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

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.

The Case for MIKE2.0

From MIKE2.0 Methodology

Jump to: navigation, search

Open methodology framework logo.jpg
This article describes why MIKE2.0 was created and has therefore been protected. Propose changes to this article on its corresponding discussion page.

This article discusses:

  • the reasons that an open approach to information is required
  • the motivations behind the decisions by the authors of Method for an Integrated Knowledge Environment 2.0 (MIKE2.0) to hand their "creation" out to the broader professional community.

The volume of raw data held by enterprises grew tremendously throughout the 1990's. Some organizations did a better job of utilizing that data both internally and externally. As a result, non-ledger data has taken on increased importance in organizational management, oversight, and assessment. Unfortunately, problems have persisted. Specifically, the use of commonly accepted processes and standards for the aggregation, measurement, quality, and interpretation of data has suffered. They have not moved at the same rate with every enterprise, a problem compounded by the fact that each has been free to use its own approach to IM. In some cases, the results could be classified as innocent ambiguity. In other cases, however, organizations have taken the opportunity to deliberately mislead their stakeholders.

The complexity of data is not generally well understood. Many people erroneously assume that it is a set of static datasets that can be related to each other in an unambiguous way. In reality, data is constantly growing and changing across the enterprise. With respect to financial reporting, this constant change is generally well-managed via the following mechanisms: 

  • ledger aggregation
  • group reporting
  • most important, period-end closing

The very act of agreeing to specific cut-off points of reconciliation stabilizes all of this ongoing change. Although it is taken for granted, the process followed to stabilise the data are not trivial.

If non-ledger data is to be trusted to the same extent as financial data, then organizations need to manage its complexity consistently across the industry. No one consulting firm or financial institution can find the "right" answer unless an approach is widely adopted. Individual approaches lead to "apples-to-oranges" comparisons. For this reason, BearingPoint has done two things: 

  • invested heavily in developing approaches to managing and measuring complex data
  • donated the work to the wider profession using a Creative Commons licensing model.

MIKE2.0 is that initiative and is larger than any one group of professionals.

MIKE2.0 is managed by a mix of industry professionals across end user and consulting firms. It is designed as a multi-lingual collaboration that can link minimum standards for external reporting with multiple internal data consolidation processes using a variety of technologies. IM professionals looking to shape their industry can embrace, influence, and extend initiatives such as MIKE2.0.

Read the complete whitepaper.

Wiki Contributors
Collapse Expand Close

View more contributors