Data-Ed Online: Show Me the Money - Monetizing Data Management

Copyright 2013 by Data Blueprint

Show Me The Money: Monetizing Data ManagementFailure to successfully monetize data management investments sets up an unfortunate loop of fixing symptoms without addressing the underlying problems. As organizations begin to understand poor data management practices as the root causes of many of their business problems, they become more willing to make the required investments in our profession. This presentation uses specific examples to illustrate the costs of poor data management and how it impacts business objectives. Join us and learn how you can better align your data management projects with business objectives to justify funding and gain management approval.

Date: October 8, 2013Time: 2:00 PM ET/11:00 AM PTPresenter: Peter Aiken, Ph.D.

1

PETER AIKEN WITH JUANITA BILLINGSFOREWORD BY JOHN BOTTEGA

MONETIZINGDATA MANAGEMENT

Unlocking the Value in Your Organization’s

Most Important Asset.






Executive Editor at DATAVERSITY.net

2

Shannon Kempe


Commonly Asked Questions

1) Will I get copies of the slides after the event?

1) Is this being recorded so I can view it afterwards?

3


Get Social With Us!

Live Twitter FeedJoin the conversation!

Follow us: @datablueprint

@paikenAsk questions and submit your comments: #dataed

4

Like Us on Facebookwww.facebook.com/

datablueprint Post questions and

commentsFind industry news, insightful

content and event updates.

Join the GroupData Management &

Business IntelligenceAsk questions, gain insights and collaborate with fellow

data management professionals


5

Peter Aiken, PhD• 25+ years of experience in data

management• Multiple international awards &

recognition• Founder, Data Blueprint (datablueprint.com)

• Associate Professor of IS, VCU (vcu.edu)

• President, DAMA International (dama.org)

• 8 books and dozens of articles• Experienced w/ 500+ data

management practices in 20 countries• Multi-year immersions with

organizations as diverse as the US DoD, Nokia, Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, and the Commonwealth of Virginia

2

Show Me The Money

Monetizing Data Management

Presented by Peter Aiken, Ph.D.10124 W. Broad Street, Suite C

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060804.521.4056






1. Data Management Overview

2. Book Motivations & Survey Results

3. Leveraging Data

4. Monetary ROI (6 cases)

5. Non-Monetary ROI (2 cases)

6. Legal Considerations

7. Take Aways and Q&A

Outline

7

Tweeting now: #dataed




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

8

Data Program Coordination

Feedback

DataDevelopment


StandardData

Five Integrated DM Practice AreasOrganizational Strategies

Goals

BusinessData

Business Value

Application Models & Designs

Implementation

Direction

Guidance

9

OrganizationalData Integration

DataStewardship

Data SupportOperations

Data Asset Use

IntegratedModels

Leverage data in organizational activities

Data management processes andinfrastructure

Combining multipleassets to produceextra value

Organizational-entity subject area data

integration

Provide reliable data access

Achieve sharing of data within a business area


Five Integrated DM Practice Areas

10

Manage data coherently.

Share data across boundaries.

Assign responsibilities for data.Engineer data delivery systems.

Maintain data availability.

Data Program Coordination

Organizational Data Integration

Data Stewardship Data Development

Data Support Operations


Hierarchy of Data Management Practices (after Maslow)

• 5 Data management practices areas / data management basics ...

• ... are necessary but insufficient prerequisites to organizational data leveraging applications that is self actualizing data or advanced data practices Basic Data Management Practices

– Data Program Management– Organizational Data Integration– Data Stewardship– Data Development– Data Support Operations

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ptl-9mAieuQ/T-idBt1YFmI/AAAAAAAABgw/Ib-nVkMmMEQ/s1600/maslows_hierarchy_of_needs.png

Advanced Data

Practices• MDM• Mining• Big Data• Analytics• Warehousing• SOA




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

12




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

13


Motivation ...• Task: helping our community better articulate the

importance of what we do• Until we can meaningfully communicate in monetary

or other terms equally important to the C-suite, we will continue to struggle to articulate the value of its role

• Today’s business executives – Smart, talented and experienced experts– Executive decision-makers being far removed and

insufficiently data knowledgeable– Too many decisions about data have been poor.

• Four Parts– Unique perspective to the practice of leveraging data– 11 cases where leveraging data has produced positive

financial results– Five instance non-monetary outcomes of critical important

to the C-suite– Interaction of data management practices and both IT

projects and legal responsibilities

14






2013 Monetizing Data Management Survey Results

15


• Soon to be released: white paper & survey results

16

2013 Monetizing Data Management Survey Results




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

17




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

18


Data Data

Data

Information

Fact Meaning

Request

Strategic Information Use: Prerequisites

[Built on definitions from Dan Appleton 1983]

Intelligence

Strategic Use

1. Each FACT combines with one or more MEANINGS. 2. Each specific FACT and MEANING combination is referred to as a DATUM. 3. An INFORMATION is one or more DATA that are returned in response to a specific REQUEST 4. INFORMATION REUSE is enabled when one FACT is combined with more than one MEANING.5. INTELLIGENCE is INFORMATION associated with its STRATEGIC USES.6. DATA/INFORMATION must formally arranged into an ARCHITECTURE.

Wisdom & knowledge are often used synonymously

Data

Data

Data Data

19


Leverage is an Engineering Concept

20

• Using proper engineering techniques, a human can lift a bulk that is weighs much more than the human


Data Leverage is an Engineering Concept

21

Organizational Data

Organizational Data Managers

Technologies

Process

People

• Note: Reducing ROT increases data leverage

Less Data ROT ->


Why Is Data Management Important? • Too much data leads directly to wasted productivity

– Eighty percent (80%) of organizational data is redundant, obsolete or trivial (ROT)

• Underutilized data leads directly to poorly leveraged organizational resources– Manpower – costs associated with labor resources and

market share – Money – costs associated

with management of financial resources

– Methods – costs associated with operational processes and product delivery

– Machines – costs associated with hardware, software applications and data to enhance production capability

22


Incorrect Educational Focus• Building new systems

– 80% of IT costs are spent rebuilding and evolving existing systems and only 20% of costs are spent building and acquiring new systems

– Putting fresh graduates on new projects makes this proposition more ridiculous

– Only the most experienced professionals should be allowed to participate in new systems development.

• Who is responsible for managing data assets?– Business thinks IT is taking care of it - it is called IT after all?– IT thinks if you can sign on to the system their job is complete

• System development practices– Data evolution is separate from, external to and must precede

system development life cycle activities!– Data is not a project - it has no distinct beginning and end

23


Evolving Data is Different than Creating New Systems

24

Common Organizational Data (and corresponding data needs requirements)

New Organizational Capabilities

Systems Development

Activities

Create

Evolve

Future State

(Version +1)

Data evolution is separate from, external to, and precedes system development life cycle activities!


Application-Centric Development

Original articulation from Doug Bagley @ Walmart

25

Data/Information

Network/Infrastructure

Systems/Applications

Goals/Objectives

Strategy• In support of strategy, organizations develop specific goals/objectives

• The goals/objectives drive the development of specific systems/applications

• Development of systems/applications leads to network/infrastructure requirements

• Data/information are typically considered after the systems/applications and network/infrastructure have been articulated

• Problems with this approach:– Ensures data is formed to the applications and not

around the organizational-wide information requirements

– Process are narrowly formed around applications

– Very little data reuse is possible


Payroll Application(3rd GL)Payroll Data

(database)

R& D Applications(researcher supported, no documentation)

R & DData(raw) Mfg. Data

(home growndatabase)

Mfg. Applications(contractor supported)

FinanceData

(indexed)

Finance Application(3rd GL, batch

system, no source)

Marketing Application(4rd GL, query facilities, no reporting, very large)

Marketing Data(external database)

Personnel App.(20 years old,

un-normalized data)

Personnel Data(database)

26

Typical System Evolution


Data-Centric Development

Original articulation from Doug Bagley @ Walmart

27

Systems/Applications

Network/Infrastructure

Data/Information

Goals/Objectives

Strategy• In support of strategy, the organization develops specific goals/objectives

• The goals/objectives drive the development of specific data/information assets with an eye to organization-wide usage

• Network/infrastructure components are developed to support organization-wide use of data

• Development of systems/applications is derived from the data/network architecture

• Advantages of this approach:– Data/information assets are developed from an

organization-wide perspective– Systems support organizational data needs and

compliment organizational process flows – Maximum data/information reuse


Polling Question #1 • Who or what

department(s) makes the decision on investing in data management initiatives?A) ITB) Supported business area C) IT and the supported

business area togetherD) Office of Chief Data

Officer or Enterprise Data Office/Equivalent

28




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

29




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

30


Monitization: Time & Leave Tracking

31

At Least 300 employees are spending 15 minutes/week

tracking leave/time


32

Capture Cost of Labor/Category

District-L (as an example) Leave Tracking Time AccountingEmployees 73 50Number of documents 1000 2040Timesheet/employee 13.70 40.8Time spent 0.08 0.25Hourly Cost $6.92 $6.92Additive Rate $11.23 $11.23Semi-monthly cost per timekeeper $12.31 $114.56

Total semi-monthly timekeeper cost $898.49 $5,727.89

Annual cost $21,563.83 $137,469.40


33

Compute Labor Costs

• Range $192,000 - $159,000/month

• $100,000 Salem

• $159,000 Lynchburg

• $100,000 Richmond

• $100,000 Suffolk

• $150,000 Fredericksburg

• $100,000 Staunton

• $100,000 NOVA

• $800,000/month or $9,600,000/annually

• Awareness of the cost of things considered overhead


34

Annual Organizational Totals


International Chemical Company Engine Testing

35

• $1billion (+) chemical company

• Develops/manufactures additives enhancing the performance of oils and fuels ...

• ... to enhance engine/machine performance – Helps fuels burn cleaner– Engines run smoother– Machines last longer

• Tens of thousands of tests annually– Test costs range up to

$250,000!


Overview of Existing Data Management Process

36

1. Manual transfer of digital data2. Manual file movement/duplication3. Manual data manipulation4. Disparate synonym reconciliation 5. Tribal knowledge requirements 6. Non-sustainable technology

33


Data Integration Solution• Integrated the existing systems to

easily search on and find similar or identical tests

• Results:– Reduced expenses– Improved competitive edge

and customer service– Time savings and improve operational

capabilities

• According to our client’s internal business case development, they expect to realize a $25 million gain each year thanks to this data integration

37


Vocabulary is Important-Tank, Tanks, Tankers, Tanked

38


How one inventory item proliferates data throughout the chain

39

555 Subassemblies & subcomponents

17,659 Repair parts or Consumables

System 1:18,214 Total items75 Attributes/ item

1,366,050 Total attributes

System 247 Total items

15+ A>ributes/item720 Total a>ributes

System 316,594 Total items73 A>ributes/item

1,211,362 Total a>ributes


136,560 Total a>ributes


351,098 Total a>ributes

Total for the five systems show above:59,350 Items

179 Unique a>ributes3,065,790 values

• National Stock Number (NSN) Discrepancies– If NSNs in LUAF, GABF, and RTLS are

not present in the MHIF, these records cannot be updated in SASSY

– Additional overhead is created to correct data before performing the real maintenance of records

• Serial Number Duplication– If multiple items are assigned the same

serial number in RTLS, the traceability of those items is severely impacted

– Approximately $531 million of SAC 3 items have duplicated serial numbers

• On-Hand Quantity Discrepancies– If the LUAF O/H QTY and number of items serialized in RTLS conflict, there can

be no clear answer as to how many items a unit actually has on-hand– Approximately $5 billion of equipment does not tie out between the LUAF &

RTLS


Business Implications


Improving Data Quality during System Migration

41

• Challenge– Millions of NSN/SKUs

maintained in a catalog– Key and other data stored in

clear text/comment fields– Original suggestion was manual

approach to text extraction– Left the data structuring problem unsolved

• Solution– Proprietary, improvable text extraction process– Converted non-tabular data into tabular data– Saved a minimum of $5 million– Literally person centuries of work

Unmatched Items

Ignorable Items

Items Matched

Week # (% Total) (% Total) (% Total)1 31.47% 1.34% N/A2 21.22% 6.97% N/A3 20.66% 7.49% N/A4 32.48% 11.99% 55.53%… … … …14 9.02% 22.62% 68.36%15 9.06% 22.62% 68.33%16 9.53% 22.62% 67.85%17 9.50% 22.62% 67.88%18 7.46% 22.62% 69.92%


Determining Diminishing Returns

42

Time needed to review all NSNs once over the life of the project:Time needed to review all NSNs once over the life of the project:NSNs 2,000,000Average time to review & cleanse (in minutes) 5Total Time (in minutes) 10,000,000

Time available per resource over a one year period of time:Time available per resource over a one year period of time:Work weeks in a year 48Work days in a week 5Work hours in a day 7.5Work minutes in a day 450Total Work minutes/year 108,000

Person years required to cleanse each NSN once prior to migration:Person years required to cleanse each NSN once prior to migration:Minutes needed 10,000,000Minutes available person/year 108,000Total Person-Years 92.6

Resource Cost to cleanse NSN's prior to migration:Resource Cost to cleanse NSN's prior to migration:Avg Salary for SME year (not including overhead) $60,000.00Projected Years Required to Cleanse/Total DLA Person Year Saved 93Total Cost to Cleanse/Total DLA Savings to Cleanse NSN's: $5.5 million


43

Quantitative Benefits


Seven Sisters (from British Telecom)

44

Thanks to Dave Evans


Polling Question #2 • Is it hard to obtain

funding for your data management projects?A) Yes, because it is hard to

show valueB) Yes, because we have not

aligned with the business objectives

C) Yes, because no precedent has been set

D) No, because we can clearly demonstrate value

45




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

46




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

47

In one of the more horrifying incidents I've read about, U.S. soldiers and allies were killed in December 2001 because of a stunningly poor design of a GPS receiver, plus "human error." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8853-2002Mar23.htmlA U.S. Special Forces air controller was calling in GPS positioning from some sort of battery-powered device. He "had used the GPS receiver to calculate the latitude and longitude of the Taliban position in minutes and seconds for an airstrike by a Navy F/A-18."According to the *Post* story, the bomber crew "required" a "secondcalculation in 'degree decimals'" -- why the crew did not have equipment to perform the minutes-seconds conversion themselves is not explained.The air controller had recorded the correct value in the GPS receiver when the battery died. Upon replacing the battery, he called in the degree-decimal position the unit was showing -- without realizing that the unit is set up to reset to its *own* position when the battery is replaced. The 2,000-pound bomb landed on his position, killing three Special Forces soldiers and injuring 20 others.If the information in this story is accurate, the RISKS involve replacing memory settings with an apparently-valid default value instead of blinking 0 or some other obviously-wrong display; not having a backup battery to hold values in memory during battery replacement; not equipping users to translate one coordinate system to another; and using a device with such flaws in a combat situation


Friendly Fire deaths traced to Dead Battery

48

Suicide Mitigation


49

Suicide MitigationData Mapping

12

Mental illness

Deployments

Work History

Soldier Legal Issues

Abuse

Suicide Analysis

FAPDMSS G1 DMDC CID

Data objects complete?

All sources identified?

Best source for each object?

How reconcile differences between sources?

MDR


50


Senior Army Official• A very heavy dose of

management support

• Any questions as to future data ownership, "they should make an appointment to speak directly with me!"

• Empower the team

– The conversation turned from "can this be done?" to "how are we going to accomplish this?"

– Mistakes along the way would be tolerated

– Implement a workable solution in prototype form

51


Communication Patterns

52

Source: The Challenge and the Promise: Strengthening the Force, Preventing Suicide and Saving Lives - The Final Report of the Department of Defense Task Force on the Prevention of Suicide by Members of the Armed Forces - August 2010


Polling Question #3 • What percentage of

your data projects are successful?A) AllB) 25% C) 75%D) none

53




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

54




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

55

Plaintiff(Company X)

Defendant(Company Y)

AprilRequests a recommendation from ERP Vendor

Responds indicating "Preferred Specialist" status

JulyContracts Defendant to implement ERP and convert legacy data

Begins implementation

January Realizes a key milestone has been missed

Stammers an explanation of "bad" data

JulySlows then stops Defendant invoice payments

Removes project team

Files arbitration request as governed by contract with Defendant


Messy Sequencing Towards Arbitration

56


Points of Contention• Who owned the

risks? • Who was the project

manager?• Was the data of poor

quality?• Did the contractor

(Company Y) exercise due diligence?

• Was their methodology adequate?

• Were required standards of care followed and were the work products of required quality?

57


Expert ReportsOurs provided evidence that :1. Company Y's conversion code introduced

errors into the data2. Some data that Company Y converted was of

measurably lower quality than the quality of the data before the conversion

3. Company Y caused harm by not performing an analysis of the Company X's legacy systems and that that the required analysis was not a part of any project plan used by Company Y

4. Company Y caused harm by withholding specific information relating to the perception of the on-site consultants' views on potential project success

Expert Report

58


FBI & Canadian Social Security Gender Codes

1. Male2. Female3. Formerly male now female4. Formerly female now male5. Uncertain6. Won't tell7. Doesn't know8. Male soon to be female9. Female soon to be male

If column 1 in source = "m" • then set value of target data to "male"

• else set value of target data to "female"

51


The defendant knew to prevent duplicate SSNs

!************************************************************************! Procedure Name: 230-Assign-PS-Emplid!! Description : This procedure generates a PeopleSoft Employee ID! (Emplid) by incrementing the last Emplid processed by 1! First it checks if the applicant/employee exists on! the PeopleSoft database using the SSN.!!************************************************************************Begin-Procedure 230-Assign-PS-Emplid

move 'N' to $found_in_PS !DAR 01/14/04 move 'N' to $found_on_XXX !DAR 01/14/04

BEGIN-SELECT -Db'DSN=HR83PRD;UID=PS_DEV;PWD=psdevelopment'NID.EMPLIDNID.NATIONAL_ID

move 'Y' to $found_in_PS !DAR 01/14/04 move &NID.EMPLID to $ps_emplid

FROM PS_PERS_NID NID!WHERE NID.NATIONAL_ID = $ps_ssnWHERE NID.AJ_APPL_ID = $applicant_idEND-SELECT

if $found_in_PS = 'N' !DAR 01/14/04 do 231-Check-XXX-for-Empl !DAR 01/14/04 if $found_on_XXX = 'N' !DAR 01/14/04 add 1 to #last_emplid let $last_emplid = to_char(#last_emplid) let $last_emplid = lpad($last_emplid,6,'0') let $ps_emplid = 'AJ' || $last_emplid end-if end-if !DAR 01/14/04

End-Procedure 230-Assign-PS-Emplid

AJHR0213_CAN_UPDATE.SQR

The exclamation point prevents this line from

looking for duplicates, so no check is made for a duplicate SSN/National

ID

Legacy systems business rules allowed employees to

have more than one AJ_APPL_ID.

60


61


Identified & Quantified Risks

62


Risk Response “Risk response development involves defining enhancement steps

for opportunities and threats.” Page 119, Duncan, W., A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, PMI, 1996

"The go-live date may need to be extended due to certain critical path deliverables not being met. This extension will require additional tasks and resources. The decision of whether or not to extend the go-live date should be made by Monday, November 3, 20XX so that resources can be allocated to the additional tasks."

Tasks HoursNew Year Conversion 120Tax and payroll balance conversion 120General Ledger conversion 80

Total 320

Resource HoursG/L Consultant 40Project Manager 40Recievables Consultant 40HRMS Technical Consultant 40Technical Lead Consultant 40HRMS Consultant 40Financials Technical Consultant 40

Total 280

Delay Weekly Resources Weeks Tasks CumulativeJanuary (5 weeks) 280 5 320 1720February (4 weeks) 280 4 1120

Total 2840

63

Process Planning Area Company YCompany Y Company X LeadMethodology Demonstrated

Scope Planning √ √Scope Definition √ √Activity Definition √Activity Sequencing √Activity Duration Estimation √Schedule Development √Resource Planning √ √Cost Estimating √Cost Budgeting √Project Plan Development ?Quality Planning ? ?Communication Planning √ √Risk Identification √ √Risk Quantification √Risk Response √ ? ?Organizational Planning √ √Staff Acquisition √


Project Management Planning

64


Inadequate Standard of Care - Tasks without Predecessors

65


Inadequate Standard of Care

66


Professional & Workmanlike Manner

67

Defendant warrants that the services it provides hereunder will be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with industry standards.


The Defense's "Industry Standards"• Question:

– What are the industry standards that you are referring to?• Answer:

– There is nothing written or codified, but it is the standards which are recognized by the consulting firms in our (industry).

• Question:– I understand from what you told me just a moment ago that

the industry standards that you are referring to here are not written down anywhere; is that correct?

• Answer:– That is my understanding.

• Question:– Have you made an effort to locate these industry standards

and have simply not been able to do so?• Answer:

– I would not know where to begin to look.

68




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

69




3. Leveraging Data





Outline

70

Monetizing Data Management


71

• State Agency Time & Leave Tracking– Time and leave tracking

• $1 million USD annually

• International Chemical Company– Data management: Test results– $25 million UDS annually

• ERP Implementation– Transformation of non-tabular data

• $5 million annually• Person Centuries

• British Telecom Project Rollout– £250 (small investment)

• Non-Monetary Examples– Friendly Fire– Suicide Mitigation

• Legal– ERP Implementation Legal Case

• $ 5,355,450 CAN damages/penalties






Questions?

72

It’s your turn! Use the chat feature or Twitter (#dataed) to submit

your questions to Peter now.

+ =


Upcoming Events

73

November Webinar: Unlock Business Value Through Reference & MDMNovemeber 12, 2013 @ 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM ET(11:00 AM-12:30 PM PT)

December: Unlock Business Value ThroughDocument & Content Management December 10, 2013 @ 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM ET(11:00 AM-12:30 PM PT)

Sign up here:• www.datablueprint.com/webinar-schedule • www.Dataversity.net

Brought to you by:

Data-Ed Online: Show Me the Money - Monetizing Data Management

Business

Transcript of Data-Ed Online: Show Me the Money - Monetizing Data Management