As new forms of content and communication are developed, organizations are increasingly faced with a high volume and complexity of information.  Adding to the challenge, the legal and regulatory environment for most enterprises has become more rigorous, imposing significant obligations on all types of content and information channels.  Companies today need to find methods to address these needs if they are to effectively manage risk and discover the true value of the information they hold.

MIKE2.0 is currently working on an open framework for risk management that aims to alleviate some of these organizational concerns:  http://mike2.openmethodology.org/wiki/Risk_Management_Plan_Deliverable_Template

Have you tried a similar approach?  What advice can you offer IM professionals who are looking to mitigate legal and regulatory risk while converting information into usable intelligence?

Graham Rhind

Graham Rhind has specialised for over 16 years in international address and postal code methodologies. He started by building the European database of Scitex SA in Brussels, and then became Research and Development Director for OTS Group in The Netherlands. He is now an independent consultant and owner of GRC Database Information.

His researches have led him to write three books, “Building and Maintaining a European Direct Marketing Database” (1994) , “Global Source Book for Address Database Management” (1998, updated twice annually) and “Practical International Data Management – A guide to working with global names and addresses”(2001).

He is a regular speaker at conferences and seminars, and has developed a range of software and reference data for optimal international address data standardisation, formatting, validation and de-duplication. He was the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Internet Marketing in 2002.

Graham is a charter member of the International Association for Information and Data Quality.

Connect with Graham

Despite–or perhaps because of–the tremendous cost of data quality issues, most organizations are struggling to address them. We believe there are five primary reasons that they are failing:

• Our systems are more complex than ever before. Many companies now have more information than ever before. This requires greater integration. New regulations, M&A activity, globalization, and increasing customer demands collectively mean that IM challenges are increasingly–both in numbers and in terms of complexity.

• Silo-ed, short-term project delivery focus. Many projects are often funded at a departmental level. As such, they typically don’t account for the unexpected effects of how data will be used by others. Data flows among disparate systems–and the design of these connection points–must transcend strict project boundaries.

• Traditional development methods do not place appropraite focus on data management. Many projects are focused more on functionality and features than on information. The desire to build new functionality–for the sake of new functionality–often results in information being left by the wayside.

• DQ issues are often hidden and persistent. Lamentably, DQ issues can remian unnoticed for some time. Ironically, some end-users may suspect that the data in the systems on which they rely to make decisions are often inaccurate, incomplete, out-of-date, invalid, and/or inconsistent. This is often propagated to other systems as organizations increase connectivity. In the end, many organizations tend to underestimate the DQ issues in their systems.

• DQ is fit for purpose. Many DQ and IM professionals know all too well that it is difficult for end-users of downstream systems to improve the DQ of their systems. While the reasons vary, perhaps the biggest culprit is that the data is entered via customer-facing operational systems. Often these clerks do not have the same incentive to maintain high DQ; they are often focused on entering  data quickly and without rejection by the system at the point of entry. Eventually, however, errors become apparent, as data is integrated, summarized, standardized, and used in another context. At this point, DQ issues begin to surface.

A comprehensive data quality program must be defined to meet these challenges.

Why is a New Competency Model Required?

Many organizations have struggled to meet these challenges for one fundamental reason: they fail to focus enterprise-wide nature of data management problems. They incorrectly see information as a technology or IT issue, rather than as a fundamental and core business activity. In many ways Information is the new accounting. Solutions required to address complex infrastructure and information issues can’t be tackled on a department-by-department basis. 

While necessary, defining an enterprise-wide programme, on the other hand, is also very difficult. Building momentum for these initiatives takes a long period of time. Further, it can easily lead to approaches out-of-sync with business needs. Attempts to enforce architectural governance, for example, can quite easily become ineffectual or a “toothless watchdog” providing little value.

Organizations require an approach that can address all of the inherent challenges of

• a federated business model
• an often complex technology architecture

Fundamentally, this approach should be both manageable, effective, and conducive to innovation. Admittedly, this is not an easy task. This is the rationale for MIKE2.0 and the need for a new competency of Information Development.

Read more on MIKE2.0’s Information Governance Solution Offering

Erwin Meerman

Erwin Meerman has 20 years of experience in various IT roles in smaller and bigger companies. He started as a dBase programmer and Novell Network engineer, evolving into Object Oriented programming and SAP implementations.

For the last 10 years, Erwin has been working mainly in SAP projects, as implementation consultant, test coordinator and as project manager. Besides these more general roles, in SAP he is specialized in Master Data and in Planning and Production.

While being part of a global MDM project with an international tobacco company, his interest in MDM related topics grew. As a next step in his career, he has setup and currently leads the MDM department for SVZ Industrial Products in the Netherlands; A worldwide supplier of fruit and vegetable ingredients to the food industry.

His specialties in the world of master data are data governance, data architecture, organizational change management related to MDM and master data maintenance in SAP.

Connect with Erwin.

As I continue to familiarize myself with the The MIKE2.0 Framework, one thing has become entirely apparent to me: it’s based in large part on having the right resources at the right time. In this very important sense, the MIKE2.0 Framework is the same as any other methodology for implementing new systems. In a new series of post, I’ll discuss some of the biggest mistakes that organizations make during information management projects (IM). In this post, I’ll cover timing as it relates to allocating resources.

Hurry Up and Wait

When I’m not writing, speaking, or chasing down tennis or golf balls, I’m typically on a consulting project. Like many people, I’m a hired gun available on a first-come, first-served basis. While there are certainly exceptions, most large organizations tend to struggle locking people like me down.

Consider the following example. Back in early June of this year, a firm for which I regularly subcontract (call it BU2B here) recently submitted me for a one year project for a large new system implementation. I didn’t hear anything for two months and assumed that either the project never started or that I wasn’t chosen. C’est la vie, right?

Wrong.

Fast forward to August 17th. I get a call from a recruiter at BU2B that its client needs to talk to me–today. Forget the fact that I am on site, billing my current client. BU2B tells me that this call has to happen today. I explain that that’s just not possible but that I’ll be free on the 18th for pretty much the entire day. Long story short: it has to be the 17th, even at night. Unable to make a firm commitment with a “burning plank” deadline, I have to pass.

Of course, this begs the questions:

• Why wait two months to find key resources for such an important project?
• What was going to be decided at 8:30 pm on Tuesday that couldn’t be decided at 8:30 am on Wednesday?
• Why would an organization wait two months and then give a candidate two hours? Does this seem reasonable?
• Does an organization really think that it’s getting the right or best resource with such a tight time line?
• If this is the way that this company operates, would I really want to get on a plane every week and go there?

Trust me. This isn’t sour grapes talking. I’m very comfortable with rejection, especially since I went to a 70 percent male college. But does this story sound familiar?

Simon Says

Don’t wait until the last minute to find consultants and contractors, particularly as your project approaches key dates. Follow these guidelines and you can maximize the chance of a smooth transition and minimize the chance of scurrying at the last moment:

• Let everyone know well ahead of time when projects are supposed to begin
• Lock down resources well before those key dates
• Identify backups just in case stuff happens
• If an extension is necessary for an existing resource, attempt to arrange this as early as possible. Don’t wait until Friday morning to see if a key person is available on Monday.
• By all means, don’t complain when that resource has found another gig

While touring in New Zealand to talk about my new book, I had the opportunity to do an interview on TV to explain why Information Management matters.  The segment is available online.  The question that I enjoyed answering the most, simply because I was able to say something unexpected, was “how important is it to have the most up-to-date data”.

My answer was, that it doesn’t matter so much whether it is accurate data or whether it is old.  Implied in the interviewer’s question was the assumption that everything about the data we use needs to be current and perfect.  My view is that while you would choose current over old much of the time, our pursuit of quality and the most up-to-date information leads us to ignore some very rich sources of data which can support new and innovative products.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that having high quality and current data isn’t important.  I am, however, saying it is less important than having a resource that is well understood (i.e., how old it is and how confident you can be in the results).  Most importantly, I am saying you shouldn’t ignore that old data that resulted from market research or other interactions in years gone by.

In today’s global economic arena, price is no longer an area where organizations can hope to differentiate themselves. Instead, innovation is the principle means through which organizations can remain competitive. They must foster an environment that encourages innovation and produces a constant stream of innovative services and solutions. Many executives believe that they are the innovators for their companies, but in reality the capacity for 1000’s of employees to come up with innovative ideas far outweighs that of 10 or so top-level executives.  Most organizations have failed to tap into one of their richest assets – the tacit knowledge of their workforce.

There is much value to be gained from the unrecorded insight and experiences inside knowledge worker’s heads. Furthermore, organizations tend to collaborate poorly as hierarchical structures prevent cross-division content and social discovery. Division heads act as barriers to the fluid exchange of ideas.  This is where Enterprise 2.0 techniques can assist.

What is Enterprise 2.0?

Enterprise 2.0 (first coined by Professor Andrew McAfee in Spring, 2006) is the state of the art in collaborative software modeled after Web 2.0 techniques and patterns. It is an emergent set of technologies that encourages innovation, facilitates the capture of tacit data, and creates a spirit of collaboration due to its participatory and social nature.

Enterprise 2.0 flattens organizational hierarchies and lowers contribution barriers. This means that the output from the metaphorical troops in the trenches is directly visible to Generals on the hilltop. In this way, organizations become more efficient due to increased sharing and discovery of knowledge, and can maintain competitive advantage by fostering innovation from within.

Challenges

Enterprise 2.0 has organisations buzzing at these ideas, but also confused. Many are still trying to figure out what it means to them – is it turning their company into Facebook or MySpace? Yes, Wikipedia has been a great success, but imagine some of the issues if we tried to run our company like that!

What Drives Enterprise 2.0?

There are a number of factors driving the need for Enterprise 2.0 as well benefits that derive from it, creation a virtuous cycle for these capabilties and resulting business benefits.  Enterprise 2.0 is the next generation enterprise, driven from user expectations of what they can do on the web.

New business models result from this approach include The Long Tail, a reference to tapping into the “unlimited supply” of the internet (as a provider or consumer). Long Tail business models are typically a key part of the strategy of companies that take advantage of Web 2.0 / Enterprise 2.0 techniques and technologies. Likewise, the Wisdom of Crowds provides the capability to harness a community perspective to knowledge development within your organisation. The value of Networked effect models can be applied to community development and solution delivery.

An enhanced Customer Experience, using Enterprise 2.0 techniques nad technologies as the core foundational building blocks of the online customer experience. Increasing prevalence on the internet will build customer expectations of use. 

Radical Transformation of existing IT infrastructures that enable far greater agilility in the ability to shift to a changing market.

The MIKE2.0 Approach to Enterprise 2.0

The MIKE2.0 open source Enterprise 2.0 solution offering provides an approach for implementing Enterprise 2.0 that is particularly focused around the impacts of Enterprise 2.0 and its relation to Information Development.

3 Principles drive the approach and help formulate the initial architecture and governance model:

• Collaboration
• Agility
• Information-centricity

This solution shows how to apply Web 2.0 techniques within an organisation to get the benefits of collaborative content development, harness the power of informal networks and to quickly adjust to shifting strategies. The proposed approach balances some of the risks related to information security, stability and staff workload. This approach also proposes that those organisations that are truly successful in taking advantage of Enterprise 2.0 will use new techniques and technologies and prioritise on developing two areas: human capital development and Information Development. Through this approach, organisations can truly become more agile and more innovative.

It’s an interesting question.

In Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell discusses the notion that one needs to have worked 10,000 hours at something to be considered an expert. For example, Bill Gates was an expert at computing by the early 1980s because he had spent so many hours in front of terminals learning how to use computers and how to program.

I’m reluctant to call myself an expert on many things. In fact, I often preface my comments with “I’m not an expert, but.” Evidently, I then have a tendency to say something particularly profound about the very topic on which I am no expert. (With age comes humility, I suppose.) Recent examples include cloud computing, open source software, or another topic. I’ve had a few people tell me over the last few months that I should stop saying that. Perhaps I am making them feel uncomfortable.

What can I say? I must have picked up a great deal of knowledge about emerging technologies from the contributors to my second book. I also read a great deal.

This makes me wonder:

• Does being an expert really matter?
• Does the myriad of information on the internet allow us to become experts more quickly, than say, twenty years ago? Or is it easier to fake your way through things by doing five minutes worth of research of Wikipedia?
• Is it better to understate your expertise in something than overstate it?

Varying Skills

As a consultant, I’ve worked with many people whose information management (IM) skills ran the gamut. A few people were every bit as good as they said they were, worth their weight in gold. (In fact, I recently finished a project with two such folks. Good to know if I wind up hiring additional resources in the future.) At the other end of the spectrum, some people talked a good game but, when push came to shove, they could not deliver the results, forcing others to pick up the slack.

Sadly, many of those who have routinely disappointed me were external–and highly paid–consultants whose firms chose not to send in those with the requisite expertise. While I’m probably pretty biased here, I have found that larger consulting outfits sometimes still staff projects with whoever is available or, in the parlance of the consulting world, “on the beach.” Somehow, availability trumps being qualified.

Simon Says: Determining Expertise

Unfortunately, there’s just no way to know for certain if you’re bringing in someone who can walk the talk–and this is coming from someone with pretty extensive knowledge of different interviewing techniques. Sure, you can ask behavioral-based questions to attempt to ascertain who’s faking it but even those guarantee nothing. Use them as a starting point, then solicit the opinions of other well-respected folks. At least for me, those are tough to ignore. Consider what they say as well as what they don’t say.

While I’m at it, here are a few more tips:

• Certifications are fine and dandy but give me the experienced resource who lacks a proper certification over the newly-minted and certified neophyte.
• Clients should structure contracts in such a way that they’re not stuck with a resource whose resume doesn’t match his skill set. Also, don’t be afraid to pull the plug on anyone (contractor, consultant, employee, or partner) who’s not delivering the goods.
• As for 10,000 hours, it’s a nice proxy but the fact remains: some people simply pick things up quicker than others. I’ve worked with folks who couldn’t get with the program after extensive training and others who could look at something and immediately essentially got it.

Feedback

What say you?