Over the past few years I’ve talked quite a bit about collaborative governance (or governance 2.0). I’m starting to see this more often in organizations as ways to improve communications, measurement, solution techniques and accountability. The conceptual architecture of a system to support this approach is shown below:

Illustrative User Story: Data management change control
The user in this case are reporting analysts responsible for developing and running crucial analysis for the capital markets group.
In the current environment, users of downstream analytical and reporting systems often face issues due to changes in upstream systems of record In the new environment, better communications and use of the metadata repository will have help prevent data change control issues.

1. Once an issue is found, data stewards communicate with the business and technical teams to resolve it. Communications are available in a discussion system for others to find.

2. Clear business reporting makes it easy for data stewards and business leaders to see when issues have occurred and their impacts

3. The Data Quality system flags the error, which triggers a workflow request for a Data Stewardship process

4. Responsible data stewards receive the notification and address the issue

5., Issues are logged in a defect management system and is tracked by data stewards

Well thought through online strategies can do so much more than deliver high quality web sites for internal and external users. They can dramatically improve some of your business fundamentals. There are few things more fundamental than the quality of your data.

When people think of data quality they often focus first on customer data. One of the best ways to ensure that customer data is right is to provide a way for your own customers to update their details online. On its own, this is an important capability, but to be really effective it needs to be linked to something that the customer regularly does on the web, such as reviewing their accounts, orders or other interactions with your organisation. Truly effective businesses make updating customer details part of every interaction and available to all stakeholders in the customer, effectively building a Facebook-like facility for their customers identifying relationships (friends), preferences and activities.

Apart from enhanced customer service, it is worth remembering that it is much harder to maintain a fraudulent identify when you are connected through multiple relationships and you have to maintain an exponential number of fronts.

Business data includes much more than just customer details. Online collaboration both inside and outside the enterprise can enhance almost all data in some way. One of the most common problems businesses face is maintaining an accurate understanding of the definition of complex business terminology. Every organisation develops their own language and expects staff, customers and business partners to understand it. Worse, few maintain a dictionary of this language.

Consider creating such a dictionary, with components that are visible internally, other parts to business partners and a relevant subset to the world in general. To really leverage the power of the web, make this dictionary readily updatable (even using a wiki). While open to misuse, it is unlikely that internal staff or business partners who are easily traced will deliberately abuse the privilege. Online communities have shown that complex topics attract genuinely interested contributors who can often provide a better explanation to their peers that you could hope to publish either from an insight or simple labour perspective.

Finally having learnt to use the web to better maintain customer data and your data dictionary, it rapidly becomes obvious that many datasets would be candidates to be open to a wider community for monitoring, comment or even enhancement. Consider lists of branches, community contacts and products. In the last case, suppliers sometimes make changes which flow through your supply chain without being updated in online catalogues.

If there is one thing we’ve learnt, the fear that we feel about opening our content up for collaboration is often disproportionate to the real risk of misuse. If you succumb to this fear without carefully considering what you are worried about, then you’ll miss out on the power that the crowd can bring to our business.

Readers interested in these concepts should read further about the intersection of Enterprise 2.0 and Information Management in MIKE2.0, in particular the MIKE2.0 Enterprise 2.0 Solution Offering.

Information Theory Approach to Data Quality for MDM

Introduction

Over the past decade data quality has been a major focus for data management professionals, data government organizations, and other data quality stakeholders across the enterprise. Still the quality of data remains low for many organizations. To a considerable extent this is caused by a lack of scientifically or at least consistently defined data quality metrics. Data professionals are still lacking a common methodology that would enable them to measure data quality objectively in terms of scientifically defined metrics and compare data sets in terms of their quality across systems, departments and corporations.  

Even though many data profiling metrics exist, their usage is not scientifically justified. Consequently enterprises and their departments apply their own standards or apply no standards at all.

As a result, regulatory agencies, executive management and data governance organizations are lacking a standard, objective and scientifically defined way to articulate data quality requirements and measure data quality improvement progress. An elusiveness of data quality results in that job performance of the enterprise roles responsible for data quality lacks consistently defined criteria, which ultimately causes limited progress in data quality improvements.

A quantitative approach to data quality, if developed and adopted by data management community, would enable data professionals to better prioritize data quality issues and take corrective actions proactively and efficiently.

In this article we will discuss a scientific approach to data quality for MDM based on Information Theory. This approach seems to be a good candidate to address the aforementioned problem.

Approaches to Data Quality

At a high level there are two well-known and broadly used approaches to data quality. Typically both of them are used to a certain degree by every enterprise.

The first approach is mostly application driven and oftentimes referred to as a “fit-for-purpose” approach. Oftentimes business users determine that certain application queries or reports do not return the right data. For instance if a query that is supposed to fetch top 10 Q2 customers does not return some of the customers the business expects to see, in depth data analysis follows. The data analysis may determine that some customer records are duplicated and some transaction records have incorrect or missing transaction dates. This type of finding can trigger some activities aimed at understanding of the data issues and corrective actions.

An advantage of this approach to data quality is that it is aligned with tactical needs of business functions, groups and departments. A disadvantage of this approach is that it addresses data quality issues re-actively based upon business request or even complaint. Some data quality issues may not be easy to discover and business users cannot decide which report is right and which one is wrong. The organization may eventually draw a conclusion that their data is bad but would not be able to indicate what exactly needs to be fixed in the data, which limits the IT’s abilities to fix the issues. When multiple LOB’s and functions across the enterprise struggle with their specific data quality issues separately, it is difficult to quantify the overall state of data quality and define priorities with which data quality problems are to be addressed by the enterprise.

The second approach is based on data profiling. Data profiling tools are intended to make a data quality improvement process more pro-active and measurable. A number of data profiling metrics is typically introduced to screen for missing and invalid attributes, duplicate records, duplicate attribute values that are supposed to be unique, frequency of attributes, cardinality of attributes and their allowed values, standardization and validation of certain data formats for simple and complex attribute types, violations of referential integrity, etc. A limitation of the data profiling techniques is in that an additional analysis is required to understand which of the metrics are most important for the business and why. It may not be easy to come up with a definitive answer and translate it into a data quality improvement action plan. The variety of data profiling metrics is not based on science but rather driven by the variety of ways relational database technology can report on data quality issues.

Each of the two approaches above has its niche and significance. When the quality of master data is in question an alternative and more strategic approach can be considered by data governance organizations. This approach avoids detailed analysis of business applications while providing a solid scientific foundation for its metrics.

Information Theory Approach to Data Quality for MDM  

Master data are those data which are foundational to business processes, are usually widely distributed, which, when well managed, are directly contributing
to the success of an organization, and when not well managed pose the most risk. Customer, Patient, Citizen, Member, Client, Member, Broker, Product, Financial Instrument, Drug are the entities oftentimes referred to as master data entities while company specific selection of master entities is driven by the enterprise business and focus.

Master Data Service (MDS) defines its primary function as the creation of the “golden view” of the master entities. We will assume that MDS has successfully created and maintains the “golden view” of entity F in the data hub. This “golden record” can be dynamic or persistent. There exist a number of data sources across the enterprise with the data corresponding to domain F. This includes the source systems that feed the data hub and other data sources that may be not integrated with the data hub. We will define an external dataset f which data quality is to be quantified with respect to F. For the purpose of this discussion f can represent any data set such as a single data source or multiple sources.

Our goal is to compare the source data set f with the entity data set F. The data quality of the data set f will be characterized by how well it represents the benchmark entity F defined as the “golden view” for the data in domain F. We are making an assumption here that the “golden view” was created algorithmically and then validated by the data stewards.

In Information Theory the information quantity associated with the entity F is expressed in terms of the entropy:

                    H(F) = – ∑ P_k log P_k,                                                                                            (1)   

where P_k are the probabilities of the attribute (token) values in the “golden” data set F. Index “K” runs over all records in F and all attributes. The base in the log function is 2.

H(F) represents the quantity of information in the “golden” representation of entity F.

Similarly for the comparison data set f

                    H(f) = – ∑ p_i log p_i,                                                                                            (2)   

We will use small “p” for the probabilities associated with f while capital letter “P” is used for the probabilities characterizing the “golden” entity record.

Mutual entropy J(f,F) characterizes how well f represents F.

J(f,F) = H(f) + H(F) – H(f,F)                                                                        (3)   

In (3) H(f,F) is the joint entropy of f and F. It is expressed in terms of probabilities of combined events, e.g. the probability that the name = “Smith” in “the golden record” F and name = “Schmidt” in the source record linked to the same entity. The behavior of J qualifies this function as a good candidate quantifying the data quality of f with respect to F. When the data quality is low, the correlation between f and F is low. In an extreme case of a very low data quality f doesn’t correlate with F and these variables are independent. Then

                    H(f,F) = H(f) + H(F)                                                                                      (4)   

and

                    J(f,F) = 0                                                                                                       (5)   

If f represents F extremely well, e.g. f = F, then H(f) = H(F) = H(f,F) and

                    J(f,F) = H(F)                                                                                                  (6)   

We define Data Quality of f with respect to F by the following equation:

                    DQ(f,F) = J(f,F)/H(F)                                                                                      (7)   

With this definition of data quality DQ changes from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates the data quality of f is minimal; f does not represent F.  When DQ = 1 f perfectly represents F and the data quality of f with respect to F is 100%, and therefore f represents F perfectly well.

The approach can also be used to determine partial attribute/token level data quality. This will provide additional insights into what causes most significant data quality issues.

The data quality improvement should be done iteratively. Changes in the data source data may impact the “golden record”. Then equations (1) and (7) are applied again to recalculate the data quantity and data quality characteristics.

Conclusion

The article offers an Information Theory based method for quantifying Information Assets and the Data Quality of the Assets through equations (1) and (7). The proposed method leverages the notion of a “golden record” created and maintained in the data hub. The “golden record” is used as the benchmark against which the data quality of other sources is measured.

Organizations can leverage this approach to augment its data governance offerings for MDM and make our data governance approach truly unique. The quantitative approach to data quality will ultimately help data governance organizations develop policies based on scientifically defined data quality and quantity metrics.

By applying this approach consistently on a number of engagements, over time we will accumulate valuable insights into how metrics (1) and (7) apply to real world data characteristics and scenarios. We will develop good practices defining acceptable data quality thresholds, e.g. it might be a future industry policy for P&C insurance business to keep the quality of Customer data above the 92% mark, which sets clearly articulated data governance policy based on scientifically sound approach to data quality metrics.

The developed approach can be incorporated in the future products to enable data governance and provide data governance organizations with new tooling. Data governance will be able to select information sources and assets to be measured, quantify them according to (1) and (7), set the target metrics for data stewards, measure the progress on an on-going basis and report on the data quality improvement progress.

Even though we are mainly focusing on data quality, the quantity of data in equation (1) characterizes the overall significance of a corporate data set from the Information Theory perspective. For M&A the method can be used to measure an additional amount of information that the joint enterprise will have compared to the information owned by the companies separately. The approach developed above will measure both the information acquired due to the difference in the customer bases and the information quantity increment due to better and more precise and useful information about the existing customers.

  Simple Illustrative Examples

In this Appendix we will apply the theory developed above to two simple illustrative cases. We will define the “golden” data set F as follows:

The probabilities of attributes values in F are:

Scenario 1

Dataset f is the same as the “golden” data set. Then

                                                f = F, H(f) = H(F) = 3.5.

The probability matrix for combined values:

and

                                                         H(F) = H(f) = H(f,F) = 3.5

                                             J(f,F) = H(F) + H(f) – H(f,F) = H(F) = 3.5

Equation (7) yields

                                                           DQ = J(f,F)/H(F) = 1

As expected the data quality of f when f = F yields 1 or 100%

Scenario 2

Dataset for the “golden record” F remains the same as in scenario 1.

                                                              H(F) = 3.5

We will change dataset f by adding a new record: “Larry, CA”. We will assume that the new record for “Larry” represent the same individual as “Larry, NJ”. Therefore records “Larry, NJ” and “Larry, CA” will have the same EID = 1. Data stewards determined that “NJ” is the right value for the attribute State.  Dataset f is as follows:

 The probability matrix for f is:

The probability matrix for combined values:

Substituting the values for H(F), H(f) and H(f,F) into 7 we will obtain:

                                 J(f,F) = 3.5 + 3.292878689 – 3.84385619 = 2.949022499

                                  DQ = J(f,F)/H(F) = 2.949022499/3.5 = 0.842577857 or ~ 84%

Richard Wray, writing recently in The Guardian, pointed out that the volume of data held is now estimated at 487 billion GB.  To put this in perspective he explained that in printed form this would form a pile that would stretch to Pluto 10 times over.  The really staggering statistic, however, was that if this data were printed then the stack would grow faster than NASA’s fastest rocket.  I haven’t checked the stats, but a quick back of the envelope calculation suggests he’s in the right order of magnitude.

What does this mean?  Apart from the staggering numbers, it tells us that the problem for organisations isn’t holding large amounts of information – they already do that.  Nor is the problem necessarily how to index that information – increasingly they have defined information standards to do that.  The real problem is its continual growth – very few taxonomies or models properly account for the rapid rate of growth.

MIKE2.0 hosts a new generation of Information Management techniques which are designed to deal less with the data you have now and more with the data that you are likely to gain in the future.   A great place to start is with the SAFE architecture.

I had the pleasure of meeting Maria Villar at the IBM’s Information on Demand Conference where she presented on her new book – Managing Your Business Data. Its a great book for someone looking to make the “case for change” for treating information as an asset across the enterprise, building a culture of better information management and establishing roles and responsibilities for better data management across the organization.  There’s a wealth of information in there – and its something a business leader can understand just as well as a technologist. I particularly liked blending the conceptual (Maslow’s needs hierarchy for data management) with the pragmatic (lots of cases studies).

Maria tells me the book will be on Amazon soon but in the meantime you can order direct from the publisher at the link above.

In the current economic environment I expect we are going to hear a lot about the need for greater openness, transparency and better information.  Too much regulation has been shown to hamper innovation, but free markets have their issues too – we’ve had 6 global collapses in the past 15 years after all.

I’m not sure what the right balance is, but Governance 2.0, which I mentioned in an earlier post and is one of the solutions in MIKE2.0, might indeed become a hot topic.

Organizations typically suffer from a lack of standards around information management. They develop standards on their own although they may use external reference materials. The issue is that most of the standards are definitional, but not validation-based. That is, the standards may say how a data warehouse model should be developed or provide a policy about how reference data should be synchronized.

What is missing is the validation step against these standards. What would be valuable are validation tools that test areas such as complexity while the solution is being developed. When we have simple tools like those used for W3C Markup Validation Service it will be a big help in the industry.

I have been writing quite a bit lately about the topic of Governance 2.0/Networked Information Governance, including an earlier post in this blog. Networked Information Governance = Information Governance + Enterprise 2.0. The idea for the name came from an excellent article published by Paul Strassman in 2001. At the time of its authoring in 2001, networked business models were continuing to grow in popularity, from the military to the most agile Fortune 2000 organizations. What it pre-dated was the radical advances in collaborative technologies would occur over the next few years to bring together “informal networks” that are so relevant in the application of governance. When it comes to bringing the informal network together with a formal approach, technologies and techniques from Enterprise 2.0 are a great fit: collaboration, search, tagging and aggregation are the keys to bridging the gap.

I wrote a more detailed post on this subject on FastForward and recently posted on presentation on slideshare.

One of the key questions is who should sponsor Information Managements.  The governance sections of MIKE2.0 describes operational organizations and how to get there, but makes the assumption that the CEO, CIO, CFO etc. are supportive of the initiative and will act as sponsors.  What happens when they’re not?

Actually, it seems that this is the case more often than you would wish with many senior executives unwilling to commit to the proper management of information.  It’s not hard to work out the reason why, in most companies (and increasingly in many government organizations) the CEO is only appointed for a short contract with rapid rotation of new talent into the role.  No wonder the CEO acts like a politician looking for the “quick fix” common sense answer that they can put in place within their term and position themselves to be extended (analogous to a politician seeking re-election),

There is hope, however, by looking at the board.  In most companies, board members have a longer tenure than CEOs and also feel more exposed to legal issues.  A quick conversation about the issues of ledger versus non-ledger data (discussed before in this blog) highlights to board members how great their exposure is if they don’t mandate better governance.  Judicious use of passionate middle managers can complete the pincer movement and before you know it the CEO sees Information Management as a mandatory activity and a quick win.

With a maturing in understanding by both business and government of the role of information in good governance has come the question “what’s next”.  The answer, of course, is to turn a reactive culture which deals with data issues into a proactive one.  In the MIKE2.0 community we talk a lot about Information Development which is an approach to think about data as part of the business function and application rather than as an afterthought when someone starts looking for reports.

Most users of this site would be familiar with the Maturity Model which describes the attributes of an organization that has evolved its capabilities to proactive and beyond.  The obvious question then is, “how do I organize to optimize”?  The answer is not, I believe, to adopt the organization model of an optimized organization, rather it is to evolve to the structure of the next level up.  The Centre of Excellence articles make a variety of organization recommendations.  Do the Information Management self-assessment and then pick the model that is a stretch but not too far from where you are now.

My observation is that there is a tight relationship between information maturity and the governance structure that is in place.  Like the chicken and the egg though, some organisations mature and hence naturally evolve to the right model.  Others take direct action and put the these roles and responsibilities in place which results in the corresponding level of maturity.  Cause and effect don’t matter, but if you take the former path it is very helpful to have the “back of the book” answers handy.