Michael Blechar

I recently published a research note called “Decision Framework for Evaluating Metadata Repositories*” which describes the best practices for the process of rating and ranking repository solutions. Obviously, this goes into much greater detail than I can address in this blog. However, I’d like to highlight a few key points to my readers….

Most organizations will end up with their metadata stored in multiple, different technologies and places under the control of different people in various roles with some limited coordination of metadata across these sources (see my blog on “Metadata Management: Sources and Integration Impact Success and Failure” for more details). Therefore, organizations will need to be evaluations of the metadata management capabilities of multiple solutions – both individually and in concert.

The first, biggest, mistake I see in organizations trying to do metadata repository evaluations is in not understanding the scope of their short-term and long-term metadata management needs. And, related, not knowing the current and future needs of the roles they will be supporting with the repositories and, therefore, outgrowing their initial selection too quickly to justify the acquisition or build expense and implementation effort.

The metadata stores/repositories of technologies you already own, and those which you could acquire, come in different sizes, costs and focus. Until you know the scope you need supported – and which specific metadata artifacts, relationships and use cases you need to manage within that scope – you cannot create a valid set of criteria for evaluating your options.

Some organizations mistakenly try to select a “corporate repository solution” capable of managing any and all types of metadata when they are unable to implement or manage to that scope of cost and effort. Or conversely, they are so focused on one short-term need that they lose sight of how the solution for that need will coexist with the broader metadata management plan in the long-term – causing extra effort and cost later on.

Warning: A bigger issue (and beyond the scope of this blog) is how your information governance practices currently support the scope of metadata management you plan to implement. Frequently, repositories exacerbate the lack of sound information governance practices.

This issue of whether to focus on a best-of-breed short-term solution and worry about the broader long-term needs later, or use a (perhaps more expensive and complex) solution now which can be expanded to include the broader future needs of the enterprise later is a fundamental decision which drastically impacts the repository evaluation criteria.

The second mistake is to weight too heavily some detailed technical criteria causing the exclusion of the best alternative. For example, while it may be important to you that the repository support Object Management Group’s Reusable Asset Specification (RAS) standard, or have your metadata assets stored in a relation vs proprietary database. While it is good to include these types of criteria as requirements, if they are “must haves”, you may very well eliminate the solution which best fits your overall objectives, scope and needs the best.

Or, to say it in a different way, your selection criteria needs to have a balance of technical criteria requirements as well as other things like vendor execution and vision, service and support and total cost of ownership.

Net: Most organizations will find their best metadata management alternative to be to use the metadata management capabilities in the current tools they own supplemented by the implementation of multiple best-of-breed repositories with some limited federation or consolidation across the technologies. This needs to part of a broader enterprise-wide metadata management strategy/program which can help define the scope and needs for the selection/evaluation process of the best-of-breed metadata repositories and when and where metadata federation and consolidation should occur..

*Available to Gartner clients or for a fee

1 Comment »

Category: Uncategorized     Tags:

Share