Why is the whole greater than the sum of the parts?
First, for those of you who missed the recent webinar a podcast is now available at http://www.datamigrationpro.com/?page=podcasts
Now onto the business of the socialisation of knowledge. When we are working on large-scale migrations it goes without saying that no one person will have all the knowledge we need. As problems come up we will have to consult across the business. I came across a great example of this the other day. One of my clients is in the early stages of a migration, so we are focusing on doing our stage one data quality work. A really typical question has come up around the correct values for a particular field. It should be of the form Annnnnn (one alpha followed by six numbers). And most of the data set follows that except of course for a couple of score records that have AAnnnnn. So why is that? Well the business domain experts between them are sorting it out, the billing guy and the customer accounts guy and engineering expert. Listening to them get to grips with the issues is fascinating. Ideas float around between them. Half-formed sentences started by one person are completed by another. All very normal really. It's obvious that the process of discovery and creation of knowledge involves all sorts of shared experiences and insights, a collective approach to understanding.
And this is what I mean by the socialisation of knowledge. In a complex environment there is more knowledge almost floating in air the between people than there is if I were to take each individual aside and take a complete brain dump (if such a thing were possible) then try to blend it all together.
Well an understanding of this helps us mitigate risk because there is a greater knowledge of data issues out there in the business than maybe we appreciate if we don't set up our projects to create the opportunities for these understandings to emerge. We know that we are (probably) not going to have enough time or budget to completely analyse all our data sources, so we need to use the socialised knowledge in our businesses to direct us to the areas of greatest threat. We also need that knowledge to solve those problems as they emerge. I sometimes think large organisations are something like idiot savants - at one and the same time brilliantly clever and scarily dumb. Hence the role of the Data Quality Rules meetings. Use them not just instrumentally to solve the issues in front of you but also to build the team that jointly will have uncover all the knowledge hidden in the organisation.
Johny Morris
(jmorris@iergo.co.uk)
Comments (1)
Leave CommentNice post Johny. This has to be one of the most important lessons in carrying out what I call the "landscape analysis" phases of early migration. You will never, ever, be able to deduce what the data really means in isolation from the different cross-sections of people who have touched that data in some way over it's lifetime. DBA's often create flags and markers on the data to recover lost records, data entry operators can create astonishing ways to codify data that only their team know, developers can put in short-term fixes - just before their contract expires, the list goes on. Several years ago, I worked with a chap who was adamant that business knowledge could be deduced solely from the data during data discovery, given enough time. We argued fiercely for months about this until one day he audited a clients data using a profiler and created a compelling business case for improvement stating that the address data was being poorly entered and it was costing the business $xxx a month in poor billing and lack of direct sales. Logic prevailed and upon checking his approach I realised he'd missed a filler field in the COBOL dump, causing the data to be corrupted. The profiler was indeed telling the truth but the meaning had been warped by over-eagerness to find hidden revenues and impress the client. I am increasingly concerned by how many organisations believe that data profiling is the key to data quality success. It isn't, people are. We're running a case study on datamigrationpro.com soon of a guy who managed his first data migration faultlessly in under a year for a major project. He was a migration virgin and I was amazed at how successful he had been with no prior experience. When I asked him how he managed it he replied - "I just got everyone together, absolutely everyone who had anything to do with the system and we just sat together for months figuring out what the data meant, then we coded the transforms in a cheap tool and it worked. First time. No failures." For me, that epitomises the right approach to migration and I hope strikes a chord with your post John. Reverse the balance, people are the most vital asset in a migration project, not tools. Dylan Jones DataMigrationPro.com Global Professional Community
Report Comment
Post a comment