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 January, 2013

by: Bsomich
26  Jan  2013

Weekly IM Update.

logo.jpg

Data Governance: How competent is your organization?
One of the key concepts of the MIKE2.0 Methodology is that of an Organisational Model for Information Development. This is an organisation that provides a dedicated competency for improving how information is accessed, shared, stored and integrated across the environment.

Organisational models need to be adapted as the organisation moves up the 5 Maturity Levels for organisations in relation to the Information Development competencies below:

Level 1 Data Governance Organisation – Aware

  • An Aware Data Governance Organisation knows that the organisation has issues around Data Governance but is doing little to respond to these issues. Awareness has typically come as the result of some major issues that have occurred that have been Data Governance-related. An organisation may also be at the Aware state if they are going through the process of moving to state where they can effectively address issues, but are only in the early stages of the programme.
Level 2 Data Governance Organisation – Reactive
  • A Reactive Data Governance Organisation is able to address some of its issues, but not until some time after they have occurred. The organisation is not able to address root causes or predict when they are likely to occur. “Heroes” are often needed to address complex data quality issues and the impact of fixes done on a system-by-system level are often poorly understood.
Level 3 Data Governance Organisation – Proactive
  • A Proactive Data Governance Organisation can stop issues before they occur as they are empowered to address root cause problems. At this level, the organisation also conducts ongoing monitoring of data quality to issues that do occur can be resolved quickly.
Level 4 Data Governance Organisation – Managed
Level 5 Data Governance Organisation – Optimal

The MIKE2.0 Solution for the the Centre of Excellence provides an overall approach to improving Data Governance through a Centre of Excellence delivery model for Infrastructure Development and Information Development. We recommend this approach as the most efficient and effective model for building these common set of capabilities across the enterprise environment.

Feel free to check it out when you have a moment and offer any suggestions you may have to improve it.
Sincerely,

MIKE2.0 Community

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

Did You Know? All content on MIKE2.0 and any contributions you make are published under the Creative Commons license. This allows you free re-use of our content as long as you add a brief reference back to us.

 

This Week’s Blogs for Thought:

Is there a silver bullet in a volatile world?
There is little doubt that the business environment is changing faster than at any other time in history. The recent book from Peter Evans-Greenwood, The New Instability, argues that shift in the economy is a response to technology introduced over the past few decades. Written from the perspective of business transformation, Evans-Greenwood uses examples from virtually every industry to argue that it is how you partner rather than what you own that defines success in the digital era.
Read more.
The Rise of “DIY” IT A recent report issued by Capgemini found that IT decisions are increasingly being made by departments other than IT. That’s right, marketing, HR, finance and administration departments are now managing budgets that include SaaS and cloud-based solutions… with no experience necessary.

Why? Because many of these solutions do not require the traditional hardware and software maintained by an IT department. They already come with built-in support, making it easy for department managers to select, implement and manage the solution that works best for them.
Read more.

The Quantified Self, Part 1: Will it Lead to Better Data Management?
As a kid, I used to play videos games and track my high scores. I remember playing games like Techmo Football and NBA Jam. During quarter and period breaks, I would look at game statistics with my friends. At an early age, data just made sense to me.

While I still play video games from time to time, most of my involvement with data these days takes place in a professional context–i.e., at work. I suspect that I’m not alone here, but that may be changing. More and more, we’re hearing about the quantified self. Forget just measuring how many calories you burned at the gym or how many miles you ran with an app. These activities have been quantifiable for some time–and wearable technology is only intensifying this trend. Today, people are increasingly monitoring their health, sleep patterns, food, and other aspects of everyday life.
Read more.

Category: Information Development
No Comments »

by: Robert.hillard
20  Jan  2013

Is there a silver bullet in a volatile world?

There is little doubt that the business environment is changing faster than at any other time in history.  The recent book from Peter Evans-Greenwood, The New Instability, argues that shift in the economy is a response to technology introduced over the past few decades.  Written from the perspective of business transformation, Evans-Greenwood uses examples from virtually every industry to argue that it is how you partner rather than what you own that defines success in the digital era.

Some leaders believe the best response to volatile business environments is to focus on operational excellence, in fact even going so far as to design and operate the enterprise as a living computer.  Evans-Greenwood argues that the key to success is agility and business relationships, two things that require less rather than more systems.  Information Technology can be an operating platform for agility or it can lock-in existing ways of working.

Arguably, many organisations’ claims that they are innovating with Big Data is actually an example of inward-facing operational excellence.  I am reminded of an article by Steve Lohr in the New York Times: Sure, Big Data Is Great. But So Is Intuition.  Lohr, who is a proponent of Big Data, traces its lineage back to Frederick Winslow Taylor’s “scientific management”.

Both Evans-Greenwood and Lohr argue that a war of data algorithms which is limited to the same datasets will naturally deliver diminishing returns.

What the “unbusiness”, or enterprise that is unburdened by a focus on its assets, delivers is the freedom to find innovative relationships.  While organisations such as Twitter and Craigslist are obvious exemplars of this model, it is more interesting to read the case studies of businesses such as Kogan Technologies and Rolls Royce (the aircraft engine company, not the maker of luxury cars).

We are introduced to the partnerships that both Kogan Technologies and Rolls Royce have formed to find new and innovative ways of managing expensive assets.

None of the success stories we are introduced to in The New Instability could have achieved their goals using conventional tools such as Business Process Management.  I’ve made the case many times before that much of the value of organisations is in their complexity.  Any governance model that tries to force every situation into a limited number of responses by necessity reduces individual innovation and value.

Most of the investments we’ve made in enterprise technology, such as Enterprise Resource Planning, Business Process Management and now Big Data were started as ways differentiating the businesses that were the early adopters.  Beyond the first wave of implementation, most organisations seek to build on existing design patterns to manage costs.  What starts as an innovation quickly becomes a ticket to play and certainly doesn’t allow any business to respond to the next wave of instability.

Tags: ,
Category: Information Governance, Information Value, Web2.0
1 Comment »

by: Phil Simon
20  Jan  2013

The Quantified Self, Part I: Will it Lead to Better Data Management?

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be writing about self-quantification. In today’s post, I’ll introduce the topic and address a high-level question.

As a kid, I used to play videos games and track my high scores. I remember playing games like Techmo Football and NBA Jam. During quarter and period breaks, I would look at game statistics with my friends. At an early age, data just made sense to me.

While I still play video games from time to time, most of my involvement with data these days takes place in a professional context–i.e., at work. I suspect that I’m not alone here, but that may be changing. More and more, we’re hearing about the quantified self. Forget just measuring how many calories you burned at the gym or how many miles you ran with an app. These activities have been quantifiable for some time–and wearable technology is only intensifying this trend. Today, people are increasingly monitoring their health, sleep patterns, food, and other aspects of everyday life.

The movement arguably dates back to 2007, when journalist and author Gary Wolf co-founded the Quantified Self blog. Just six years later, there are worldwide QS conferences.

IM Ramifications of the Quantified Self

No doubt that some wonder whether the self-quantification movement is a good thing. Are we merging with machines? Is Ray Kurzweil right about singularity? What happens if someone hacks devices responsible for generating data on sensitive health matters?

These are lofty issues that I’m not going to address here, but there’s one indisputable benefit of the trend towards auto-analysis: It should make us better at information management (IM). For instance, let’s say that we’re using an app to monitor our sleep. We suspect the quality of the data generated by the app, not to mention its recommendations. We start searching for a better app or means to evaluate the quality of our sleep. We ignore data that doesn’t reflect our normal state of mind. Perhaps we had to pull all-nighter in college or we worked longer to meet an urgent work deadline.

In short, all of these things mean that we become increasingly comfortable with data. Data becomes a greater part of our personal lives, not just something we have to deal with at work. We see the importance of data quality first-hand, not just because someone in IT scolded us or an obscure interface failed.

Simon Says

Not everyone needs a reminder about the importance of data quality. Many of us understand GIGO–and have for years. There are plenty of us, however, who could benefit from a not so gentle tap on the shoulder here. To the extent that we learn more from our own mistakes than from external sources telling us what to do, I for one believe that the quantified self will make us better IM professionals.

Feedback

What say you?

Tags:
Category: Data Quality, Enterprise Data Management, Information Management
1 Comment »

by: Bsomich
19  Jan  2013

The Rise of “DIY” IT

A recent report issued by Capgemini found that IT decisions are increasingly being made by departments other than IT. That’s right, marketing, HR, finance and administration departments are now managing budgets that include SaaS and cloud-based solutions… with no experience necessary.

Why? Because many of these solutions do not require the traditional hardware and software maintained by an IT department. They already come with built-in support, making it easy for department managers to select, implement and manage the solution that works best for them. Instead of submitting a ticket with Bob on the second floor, we can find the support we need online, in the cloud, through communities or by dialing an 800 number.

Sounds alarming, but coming from the marketing department, I see some major benefits to this type of “Do-It-Yourself” IT. Studies show what you help design, you help support. Department managers can feel empowered to make decisions that impact their area of expertise. No more ticket submissions for basic requests such as report building, custom fields, layouts, etc. We can do it ourselves in less time, just the way we want it, with ownership and commitment to making it work.  Because it’s ours.

Sounds great, but what does it mean for the IT department? More headaches, I’m guessing. How does DIY IT impact the overall enterprise with respect to information management? Architecture? Security? The risks seem profound.

Does your organization allow functional managers to make their own IT decisions? If so, what safeguards are you implementing to ensure enterprise information is being managed correctly?

Category: Information Governance, Information Management
No Comments »

by: Ocdqblog
15  Jan  2013

The Psychology of Collaboration

I’ve always admired the collaborative community for information management professionals that MIKE2.0 is creating, so I figured my first post here should be about collaboration, especially since many information management initiatives can not function properly without it.  For example, as was discussed during Episode 02 of the Open MIKE Podcast, a collaborative approach is essential to successful information governance.

In this post, I want to focus on a few psychological concepts that can undermine collaborative efforts.

In his book You Are Not So Smart, David McRaney explained how “in 1974, psychologist Alan Ingham had people put on a blindfold and grab a rope.  The rope was attached to a contraption that simulated the resistance of an opposing team.  The subjects were told many other people were also holding the rope on their side, and he measured their effort.  Then, he told them they would be pulling alone, and again he measured.  They were alone both times, but when they thought they were in a group, they pulled 18 percent less strenuously on average.”

This is sometimes called the Ringelmann effect after French engineer Maximilien Ringelmann, who discovered in 1913 that if he had people get together in groups to pull on a strain gauge, their combined efforts would tally up to less than the sum of their individual strength measurements.

“Ingham and Ringelmann’s work,” McRaney concluded, “introduced social loafing to psychology: You put in less effort when in a group than you would if working alone on the same project.”

Collaboration is about leveraging a team to collectively tackle information management tasks, so that the team’s results exceed those of the best individual contributors.  Although this is usually true, over time social loafing could start to diminish the effects of collaborative efforts.

Therefore, it’s important to make sure the team understands that they have a collective ownership and a shared responsibility for achieving their goals, but that individuals are accountable for specific roles.

In his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman explained that “many members of a collaborative team feel they have done more than their share and also feel that the others are not adequately grateful for their individual contributions.”

But if you asked each individual to assess their contribution as a percentage of the overall effort, the self-assessed contributions would add up to more than 100%.  The reason for this is something known in psychology as availability bias, which makes people remember their own individual efforts and contributions much more clearly than those of others.

There will be times when some individuals feel like they are contributing more than their teammates, but sometimes, this will only be a misperception brought on by availability bias.  Other times, it will be true simply because no collaborative effort is ever perfectly balanced, meaning sometimes sacrifices for the long-term greater good will require some individuals put in more effort in the short-term.  As long as that’s the exception, not the rule, then collaborative harmony can be maintained.

“You will occasionally do more than your share,” Kahneman concluded, “but it is useful to know that you are likely to have that feeling even when each member of the team feels the same way.”

Although collaboration isn’t always the best option (Phil Simon actually wrote an interesting three-part series making the case against collaboration: Part 1Part 2Part 3), with a better understanding of the psychology of collaboration, you can better manage your collaborative teams for ongoing success.

Tags: ,
Category: Information Governance, Information Management
1 Comment »

by: Bsomich
12  Jan  2013

Weekly IM Update.

logo.jpg

Did You Know?

MIKE’s Integrated Content Repository brings together the open assets from the MIKE2.0 Methodology, shared assets available on the internet and internally held assets. The Integrated Content Repository is a virtual hub of assets that can be used by an Information Management community, some of which are publicly available and some of which are held internally.

Any organisation can follow the same approach and integrate their internally held assets to the open standard provided by MIKE2.0 in order to:

  • Build community
  • Create a common standard for Information Development
  • Share leading intellectual property
  • Promote a comprehensive and compelling set of offerings
  • Collaborate with the business units to integrate messaging and coordinate sales activities
  • Reduce costs through reuse and improve quality through known assets

The Integrated Content Repository is a true Enterprise 2.0 solution: it makes use of the collaborative, user-driven content built using Web 2.0 techniques and technologies on the MIKE2.0 site and incorporates it internally into the enterprise. The approach followed to build this repository is referred to as a mashup.

Feel free to try it out when you have a moment- we’re always open to new content ideas.

Sincerely,

MIKE2.0 Community 

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

 

Did You Know? All content on MIKE2.0 and any contributions you make are published under the Creative Commons license. This allows you free re-use of our content as long as you add a brief reference back to us.

 

This Week’s Blogs:

Google Now and Big Data

Few companies manage information better than Google. If there were an annual award for corporate information management (IM), I’m sure that Google would have won it–or had been in the top three–over the past decade.

Why take IM so seriously? Because, quite frankly, without it, Google becomes much, much less valuable. Sans information, how does Google really help us? It helps us find what we want; Google doesn’t directly give us what we want. In other words, we don’t spend much time on google.com. We use it to go to the sites that let us buy things.

It turns out that we ain’t seen nothing yet.
Read more.
Overcoming Information Overload

Information is a key asset for every organization, yet due to the rise of technology, web 2.0 and a general over abundance of raw data, many businesses are not equipped to make sense of it all.

How can managers overcome an age of “information overload” and begin to concentrate on the data that is most meaningful for the business?  Based on your experience, do you have any tips to share?

Read more.

New Survey Finds Collaborative Technologies Can Improve Corporate Performance

A new McKinsey Quarterly report, The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday, released just this week is proving to be a treasure chest of information on the value of collaborative technologies. This new release of a series of similar studies from McKinsey over the years comes out of a survey of over 3000 executives across a range of regions, industries and functional areas. It provides detailed information on business value and measurable benefits in multiple venues of collaboration: between employees, with customers, and with business partners. It also examines the link—and finds great correlations—between implementing collaborative technologies and corporate performance.

Read more.

Category: Information Development
No Comments »

by: Phil Simon
08  Jan  2013

Google Now and Big Data

Few companies manage information better than Google. If there were an annual award for corporate information management (IM), I’m sure that Google would have won it–or had been in the top three–over the past decade.

Why take IM so seriously? Because, quite frankly, without it, Google becomes much, much less valuable. Sans information, how does Google really help us? It helps us find what we want; Google doesn’t directly give us what we want. In other words, we don’t spend much time on google.com. We use it to go to the sites that let us buy things.

It turns out that we ain’t seen nothing yet. Google has been fine-tuning Google Now (Google Alerts on steroids.) From a recent TechCrunch article:

Google Now is a standard feature of Android Jelly Bean and up. It’s an easily accessible screen that shows you information about your daily commute (because it learns where you go every day and makes an educated guess as to where ‘home’ and ‘work’ are for you), appointments, local weather, upcoming flight and hotel reservations (assuming you give it access to scan your Gmail account) and how your favorite team did last night (it learns that from your search behavior). It also notices when you are not at home and shows you how long it’ll take you to get back to your house, or, if you are travelling, presents you with a list of nearby attractions you may be interested in, the value of the local currency, the time back home and easy access to Google Translate.

In a post-PC world, it’s not hard to understand the vast potential value of a personalized technological companion who can help you navigate an increasingly busy and complex world. With what Google knows about you via email, Web-surfing habits, social connections via Plus, and the like, Google Now may in fact be a game-changer.

Implications for Big Data

But you can only do so much on your Android device. What if you could see things? What if wearable technology and augmented reality could make your life even easier (or creepy, depending on your point of view)? Enter Google’s Project Glass, a pet project of Sergey Brin.

If you think that data is big now, get ready for Really Big Data. What if you could just think about recording a walk in Paris and publish it to YouTube in the process? What if you could review a product on Yelp by talking to yourself at the store? Perhaps speech-to-text technology would then publish that review automatically? Maybe your car will drive you to your next appointment on your Google calendar.

Does this sound Kurzweilian? It should. Google just hired the legendary futurist.

The implications are nearly limitless. As technology continues to evolve into heretofore “protected” areas, more and more data will be generated. Companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Google have the compute power and storage capacity to actually do something with this data. Machine learning, text analytics, natural language processing, and other

Simon Says

The enabling technologies behind Big Data are getting better every day. We’re just getting started. Your organization ought to be preparing for a data-driven world right now. If not, it may very well fall and not get up.

Feedback

What say you?

Tags: , ,
Category: Information Management
1 Comment »

by: Phil Simon
02  Jan  2013

Starting 2013 Off Right: Data Cleanup Lessons

A little over two years ago, I began what was once the unthinkable: I became a Mac guy again. After more than a decade of exclusive PC use, I became fed up with Microsoft’s products and terms of service. I made the jump.

However, buying a Mac and completely weaning myself from my PC are not one and the same. In fact, as expected, it has been a transition more than a clean break. That is, I didn’t follow Jerry Seinfeld’s Band-Aid advice.

A few legacy apps like Microsoft Access and my admittedly long-in-the-tooth accounting system forced me to straddle the fence for a few years. However, as Windows XP nears its decommission date, I am going into 2013 with the intent of being Microsoft-free.

To do this, I needed to purchase a new accounting program. By way of background, for the last ten years a “mature” accounting system called MYOB. It wasn’t the sexiest application, but it got the job done.

As I exported the data from MYOB to Quickbooks (for the Mac), I noticed that my data management habits weren’t exactly perfect over the past decade. (Nothing major, but a few things annoyed me in my quest for data perfection.) In a few cases, I had duplicate vendor records. Some of my customer master information was incomplete.

What to do? I spent some time in Excel doing some “winter data cleaning.” I considered the following questions:

  • What better time to cleanse this data than now? (I’ve said many times that new system implementations represent opportune times to clean things up.)
  • Why not purge records vendors and customers with which I have had no contact in the last five years? (For instance, I no longer pay the same electric and cable companies that I did while living in New York and New Jersey.)
  • Why not start life with Quickbooks as cleanly as possible?

I had no one else to blame. “Simon, Inc.” is a very small shop and I do all of my own bookkeeping. Still, the way that I do my books has slightly changed over the last decade.

Simon Says: Be Your Own Chief Data Officer

I’ve written before on this site about the role of the chief data officer (CDO). It was high time that I took my own advice. While this small business example might lack the nuance of a large organization, I’d argue that the same principle applies. It’s my data and I alone take responsibility for it. Why not make it as clean as possible before migrating to a new system?

In fact, I’m going to make this an annual occurrence. Cleanse what I need, purge what I don’t, and review it all.

Feedback

What say you?

Tags:
Category: Information Management
2 Comments »

by: Bsomich
01  Jan  2013

The “Open MIKE” Podcast: Episode 10 – Information Maturity QuickScan

We’ve just released the tenth episode of our Open MIKE Podcast series!

Episode 10: “Information Maturity QuickScan” features key aspects of the following MIKE2.0 solution offerings:

Information Maturity (IM) QuickScan: openmethodology.org/wiki/Information_Maturity_QuickScan

IM QuickScan Template Documents: openmethodology.org/wiki/QuickScan_MS_Office_survey

Information Maturity Model: openmethodology.org/wiki/Information_Maturity_Model

 

Check it out:

Want to get involved? Step up to the “MIKE”

We kindly invite any existing MIKE contributors to contact us if they’d like to contribute any audio or video segments for future episodes.

On Twitter? Contribute and follow the discussion via the #MIKEPodcast hashtag.

You can also find the videos and blog post summaries for every episode of the Open MIKE Podcast at: ocdqblog.com/MIKE

Category: Information Development
1 Comment »

Calendar
Collapse Expand Close
TODAY: Mon, April 24, 2017
January2013
SMTWTFS
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Archives
Collapse Expand Close
Recent Comments
Collapse Expand Close