jump to navigation

Today’s Linkedin Discussion Thread: Enterprise Data Quality April 28, 2009

Posted by Peter Benza in Data Analysis, Data Elements, Data Governance, Data Optimization, Data Processes, Data Profiling, Data Quality, Data Sources, Data Standardization, Data Synchronization, Data Tools, Data Verification.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Here is my most recent question I just added to my Linkedin discussion group = Enterprise Data Quality.

QUESTION: What master data or existing “traditional” data management processes (or differentiators) have you identified to be useful across the enterprise regarding data quality?

MY INSIGHTS: Recently, I was able to demonstrate (and quantify) the impact of using an NCOA updated address for match/merge accuracy purposes when two or more customer “names and addresses” from three disparate source systems were present. The ultimate test approach warrants consideration especially when talking about the volume of customer records for big companies today number “hundreds” of millions of records. It is ideal to apply this test to the entire file not just a sample set. But, we all know today its about: money, time, value, resources, etc.

For testing purposes, I advised all individual customer address attributes were replaced (where information was available) with NCOA updated addresses and then loaded and processed through the “customer hub” technology. If you are not testing a piece of technology, then constructing your own match key or visually checking sample sets of customer records before and after is an alternative. Either way, inventory matches and non-matches from the two different runs – once with addresses (as-is) and once with addresses that leverage the NCOA information.

My goal was to establish a business process that focused on “pre-processing customer records” using a reliable third party source (in this case NCOA) instead of becoming completely dependent on a current or future piece of technology that may offer the same results, especially when the methodology (matching algorithms) are probalistic. My approach reduces your dependency, as well, and you can focus on “lift” the technology may offer – if your are comparing two or more products.

Where as, inside a deterministic-based matching utility (or off-the-shelf solution) adding extra space or columns of data to the end of your input file to store the NCOA addresses will allow you to accomplish the same results. But, for test purposes, the easier way may be to replace addresses where an NCOA record is available.

Remember, based on the volume of records your client may be dealing with, a pre-process (business process) may be ideal, rather than loading all the customer names and addresses into the third party customer hub technology and processing it. Caution: This all depends on how the business is required (i.e. compliance) to store information from cradle to grave. But, the rule of thumb of the MDM customer hub is to store the “best/master” (single customer view record) with the exception of users with extended search requirements. The data warehouse (vs. MDM solutions) now becomes the next challenge… what to keep where and how much. But, that is another discussion.

The percentage realized in using the updated customer address was substantial (over 10%) on the average based on all the sources factored into the analysis. This means several 10’s of millions of customer records will match/merge more effectively (and efficiently) followed by the incremental lift – based on what the “customer hub” technology enables using its proprietary tools and techniques. This becomes the real differentiator!

Dots On A Map Improve Data Quality April 18, 2009

Posted by Peter Benza in Data Accuracy, Data Hygiene, Data Integrity, Data Management, Data Mining, Data Profiling, Data Quality, Data Standardization, Data Stewardship, Data Types, Data Visualization, Linkedin.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

This was a presentation I originally prepared back in 2005, but is probably even more applicable in 2009 given the impact using a GIS tool can have on visualizing data quality – customer addresses on  a map! The next time you conduct a customer “data” assessment – try this!

Cognos data quality rapid assessment service January 17, 2008

Posted by Peter Benza in Data Accuracy, Data Analysis, Data Governance, Data Integration, Data Management, Data Metrics, Data Profiling, Data Quality, Data Standardization, Data Stewardship, Data Tools.
add a comment

http://www.cognos.com/performance-management/technology/data-quality/pdfs/fs-cognos-data-quality-rapid-assessment-service.pdf

DataFlux positioned in leaders quadrant for data quality according to Gartner January 17, 2008

Posted by Peter Benza in Data Assessment, Data Consolidation, Data Governance, Data Hygiene, Data Integration, Data Integrity, Data Management, Data Profiling, Data Quality, Data Standardization, Data Templates, Data Tools.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Compliance, Data Governance, Master Data Management, Data Profiling

http://www.dataflux.com/

MDM Accelerator® by Zoomix January 9, 2008

Posted by Peter Benza in Data Accuracy, Data Aggregates, Data Analysis, Data Assessment, Data Consolidation, Data Dictionary, Data Formats, Data Governance, Data Hygiene, Data Integration, Data Management, Data Metrics, Data Processes, Data Profiling, Data Quality, Data References, Data Sources, Data Standardization, Data Stewardship, Data Synchronization, Data Templates, Data Tools.
add a comment

To learn more about or post your comments about MDM Accelerator®

by Zoomix.

http://www.zoomix.com/mdm.asp

Teradata – Master Data Management January 9, 2008

Posted by Peter Benza in Data Assessment, Data Consolidation, Data Dictionary, Data Governance, Data Hygiene, Data Integration, Data Management, Data Metrics, Data Processes, Data Profiling, Data Quality, Data Standardization, Data Stewardship, Data Strategy, Data Templates, Data Tools, Data Types.
add a comment

To learn more about Teradata and their MDM solution offering:

http://www.teradata.com/master-data-management

Data quality connector for Siebel by Group 1 Software September 16, 2007

Posted by Peter Benza in Data Hygiene, Data Integration, Data Management, Data Profiling, Data Quality, Data Standardization.
1 comment so far

See this podcast immediately by linking to the demo below:

http://www.g1.com/Resources/Demos/DQC/index.html

Deciphering between data variables and data elements? August 16, 2007

Posted by Peter Benza in Data Consistancy, Data Consolidation, Data Elements, Data Formats, Data Standardization, Data Templates.
add a comment

Here are two data variables that require some special attention or you just might “age” your customers too soon, too late, or not at all. 

Exact age is a data variable and is typically stored as a whole number representing a customer’s age.  In this form it is a very powerful (and predictive) data variable and is used as one of the more commonly used variables to discriminate responders from non-responders. 

Exact age in this case can’t be broken down into any smaller data elements.  Okay, so know you understand the difference, but is this good enough given how you plan to use this data variable for target marketing purposes.

Exact age does have some limitations.  What about maintaining this particular variable in your customer data warehouse.  If left alone in its current format it (exact age) becomes an operational nightmare.  A more common and efficient way is creating a second data variable named (date of birth), and include three data elements month, day, and year of birth.

Remember, some data variables may have specific data elements within them – such as a phone number, street address, zip code, etc.  The more you examine each of the data variables in your database – you will begin to uncover all the potential options.