staff F/T
data steward positions
• FSP are 2X as likely

FSPs lik l as non-FSPs
FSP to
t
– Have “advanced” DG program in place
– Describe their p
program
g as “an initiative within IT organization”
g
Data governance is a prerequisite to efficient & effective

information integration & business intelligence –
two key differentiators in highly
highly-competitive
competitive industries such as FSP

Recommendations
• Data governance is difficult – enterprises need to embrace a

blueprint
p for success
• IT management must understand impact of data governance on
their information integration plans
– All b
businesses
i embrace
b political
liti l structures
t t
– Data governance is necessary to support politics of both centralized &
distributed information integration
– Without firm commitment to corporate data governance,
BU-specific data governance projects run risk of becoming
“yet another master data mart”
• Savvy FSPs begin with data stewardship & business metadata
definition
Data governance is a key enabler for data quality-driven

i f
information
i integration
i i –
IT management should get “on message”
Session End
Questions & Answers

MDM Workshop 05-Best Practices (לקריאה בלבד) (מצב תאימות)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MDM Workshop 05-Best Practices (לקריאה בלבד) (מצב תאימות)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DataDelta Master Data Management (MDM) Workshop

Aaron Zornes Ed Allburn

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 1

“Superheroes” are no longer enough

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 2

• Executive-level • Data cleanliness

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 3

CDI-MDM Urgency detracting from Data Fundamentals:

Record Match Accuracy

• Strong, active executive support

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 6

• Determining the evaluation criteria for selecting SI partners

• CDI-MDM projects typically incur substantial amt of systems

Given substantial investment businesses undertake with SI

• Determine the CDI-MDM product short list

After determining/aligning business strategy …

• Identify & prioritize business functional requirements

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 10

• Pilot the CDI-MDM solution & application integration

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 11

• Significant challenge for SI is to Typical SI Team

• Each CDI-MDM vendor has • Enterprise data modeling

– Mind share & brand recognition by virtue • Testing & QA

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 12

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 13

• Defining master data governance IT processes

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 14

• Objective = scorecard for FSP vs

Pre qualified senior IT executives – not random IT personnel

Methodology is needed to bind process steps, skills & software to produce

DataDelta MDM Workshop - Copyright © 2007 DataDelta, Inc. 19

Create value from integrated, high

Enable consistent usage of data across 75%

“Single version of the truth” 88%

Developing architecture best practices & 31%

Monitoring to improve data quality 56%

Building governance infrastructure, technology 56%

Defining processes & business rules for 81%

IT organizations cannot “go

Source: February 2006 CDI-MDM

Overall, FSPs are leading the way for non-FSPs

Source: February 2006 CDI-MDM Institute survey of 50 Global 5000 IT organizations

DG is primarily focused on customer, product & chart of accounts (financial)

Is there REDUNDANCY in your CUSTOMER DATA (is the same information in

Yes - to a great extent 41%

Yes - somewhat 38%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Source: February 2006 CDI-MDM Institute survey of 50 Global 5000 IT organizations

Focus is on acknowledged problem area of “customer” data

Overall, 50% of expertise is internal vs. 35% from external sources

Developing architecture best practices & 31%

Building governance infrastructure, technology 56%

Developing standard metadata mgmt 63%

Defining processes & business rules for 81%

DS is a business-oriented function – concept p is embraced,, active,, generally

User originated master data update

Rules engine of legacy system 13%

Rules engine of enterprise CRM suite 19%

Rules engine of data integration tool 23%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Rules themselves are in manyy different places

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%