Andrew WhiteI had one of those client calls today that brought into sharp focus something that had avoided such clarity. Many of us have known that MDM and BI have a relationship; some mistakenly associate the two as if they are alternatives: I have heard some even think that MDM “needs” BI. But, the reality is that MDM and BI are different, yet have similarities. MDM assures a level of quality and consistency of (only) master data for all purposes in the business, including use in BI. BI includes (is not limited to) the necessary data quality routines in order to clean all data stored within its BI realm, for the purposes of BI only. As such, MDM is focused (or limited, if you prefer) and only looks at master data but for ALL uses; BI is broad (all uses of business intelligence and all data within BI) but is narrow (or limited, if you prefer) in that it does not focus on operational data or operational business applications.
I have written about “rules” in an MDM context before. How an organization masters rules is not a new topic; analysts have written about (business) rules engines before. But MDM is bringing a focus to the topic again, in the context of:
-
What type of rules are there?
-
Who authors such rules?
-
How are such rules used?
-
If rules or parts of rules (or rule making processes) are re-used, how can this be made effective?
It is the last question that is making users of MDM conclude that rules and MDM need to be related more closely. And because BI is immersed in rules, the connection between BI and MDM is more important. A client inquiry brought this connection unto clear focus today with the following description:
“We have been developing BI for many years, and we recognize that rules that adjust data in some fashion exist at many places in our systems, from initial identification, transformation, load, then aggregation, and even ‘post BI’ since users then take data and drop it into a spreadsheet and do more manipulations.”
These rules, in the context of BI, are what constitute aspects of what I call, “passive governance”. My college, Mark Beyer, would chuckle and correct me with, “Andrew, this is not governance at all” and Mark is correct; I am just a little kinder and I accept that these rules have a job, that is to clean up and process data in a way that should be meaningful to the user/business. As such, when “active governance” is established (aka MDM) then rules are again created to clean up and process data in a way that is meaningful to the user/business. The different is that in BI land, these rules are created and managed by IT independent of the operational system; with MDM these rules are defined by business and directly interacting with the operational system.
So the challenge for me is much clearer – after this one dialog with a client – spelled out the obvious. Over time more and more users will rationalize that they need to apply MDM disciplines to rules that process master data; and also, beyond that, integrity and re-use of those rules, even those that process non master data, can also yield business benefit through more effective management. The connection between mastery of business rules, and how MDM tools help, will only increase in strength in the next few years.
It seems the Rime of the Ancient Apps Manager/Mariner should be something like:
Rules, rules, every where,
And all the re-use did shrink,
Rules, rules, every where,
And not an object to link.
Category: Analytical MDM Business Intelligence Business Rules MDM Operational MDM Tags: Analytic MDM, BI, Business Rules, MDM, Operational MDM
6 responses so far ↓
1 Puneesh Lamba September 12, 2009 at 12:35 pm
My input: Master data (sometimes called reference data) consists of facts that define a business entity, facts that may be used to model one or more definitions or views of an entity. Entity definitions based on master data provide business consistency and data integrity when multiple IT systems across an organization (or beyond) identify the same entity differently. MDM is the practice of defining and maintaining consistent definitions of business entities, then sharing them via integration techniques across multiple IT systems within an enterprise and sometimes beyond to partnering companies or customers. More simply put: MDM is the practice of acquiring, improving, and sharing master data.
As an integration practice, MDM is late to the data integration frenzy of this decade, yet still part of it. For many technical users, MDM is an extension of other growing practices, like data warehousing, BI, data quality, and metadata management. In some cases, MDM’s central definitions are part of a general trend toward centralized IT
2 Prabir Majumder September 13, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Great post Andrew…my thoughts..
When we talk about rules- there can be multiple type of rules, many rules used in BI Apps really does not needed to be linked to MDM. But yes there are certain rules that must there for MDM solution to perceive data accurately. As you mentioned “passive governance” i liked the term, i also feel it comes close to that.
To add to it, I have been working on some MDM products, there are rules engine already built into it, with flexibility to mix and match, and also to build new rules a such. But not sure how much of them are really being used. But definitely it should be looked at sooner than later, and again if can be related to governance aspect, then it would need interlinking with BI apps as well operations apps.
3 Andrew White September 14, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Hi Puneesh, Not sure we disagree, but I do not think that MDM is an extension of other growing practices, like data warehousing, BI, data quality, and metadata management. I would argue that MDM has evolved because of such efforts, and not as part of them. BI is nothing other than a consumer of much data – including master data. If master data is rubbish, BI will clean it up during the process of transforming the source to the data warehouse. If master data is clean, then BI does not have to do this work. Data quality can be applied to solve any number of problems – the real world shows that most (not all) DQ efforts are project based; MDM could be renamed, “applied data quality” since MDM is a discipline; a way to manage the data differently. And of metadata management? MDM cannot be achieved without some use of metadata management (agreed) but its like saying you cannot cook an egg without cracking the shell. There is a lot of metadata management that could be applied to non master data. For me, MDM emerged due to the failings of some technologies and the requirements of others. What do you think?
4 Andrew White September 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Hi Prabir, thanks for the post. I just wanted to query you on the point, “many rules used in BI Apps really does not needed to be linked to MDM” To me this is one of those cases of leverage. What IT learned when the BI application was deployed could be re-applied to an MDM discipline such that the rule is applied on the living data, in the operational system, when the data is created initially. If the rule is left downstream in BI, the source data remains “at risk”. Though (operational) MDM can be established independent of BI, I think this creates the potential for problems (ie duplication of effort) down the line. Why not move the responsibility for quality upstream? Just a thought.
5 Prabir Majumder September 18, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Andrew, thanks for your comment. Well, in my prespective, even though BI and MDM both lives on data, and how it is stored and used, there is a fundametal difference. MDM stores and uses data completely based on business operations need and goal, however BI does lot more than that. In BI world you might do all of what you would do with MDM, however in BI there is and should be opportunity to do more than just what is needed, rather would think BI as the catalyst that would push changes more and more which would bring in more value add to the business be it operations or strategies. In contrast MDM should be more focused with what is the ground reality and use accordingly. So in a nutshell i would like all MDM rules to be part of BI, but BI to do more than what MDM rules would just do. Would be intersted to know your thoughts!
6 Andrew White September 21, 2009 at 9:02 am
Hi Prabir,
Thanks again for the post/response.
I wanted to check something with you – since i am not convinced we disagree (yet). BI could mean several things. For some users, BI means “managing a data warehouse environment whereby we clean and manage all kinds of data in order to build reports for the business”. or BI could mean, “provide an analytics framework on top of the data in the business”. It could also mean “managing information for lots of different uses”.
For me, BI is not the latter. BI is mostly about “managing information for the explicit purpose of building reports, analytics, and dashboards for business users, who want to measure the business, and take smarter business decisions”.
When I hear someone say, “in a BI world you might do all of what you would do with MDM” I tend to believe the speaker is interpreting BI as an overall IM strategy (which it is not). I would accept something like “in an Enterprise Data Warehouse, you might do all of what you would do with MDM” but an EDW is not the same as “BI”.
Lastly, the rules that emerge from a BI initiative, downstream and outside the purview of the operations side of the business, need to be moved (eventually, I grant you) upstream into operational MDM. This is the change from “helping the patient cope with the disease” to “helping prevent the patient from getting sick in the first place”. MDM services all BI and business application (BA) needs. It is not the other way around.
So, depending on what you mean, I might agree or disagree
Good dialog!