Andrew White

A member of the Gartner Blog Network

Andrew White
Research VP
8 years at Gartner
22 years IT industry

Andrew White is a research vice president and agenda manager for MDM and Analytics at Gartner. His main research focus is master data management (MDM) and the drill-down topic of creating the "single view of the product" using MDM of product data. He was co-chair… Read Full Bio

Coverage Areas:

Master Data Management – Have We Left the Station yet?

by Andrew White  |  September 15, 2011  |  2 Comments

I just spent a day with an end user organization trying to get its information governance program launched using Master Data Management as the vehicle.  Despite the opportunity, despite the conditions that seem favorable for MDM, and despite the multi-stakeholder willingness to participate, getting MDM off the ground is hard work.  And like with most organizations, trying to get MDM off the ground all the while trying to keep the business running, is even harder.  We spent some time tackling a common issue I see a lot, and have increasingly seen, over the last year.  The role and responsibility of “governance” needs to be defined clearly.  However, I think we need to go further.

Collectively I see a lot of folks coming to terms with defining, and re-defining, the role of “data governor”, “data steward”, and “data maintenance”.  I think this is a critical delineation of duties, yet so many organizations start with an “all in” definition and then struggle when it comes to execution.  I don’t think MDM, and any related information governance effort, can work unless these roles are clearly identified and resourced (sometimes by separate people).  I don’t mean to suggest that organizations need to build up their bureaucracy; it could be that these roles are staffed by one or two folks.  The point is that these roles exist today in every organization, but mostly informally and inconsistently.  These roles need to be explicit and the dependency of the roles needs to be made clear; I know what I am supposed to do in my home every evening; why not in our day to day work?

I spent another day this week with several other clients I was reminded, as I flew home, of two press pieces.  Jim Ericson over at Information Management, wrote a nice piece: MDM: No Roots, No Fruits.  The part of the article that resonated with this week’s most recent client interactions was this: “…[I]t’s easy to forget that most companies – by far — are only kicking the tires on MDM.”  This is just so true.  And this tells you just how far we have come with “data governance” – not very far.

This does not mean that there aren’t examples of other data that might be governed for specific purposes (think records management, digital media), but widely adopted, enterprise wide, primary information assets, broad based data governance does not exist.  And despite this many organizations are still “successful” in that they still ship the goods, still tax the citizen, or still power the washing machine.  Talk about a tough message to sell.

In support of Jim’s point I noted a survey Kalido published recently.  In The State of Data Governance 2011” they reported, among other things, “Despite nearly seven years extolling the virtues of managing master data by analysts and vendors, 49% of companies still do not manage master data anywhere but in their disparate applications.”  Well I have to disagree!  I think a figure of 49% is very flattering.  I think the vast majority of organizations that could take advantage of information governance programs like MDM are “not there yet”.  I would estimate nearer 80% of companies are not managing their master data properly.  A figure nearer 80% seems to jive better with the level of inquiries we saw a few years ago, the much higher level we see now, and the type of organizations we talk with.

On a more positive note Heiler also published a survey of organizations using MDM solutions to help master product data.  The survey is called “Return on Investment (ROI) of Product Information for Multichannel” and by definition, this is a segment of the overall MDM market.  The good news is that the survey showed some interesting data supporting the business case for how an MDM approach helps organizations achieve their business goals more so then without MDM.

“Conversion rates”, that is, the rate at which a prospect turns into a customer transaction, was reportedly higher for organizations adopting MDM of Product Data.  But oddly only manufacturers surveyed suggested this; retailers suggested a much small impact of governed data on conversion rates.  Then again, the maturity of MDM in retailers lags that of manufactures by quite a large margin (I surmise) so I wonder if the respondents really answered the question that was asked of them.  I would have to explore the responses (and organizations) more fully to get to the bottom of the difference.

Either way both survey’s expose some good information, and provide more food for thought.  I am still really excited at the amount of work going on, but there is so much more ahead of us than there is behind – for most of us.

2 Comments »

Category: Business Case Governance Heiler Kalido MDM     Tags:

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Christoph Vancompernolle   September 19, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    Hi Andrew,

    I can relate very much to the statement “most companies are kicking the tires…”. Having worked for a company who had a Data Quality manager I experienced first hand how hard it is to convince business of the potential benefits of data quality and MDM (the two are intertwined in my opinion). It was only afters months of collecting trends in MDM and DQ _and_ after showing business the consequences of a lack of MDM that people started to listen. Basically we had to establish a business case (there’s nothing new here…) and show business what the impact was on credit collection of bad master data management. At that moment our meticulously collected data started to live and people got interested to learn the other observed trends. The company I’m referring to is not yet working on MDM solutions at this moment but at least they are looking in a different way to findings of the DQ mgr.

  • 2 Andrew White   September 20, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    Hi Christophe, Thanks for leaving the comment. Your point is very good. It is a shame that after spending the millions, even billions, on “IT”, that this problem (of inconsistent) data remains a thorn for many organizations. I guess it is partly a testament to how good IT can be in coping with a bad hand. If only IT was a little less “good” at coping with bad data, so the business could see the impact of their recalcitrant behavior. I too have seen some IT shops do work to identify the impact of “lack of governance” by exposing results of analysis to business users; in some cases the business users recognize their impact and start to work towards a governance framework. Thanks again.