Open Framework, Information Management Strategy & Collaborative Governance | Data & Social Methodology - MIKE2.0 Methodology
Members
Collapse Expand Close

To join, please contact us.

Improve MIKE 2.0
Collapse Expand Close
Need somewhere to start? How about the most wanted pages; or the pages we know need more work; or even the stub that somebody else has started, but hasn't been able to finish. Or create a ticket for any issues you have found.

Archive for April, 2011

by: Bsomich
30  Apr  2011

Weekly IM Update.

logo.jpg

A Structural Overview of MIKE 2.0

If you’re not already familiar, here is an intro to the structure of the MIKE2.0 methodology and associated content:

  • A New Model for the Enterprise provides an intro rationale for MIKE2.0
  • What is MIKE2.0? is a good basic intro to the methodology with some of the major diagrams and schematics
  • Introduction to MIKE2.0 is a category of other introductory articles
  • Mike 2.0 How To – provides a listing of basic articles of how to work with and understand the MIKE2.0 system and methodology.
  • Alternative Release Methodologies describes current thinking about how the basic structure of MIKE2.0 can itself be modified and evolve. The site presently follows a hierarchical model with governance for major changes, though branching and other models could be contemplated.

We hope you find this of benefit and welcome any suggestions you may have to improve it.

Sincerely,

MIKE2.0 Community

New! Popular Content

Did you know that the following wiki articles are most popular on Google? Check them out, and feel free to edit or expand them!

What is MIKE2.0?
Deliverable Templates
The 5 Phases of MIKE2.0
Overall Task List
Business Assessment Blueprint
SAFE Architecture
Information Governance Solution

Contribute to MIKE:

Start a new article, help with articles under construction or look for other ways to contribute.

Update your personal profile to advertise yourself to the community and interact with other members.

Useful Links:
Home Page
Login
Content Model
FAQs
MIKE2.0 Governance

Join Us on
42.gif

Follow Us on
43 copy.jpg

Join Us on

images.jpg

 

This Week’s Blogs for Thought:

Can Excessive Quantification Inhibit Innovation?

I’m working on a project that involves using various marketing metrics as a baseline to structure and fund future team projects.  I’ve gathered my baseline marketing data from Google Analytics, determined my target percentiles, factored engagement metrics, and structured an incentive plan based on time and resources that I’m certain will work for both the client and project team.  I feel confident this is a sound and measurable methodology to base our project and incentive goals on.  But is it?Read more.


Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask

Thirteen years ago, before I worked for myself, I worked at a large Fortune 50 company in a hybrid capacity. About 60 percent of the time, I worked in and with IT. The other 40 percent of my time was spent in corporate HR. It took me a little while to understand the vast differences between the groups and, in years since, I have witnessed first hand many other IT-business chasms.

I can remember one project on which I worked with the recruiting department. A director (call him Alex here) wanted an analysis performed on the schools at which the company currently recruited. He wanted to know whether targeting Ivy League schools made sense. You see, Alex had to justify expensive recruiting trips to Cornell, Harvard, and other elite institutions.

Read more.

Is The New Small the Future of Big Business?

The most important thing about the evolution of cloud computing is the ability to setup a business quickly without the delays and cost associated with establishing dedicated infrastructure.  Phil Simon has written a book, The New Small, which demonstrates that this approach is ready for prime time.

Simon goes further and argues that the very characteristics that lead people to use the cloud are also the characteristics that make businesses agile and successful.  While his book provides case studies from what he calls “New Small” companies, the approach is just as applicable to groups within big organisations that seek to unburden themselves from big overheads and delays.

Read more.

Category: Information Development
No Comments »

by: Bsomich
28  Apr  2011

Can excessive quantification inhibit innovation?

I’m working on a project that involves using various marketing metrics as a baseline to structure and fund future team projects.  I’ve gathered my baseline marketing data from Google Analytics, determined my target percentiles, factored engagement metrics, and structured an incentive plan based on time and resources that I’m certain will work for both the client and project team.  I feel confident this is a sound and measurable methodology to base our project and incentive goals on.  But is it?

This same scenario happens all too often in project planning.  We over-think, over-quantify, and over-organize our plan and forget to factor in the most important component: flexibility. Think about it: if any team member received a project plan where success was based solely on mathematical measurements such as “hits received per day” or “comments generated per week” we’d be focusing only on the numbers and not on the larger picture. Where does creativity get calculated? Or innovation? What if half-way through the project, a team member finds a better metric, but because it’s not included in the initial project plan, chooses not to measure it? Likewise, if the project plan is so specific that it holds only certain people accountable for certain goals, how likely is it that our team members will be willing to work together versus individually?  Are we eliminating the opportunity to reap the benefits of collaboration and brainstorming?  Creating silos in an organization operating in an industry that has just accomplished knocking them down?

As an analytical person by nature, I love data.  I love numbers.  They help me gauge most of my successes in work and home life. But the more experienced I become in the workplace, I’m realizing they are not the “golden ticket” to measuring all results, especially when teams are involved. It can’t just be about hitting predetermined goals because chances are you’ve forgot a variable or your baseline has changed.  Also and more importantly, despite the fact that we live in an increasingly connected and networked world, people will work themselves back into a cubicle if you create a plan that allows them to.  Factoring in time for teamwork, flexibility, creativity and collaboration may impact your timeframe, but it also will impact a team’s ability to create innovative products and services.  And at the end of the day, those are the ones that sell.

 

Category: Business Intelligence, Information Management
3 Comments »

by: Phil Simon
26  Apr  2011

Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask

Thirteen years ago, before I worked for myself, I worked at a large Fortune 50 company in a hybrid capacity. About 60 percent of the time, I worked in and with IT. The other 40 percent of my time was spent in corporate HR. It took me a little while to understand the vast differences between the groups and, in years since, I have witnessed first hand many other IT-business chasms.

I can remember one project on which I worked with the recruiting department. A director (call him Alex here) wanted an analysis performed on the schools at which the company currently recruited. He wanted to know whether targeting Ivy League schools made sense. You see, Alex had to justify expensive recruiting trips to Cornell, Harvard, and other elite institutions.

Disclaimer: I have a master’s in labor relations from Cornell University.

One of Alex’s direct reports (call her Lauren here) was much more functional than technical. That is, she understood the business needs of her department but wasn’t great at extracting and manipulating data. Added to the mix, our employer’s internal systems and data were, to put it bluntly, a mess. Perhaps I could help her try to make heads and tails of things.

Not a problem. Eager to lend a hand, I dug in to the data. I started with high level questions, such as:

  1. Do hires from Ivy League schools perform better than those from other institutions?
  2. Do hires from Ivy League schools remain with the company longer than those from other institutions?
  3. Do hires from Ivy League schools justify their higher salaries–relative to those from other institutions?
  4. Do the recruiting expenses required to hire these candidates justify their costs?
  5. Ultimately, should our company be focusing on candidates from Ivy League schools?

Note that I did not have accurate information on many things, including internal recruiting costs, making definitively answering questions like number four impossible.

But not having completely accurate and comprehensive information should never stop you. I’ve always been able to use proxies when I lacked such information. For example, while I couldn’t tell you precisely how much Alex had spent on his plane ticket to Harvard, it wasn’t hard to approximate that expense–and others. Things like offer acceptance rate are also easy to estimate when you talk to others.

Among my findings, at our company, Ivy League employees (relative to non-Ivy League ones):

  • were not appreciably better performers
  • did not stay with the company for a longer period of time
  • did not justify their expense

Even with significant limitations of our company’s data, the statistics were overwhelmingly clear. Brass tacks: the costs of recruiting at Ivy League schools did not remotely justify their benefits, even if my assumptions were off considerably.

Don’t Tell, Don’t Ask

Lauren was amazed at what I could do with a tool as simple (yet powerful) as Microsoft Excel. (Again, she wasn’t very technical.) However, she wasn’t an idiot: she saw the same trends that I did. She presented her findings to Alex, her boss. And here’s where the story gets interesting.

Alex would have none of it. He didn’t want the real answers to the questions: Should he be recruiting at Ivy League schools? Was the Ivy League strategy the best use of his department’s–and the company’s–money? Or would it be better to focus on state schools? He only wanted confirmation that he was already doing the right thing. He liked going to Harvard and Yale. He liked telling others (internally and externally) that he “bagged” a new MBA from Columbia. He dismissed the results of my analysis immediately upon learning the results.

And you wonder why HR doesn’t exactly have the best reputation in many organizations?

Simon Says

The bottom line of this little yarn: you shouldn’t ask the question if you don’t want the real answer.

Feedback

What say you?

Tags: ,
Category: Information Development, Information Management
2 Comments »

by: Robert.hillard
25  Apr  2011

Is “The New Small” the future of big business?

The most important thing about the evolution of cloud computing is the ability to setup a business quickly without the delays and cost associated with establishing dedicated infrastructure.  Phil Simon has written a book, The New Small, which demonstrates that this approach is ready for prime time.

Simon goes further and argues that the very characteristics that lead people to use the cloud are also the characteristics that make businesses agile and successful.  While his book provides case studies from what he calls “New Small” companies, the approach is just as applicable to groups within big organisations that seek to unburden themselves from big overheads and delays.

Simon is a fellow blogger on this site and we share many of the same philosophies with regards to the information technology industry.  He is someone who “gets” the subtle issues that organisations face managing complex technology in an era of information overload.

The cost of setting up the systems for any new business or function within a larger organisation is continually going up, despite the drive downwards, by Moore’s law, of computers themselves.  This increase in cost is due to the complexity inherent in the increasing amount of information and the processes that handle it.  Anyone worried about these costs could do worse than to think in terms of “New Small” and ask whether there is another way to deploy nimble solutions.

Organizations want to find a way to bring the cost of technology down.  There is a growing sense of frustration that it is too hard to make even small changes to the way a business is run without incurring huge expense.  Many are arguing that cloud computing and software as a service (SaaS) are offering a way of achieving these sorts of gains.

Another way of looking at things is to consider the last decade as being one where very little actually changed in core computing models.  The industry got a lot better at applying techniques developed in the 1990s.  The next decade is unlikely to be so comfortable with much more radical approaches appearing, including the move from a web-based architecture to one that utilises small, but functionally rich, “apps”.  It is very likely that the IT department of the near future will appear much like an “enterprise app store”!

All this has to happen in an environment where the most important resource available to any business is the data that it holds.  Any new approach to implementing applications cannot swap system complexity for information fragmentation as this will put at risk regulatory obligations, shareholder value and potential future business opportunities.

Category: Information Strategy, Open Source
2 Comments »

by: Bsomich
21  Apr  2011

An Integrated Approach to Meeting Regulatory Requirements

In meeting finance regulations such as Basel, SOX, IFRS and AML, many organizations have struggled due to the complexity of their information management environments.  The cost of information management has become increasingly high and approaches have often involved tactical measures that actually make the long-term environment more difficult to control. Data Quality has been a particular issue.

As finance-related regulatory requirements are becoming increasingly demanding, there is a need to get “out in front” with a better approach to the development of infrastructure and information.  MIKE 2.0 is actively working to create an open-source solution to meet regulatory requirements concerning information management.   We invite you to join us and help contribute to this valuable community offering.

Category: Data Quality
1 Comment »

by: Bsomich
20  Apr  2011

Profile Spotlight: Jans Aasman

Jans Aasman

Dr. Jans Aasman is CEO and President of Franz, a semantic web and enterprise technology solution provider.  He started his career as an experimental and cognitive psychologist, earning his PhD in cognitive science with a detailed model of car driver behavior using Lisp and Soar.

Aasman has spent most of his professional life in telecommunications research, specializing in intelligent user interfaces and applied artificial intelligence projects. From 1995 to 2004, he was also a part-time professor in the Industrial Design department of the Technical University of Delft. Jans is currently the CEO of Franz Inc., the leading supplier of commercial, persistent, and scalable RDF database products that provide the storage layer for powerful reasoning and ontology modeling capabilities for Semantic Web applications.

Dr. Aasman has gained notoriety as a conference speaker at such events as Semantic Technologies Conference, International Semantic Web Conference, Java One, Linked Data Planet, INSA, GeoWeb, ICSC, RuleML and DEBS.  He is also one of 15 CEOs interviewed in a new book, “Startup Best Practices”.

Connect with Jans.

Category: Information Development
1 Comment »

by: Phil Simon
20  Apr  2011

On Football, Fish, and Leadership

fish There’s an old English saying: A fish rots from the head down. This maxim can be applied to many different situations. In a nutshell, it means that when an organization or state fails, the leadership shoulders most of the blame. From a senior executive’s perspective, is this platitude inherently fair? Probably not. I’ve worked on many large-scale IT projects in my day. While I’ve seen my share of terrible and ill-equipped leaders, it’s facile and simply inaccurate to just blame the folks in the corner office. Consider the MIKE2.0 Managed Data Governance Organisation with C-level executives ensconced firmly at the top: DG Organization As you can see, there are myriad areas for potential problems in large organizations–even if everyone has the best of intentions. Of course, this is rarely if ever the case. While the above diagram is simply a framework, I have found these types of visual representations manifest potential problems on information management projects. On a personal level, I’ve witnessed many recalcitrant employees who have found creative ways to subvert management because they didn’t agree with any number of things. (Even entry-level employees can cause major problems by doing–or not doing–key things in a timely manner.) While often not outright defiance, employees usually have more than a little room for interpretation on a daily basis. Long story short: what a leader wants and what a leader ultimately gets can be two entirely different things.

Expectations

But CXOs shouldn’t expect fairness–not when they make so much money and have so much responsibility. Collectively, CXOs’ level of compensation and responsibility mean that they have to–or at least, should have to–solve bigger problems than the everyday employee and deal with more issues. That’s why they make the big bucks, isn’t it? This isn’t entirely dissimilar to quarterbacks in the National Football League (NFL). They make much, much more than the league average because of a number of reasons:

  • It’s the most visible position in the sport.
  • It’s the most complex position to perform (well).
  • They’re just aren’t that many good ones around.

Like a bad leader, a bad quarterback CIO or VP can destroy an organization. Because they represents the sum total of the people working for them, they can easily point to individuals, groups and departments not doing their jobs. The best leaders don’t do this. They make do with what they have. They make tough decisions relative to resources (both human and financial), strategy, implementation, and execution. They hold people accountable when things veer off course. They realize that actions have consequences. They manage risk and a cauldron of other issues.

Simon Says

The workplace isn’t a democracy and employees are expected to fall in line. Foolish is the leader, however, who expects things to work out entirely as planned. While it’s probably an exaggeration to expect complete dysfunction, it’s wise to remember Hofstadter’s Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.

Feedback

What say you?

Tags: ,
Category: Information Governance
No Comments »

by: Bsomich
13  Apr  2011

Recent trends show a greater need for Information Governance

A recent Information-Management article outlines several data governance horror stories, including:

Federal Computer Week reported, “Poor information security in an obscure State Department computer system made it possible for an inside source to turn over a massive cache of secret and sensitive diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks.”

According to The Associated Press, the Federal Aviation Administration is missing key information on who owns 119,000 private and commercial aircraft in the U.S. – a gap the agency fears could be exploited by terrorists and drug traffickers.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported that TUI Travel, Europe’s largest tour operator, said it accepted the resignation of its CFO after having to restate its 2009 results. The tour operator said it wrote off $185 million after faults in integrating computer systems following a 2007 merger.

Now, more than ever, companies are faced with increasingly complex data management, governance and security issues. Luckily, MIKE 2.0 offers a completely free, open source framework for building an Information Governance Program. Check it out when you have a moment.

Category: Information Development
No Comments »

by: Phil Simon
11  Apr  2011

Office Space, Data Cleanup, and A Radical Approach


My friend Robert Hilliard on this site recently wrote about the oft-discussed issue of information management. He writes:

I argue that although the creation of new data in absolute terms (as opposed to the retention of existing data) means the innovation is genuinely new, it does not become disruptive to existing business unless it actually enhances the connections to current data.  Creating new data on its own doesn’t add much value to an existing business, but creating more links definitely does.

Creating new data–or cuts of existing data–is often of questionable value. I always ask myself: Is this truly needed given what the organization already has? Of course, therein lies the problem.

Consider the following questions for many large organizations:

  • How many reports merely reflect essentially the same data as other, existing but unknown ones?
  • How many people or departments inside a big organization insist upon their own BI tools because they don’t play well with other people or departments?
  • Do any organizations have accurate and comprehensive lists of all of the tools throughout?

Color me pessimistic, but at large companies I’d argue that the answers to these questions is typically “We don’t know.” What’s more, at these organizations, there’s rarely a great deal of data governance. As a result, a state of anarchy causes myriad problems–typically leading to requests for new “stuff” when old stuff will suffice..

The Sort-Of Simple Solution

Is there a simple solution to this problem? Not really, but let me tell you about a radical method that several CIOs have used to determine exactly which reports, BI tools, and data sources are needed: Turning everything off.

Let me explain.

A CIO sends an email to all managers explaining that there are too many applications, reports, data sources, etc. Perhaps this email goes out in February and states that, unless s/he hears otherwise, all “stuff” will be turned off at the end of the year. Perhaps several other reminders are sent as well and the topic is posted internally and referenced at meetings

Disclaimers

No one is messing with payroll applications. Major ERP and CRM applications need to remain active, but everything else is fair game. Also note that silence equals consent: non-responses are tacit approvals. Finally, even in sacred cows such as ERP and CRM, there typically are reports that are simply never used anymore.

After the Email

Diligent managers will respond immediately. They will list their reports, applications, and data sources cannot be deactivated. As is often the case, however, many of the emails and announcements will be ignored. At the end of the year, all “stuff” previously ignored are turned off. End of story. Systems are retired. Reports no longer need to be generated because obviously no one was using them.

This is obviously a way to remove superflous reports. Think Office Space and TPS Reports.

Simon Says

When CIOs have boldly taken this step, many have been silent. Then, several months or years post-deactivation, a few stragglers have come back with requests to resurrect those now dormant legacy items.

Is this risky? Sure. Is it arguably a good move? Yes. Everyone tends to overestimate what they need for fear of budget and headcount cuts, especially at large organizations.

Feedback

What say you?

Tags: ,
Category: Business Intelligence, Information Governance
1 Comment »

by: Robert.hillard
07  Apr  2011

Why aren’t I working a four hour day?

In the 1970s and 1980s, many writers mused that the increasing computing capability available to business and government was going to greatly reduce the work required to run our economy and society.  We were told that in the twenty first century, our biggest challenge would be to decide what to do with all our leisure time!

Books such as Alvin Toffler’s “Future Shock” and contemporary magazines accurately predicted many aspects of a twenty first century knowledge society.  However almost all futurists included in their predictions an anticipation of a huge reduction in the amount of time dedicated to our work.  Mechanix Illustrated published an article in 1968 titled “40 Years in the Future” (by James R. Berry) which confidently stated:

“People (will) have more time for leisure activities in the year 2008. The average work day is about four hours”

 The reality has turned out to be very different and it’s time to start asking, how did they get it so wrong?

In my last post I argued that we are retaining more data than ever.  It is the way we are applying this data that seems to be at the root of the problem of organisational complexity.

This is not an academic argument.  Technology projects cost too much and are getting much more expensive despite the continual reduction in the cost of the computing capacity itself.  Despite the elimination of many, if not most, clerical roles from organisations, we are seeing a shortage of available staff to run our businesses.  The status quo is not sustainable.

In the 1980s most businesses had just one way to complete each major process such as bringing on new staff, registering new customers and creating products.  By the 1990s, businesses introduced call centres and online channels with many different processes – each of which were mirrors of their original process but, ungoverned, created their own unique data.

By the twenty first century, we understood the need to bring this disparate data together in the form of master data.  Unfortunately understanding the need and implementing the necessary discipline are very different things.  Few organisations today have successfully integrated the disparate stores of complex data that define their core concepts.

With these distributed instances, many additional processes are required to deal with security, customer services and maintenance – to name just a few typical business requirements.  With all of these new processes, it should be little surprise that projects today cost so much more than ever before.

Perhaps if we understand the cause, we can start to change our business practices and make the case to invest to transform our process-oriented organisation into information-driven businesses.

Category: Information Governance, Information Management, Information Strategy
5 Comments »

Calendar
Collapse Expand Close
TODAY: Fri, June 23, 2017
April2011
SMTWTFS
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
Archives
Collapse Expand Close
Recent Comments
Collapse Expand Close