06 July 2012

🚧Project Management: Change Control Board (Definitions)

 "A group of project members, possibly including one or two customers, that reviews and approves or rejects change requests." (Rod Stephens, "Beginning Software Engineering", 2015)

"A committee that makes decisions regarding whether proposed changes to a system should be implemented." (William Stallings, "Effective Cybersecurity: A Guide to Using Best Practices and Standards", 2018)

"A central authority for the management of change requests." (Bruce P Douglass, "Real-Time Agility: The Harmony/ESW Method for Real-Time and Embedded Systems Development", 2009)

"A formally constituted group of stakeholders responsible for reviewing, evaluating, approving, delaying, or rejecting changes to a project, with all decisions and recommendations being recorded." (Project Management Institute, "Practice Standard for Project Estimating", 2010)

05 July 2012

🚧Project Management: Project Manager (Definitions)

"The individual responsible for managing a project." (Timothy J  Kloppenborg et al, "Project Leadership", 2003)

"The person responsible for managing a project." (Margaret Y Chu, "Blissful Data ", 2004)

"The person responsible for planning, directing, and controlling a project." (Richard D Stutzke, "Estimating Software-Intensive Systems: Projects, Products, and Processes", 2005)

"The person assigned by the performing organization to lead the team that is responsible for achieving the project objectives." (Project Management Institute, "The Standard for Program Management" 3rd Ed., 2013)

"A professional who is responsible for managing a project’s pursuit of its intended outputs and/or outcomes. Project managers are operational leaders who are responsible for assuring that a project meets its operational goals for delivering work products with prescribed specifications - on time and on budget." (Richard J Heaslip, "Managing Complex Projects and Programs", 2014)

"Individual or body with authority, accountability and responsibility for managing a project to achieve specific objectives." (Chartered Institute of Building, "Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development" 5th Ed., 2014)

"The individual responsible for managing a project and its completion within its scope, budget, and schedule." (Christopher Carson et al, "CPM Scheduling for Construction: Best Practices and Guidelines", 2014)

"The person primarily responsible for managing a project to its successful completion." (Robert F Smallwood, "Information Governance: Concepts, Strategies, and Best Practices", 2014)

"An organizational employee, representative, or consultant appointed to prepare project plans and organize the resources required to complete a project, prior to, during, and upon closure of the project life cycle." (H James Harrington & William S Ruggles, "Project Management for Performance Improvement Teams", 2018)

01 July 2012

📦Data Migrations (DM): An Introduction

Data Migration
Data Migrations Series

Introduction

Basically, Data Migration is the movement of data from one IS (Information System), the legacy system, to a new IS, the target system, supposed to replace entirely or partially the legacy system. In the best scenario there are no differences between the two IS or the differences are minimal, negligible. In the worst scenario, there are multiple legacy systems used as source, and even multiple target systems, with important differences between them, differences that can even be translated in incompatibilities at multiple levels. Such architectures can span geographies, departments, organizations or industries; can involve a multitude of vendors, generations of systems, network types, different regulations, etc. In many Data Migrations the overall picture can be really complex, though for the sake of simplicity it’s enough to focus on the simplest scenario in which there is a single source and a single target system, with some differences between them. Abstraction can be made also of the fact that many migrations are parts of bigger projects, for example ERP implementations or any other type of applications migrations.

Data Migration is quite a complex topic, for many appearing like a black box in which data come in and data come out. That’s valid for the typical user as well for the IT professionals who haven’t been involved in Data Migration projects. There are many books on topics that are tangent to Data Migration – Data Management, Data Quality, Data Integration or Data Warehousing. Excepting some presentations available on the Web, a few methodologies exposed by important companies, one or two books, and a few blogs, there isn’t much material available on Data Migration. The “trend” is also a reflection of the low importance given to Data Migration as subject, even if many professionals working in the field warn about the considerable impact a Data Migration can have on a project in particular, and on business in general.

Approaching a topic like Data Migration can be, upon case, a complex task, however with a little intuition and some guidance its complexity falls apart. Often, when exploring such a topic, of help can be the 5W1H technique or its extended forms. The technique resumes to searching for answers to the “what”, “where”, “why”, “how”, “when”, “who” and “with what” questions. In case of Data Migration the questions are formulated as: what (data) to migrate, where to migrate, why to migrate, how to migrate, when to migrate, who migrates and with what to migrate?

Why to migrate?

A Data Migration occurs as follow up of a need – an old system exists in place and can’t cope anymore with business’ growth, a company made an acquisition and the systems need to be consolidated, or the organization decided to change its infrastructure, the processes, the business model in order address nowadays business requirements like flexibility, availability, manageability, automation, cost cuts, etc. In other words a Data Migration occurs as a need for change, and it can be itself a change in what concerns technical infrastructure, process, procedures, data flow, ways of doing business. A migration has quite an impact on the business, so here is an entitled question: does it really makes sense to migrate? Why not start from 0 with the new system?!

The migration can be a 0 point for an organization, though unless a company is starting anew, there are some data laying there in the old system(s) that need to be further available - for example open Purchase Orders that need to be fulfilled, Invoices that need to be paid, a catalog with all the Products and the available stock, information about Customers, what they bought, what they browsed or what they want to buy for Christmas, etc. At least some of the data need to be made available in one form and another also within the new architecture, if not the new system.

The availability of old data can be solved by keeping the old system(s) in place, functional, even if the system won’t be fed with new data, or maybe it will. Keeping a system alive involves additional costs for maintaining the infrastructure – software and hardware licenses, consultants, administrators and other people responsible for the optimal work of such a system. This can become with time quite an unnecessary burden. It can be an acceptable choice for some organizations, but unlikely as best/good practice. And even if the system is kept, more likely there will be data that need to be available also in the new system. Can be discussed also about integration of the two systems, but again, does it make sense? The bottom line is that in multiple scenarios a Data Migration can prove to be the optimal solution for an organization.

What data to migrate?

Even if it looks like a silly question, it can be one of most complex questions to answer. In theory is needed to migrate all the data, but are really needed all the data? Typically in a database can be found historical data not used anymore by the business, obsolete data marked or not for deletion, garbage data entered by mistake or remained after incomplete deletions, all these having low or no value for the business. Hopefully there are also “good data”, quintessential for the business. Somebody would say “what a hack, why do we need to philosophize so much, let’s migrate all the data!”. The decision can be understandable, though what if the percentage of “good data” is quite small in comparison with the total volume of data which can measure a few terabytes?! Sure, nowadays data centers can handle without problems terabytes of data, though there are some factors to be considered – it can be quite a challenge to migrate so many data, the volume of data affects also the performance of databases in particular, and IS in general, and a more natural reason – why store something that has minimal value for you?!

It makes sense to migrate only the data that have value for an organization, but what data are needed then? Normally this starts by understanding what entities the business deals with and which are the attributes that characterizes them. Many of the entities can be met in organization’s daily activity, and maybe are already defined in organization’s glossary or Data Dictionary, so a review of the available inventory might do. If not, more effort needs to be spent for this purpose; activities specific to Data Discovery, Data Categorization, Data Definition or Data Profiling tasks can help after case to fill the understanding gaps. Except categorization the others are not all necessary, same as the analysis can be deep enough to serve the purpose.

A first categorization was made above when data were considered as valuable, not valuable or in between. A second categorization can be made based on data’s usage: obsolete (not used anymore or marked for deletion), new (not used and recently entered), historical (data used in the past) and actual (data in use). A third categorization can be made on the status of the entities they represent, status that can be associated to the phase of the process the entity represent (e.g. active, inactive, open, invoices, closed, blocked, etc.). There can be considered other meaningful categorizations as long they prove to be important in identifying the useful data.

An important categorization in migrations, in particular, and Data Management, in general, is to split data in master data, transaction data and setup data. Master data are data are data that change only seldom and have a long life (until become obsolete), are referenced through all the system, and are vital to an organization through their meaning (e.g. Customers, Suppliers, Products, Assets, Employees, Accounts, etc.). Transaction data in exchange are data that change often and have a relatively short life, typically are referenced by other transactions and can be associated with documents or movements through the system (e.g. Purchase Orders, Sales Orders, Invoices, Receipts, Assets Movements, etc.). Setup data are data used to configure a system (e.g. Transaction Types, Document Types, Roles, Permissions, etc.). This categorization deserves the full attention, because each of the three elements needs a different handling approach in migration or Data Management.

Based on the identified categories can be considered some rough migration rules in deciding what data (actually records) to migrate, for example: - master data, unless they become obsolete, and open transactions are often considered to be migrated entirely; - historical transaction data spanning a few years back can be migrated in case they are needed in the process; - master data referenced by transaction data migrated need to be migrated too - setup data are entered manually - historical data are archived. There can be also exceptions from the rules, so such possible scenarios need to be considered too.

Each entity is defined by multiple attributes (also called properties, dimensions). They need to go through a similar “categorization” process. In deciding what attributes to migrate is important to consider especially their role in defining the entity. Some of them define uniquely an entity (e.g. Customer Number, Product Number, Serial Number), physical characteristics of the entity (e.g. color, weight, height), categorize the entity (e.g. Category, Type) or its status (e.g. Active, Blocked, Invoiced), imply various events (e.g. Creation Date, Delivery Date, Invoice Date), and so on. It looks like another type of categorization, and it is, though it’s more difficult to create some rough rules based on it, because in the end the business dictates which Attributes are needed. In fact, most of the Attributes used (with distinct not null values) in the legacy system are more likely needed also in the new system, unless the process changed considerably, or the business is supposed to change also its model.

Where to migrate the data?

When the Data Migration subject is brought on the table, a decision was already made about the target system. So the “where” question is partially answered, however it addresses only the peak of the iceberg. It shows that an iceberg lies there, in front of us, though under the deep of the waters there is something more, lot of questions and issues that need to be addressed. Like the source, the target needs to be further detailed in entities and their attributes; the targeted processes and procedures need to be considered together with the constraints imposed by the new system. It’s actually needed to identify the data requirements for the new systems and corroborate them with the requirements of the old system. Mapping the entities and attributes available in the two systems, process known as Data Mapping, can offer a good overview of what lays ahead, what similarities and gaps exist. There will be attributes that are available in the legacy but not in the target system, and therefore the target system needs to be extended or the data associated with the respective attributes can be left out. From the opposed perspective, there can be mandatory attributes in the target system which are not available in the organization, and therefore the associated data must be collected and/or made available for the migration. There can be cases when the data are not available in the legacy system but distributed in various other external or internal sources, so there can be an option to migrate or integrate the respective data, extend the processes to accommodate such scenarios, etc.

Only when the mapping of data is ready and the various related questions addressed, the “where” question is fully answered. Given the continuous changes done to the target system that may still happen a few days before Go Live, Data Mapping can remain a hot topic until then.

With what to migrate?

This question addresses the mix of tools used to migrate the data, and by extension the whole architecture developed for this purpose. As many experts point out, there is no general solution for such an approach because each migration is challenged by different requirements and architectures. ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) and Data Integration tools were mainly designed for this kind of purposes – moving data between data sources – therefore more likely the whole Data Migration architecture will be built around such a tool. In addition is needed to be addressed topics like assessment and reporting of Data Quality, Data Cleaning, Data Enrichment, Data Backup or Data Security. They will technically ensure that the data are migrated within intended level of quality and security.

For each of these topics are available one or more tools on the market. The challenge is to find the right mixture for the overall architecture, to make them work together in an efficient and effective manner. One of the problems such tools have is that they look to the Data Migration or similar problems from their own perspective, making them hard to integrate with other tools. Given the increasing need for Data Migration, more likely exist there tools that cover most of its requirements, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Starting with a new tool can prove to be quite challenge in itself. Many recommend following a methodology and using tools that already proved their capabilities in other projects. That’s a good approach, though need to be considered also costs, available resources, effort to build the infrastructure, the learning curve, etc. For some migrations MS Excel or Access will do, for others a more complex framework is needed. Keep in mind that there is no perfect architecture, just the architecture that will drive you to achieve your targets.

How to migrate the data?

“How” refers mainly to the migration approach, steps, methodologies, processes and procedures used to migrate the data. Secondly, and not less important, it refers to how the mix of tools is used for migration – in other words the implementation. Despite the huge variety of tools and means of achieving the target, there can be depicted some generalities for each of these topics.

Migration approach refers to the overall strategy considered for a migration – typically on whether the data are migrated all together, the new system becoming functional and replacing the legacy system (the big-bang migration), or the data are migrated in phases, the legacy and target systems functioning in parallel for a certain amount of time (the phased-out migration). Can be met other variations of migration approaches, under various denominations. It’s important to know the advantages and disadvantages of both or all approaches, especially in what concerns their application in your organization.

“Steps” is just a misnomer for the actual Project Plan in which are considered the different phases and activities of such a project. In a general Data Migration project, can be discussed about Data Discovery, Data Definition, Data Collection, Data Consolidation, Data Mapping, Data Conversion, Data Transformation, Data Quality Assessment, Data Cleaning, Data Storage, etc. Some of these steps can be considered as standalone processes, sometimes being already part of the processes’ landscape existing in an organization. Other steps are just simple activities. Both types of steps share some important characteristics – they can be highly iterative and complex, are owned by the business, the IT functioning as facilitator, each of them depends on the input from other steps, and require continuous feedback, etc.

A Data Migration is (should be) managed as any other IT project, and therefore can be discussed about project-specific methodologies like PMBOK, Prince2 or PRISM. Many of the before mentioned steps come with their luggage of methodologies too. In addition, considering that IT functions as a service, could be considered service-specific methodologies like ITIL, ISO/IEC, Six Sigma, etc.

The actual implementation of all these depends entirely on the project’s scope, the knowledge of all those involved, the constraints met and the resources available for such a project. Many of the IT-specific problems and situations are specific across all IT projects.

Who will migrate the data?

There is no Data Migration project that can be done without the business, the de facto owner of such a project and its output. There is lot of input needed from the business, its continuous involvement through the various stages is necessary for the whole duration. Unless the Data Migration resumes to a rudimentary tool like Excel and can be handled without too much expertise, a Data Migration needs technical resources that can elicit the requirements, translate them in technical requirements, built the infrastructure and maybe migrate the data. It entirely depends on the overall architecture and methodology what people are involved. In the best case scenario the migration will resume to one person pushing a button and the data flow as magic from source to the target system. In reality, multiple people will have to take care of migration, pushing some magic buttons in a chain of parallel and even redundant steps, monitoring and validating the process. Data owners, data stewards, data custodians, data architects, database administrators, migration and quality assurance specialists, developers, consultants and many other people can be involved, each of them playing their role.

When to migrate the data?

Intuitively, data are or should be migrated when the target system is ready to receive the new data, thus when the development was finished, the system tested, and all the preparation for Data Migration were made. The statement is valid for any type of migration. How such a date or dates are calculated when a project starts is in itself kind of science or just a matter of needs. There are projects in which the dates for each milestone or phase are calculated back from a desired Go Live date, or projects in which the Go Live is calculated incrementally based on the steps to be performed. For dates’ calculation can be used also benchmarking from the field. The bottom line is that the data must be migrated on time for the Go Live and with a minimum disruption for the business.

Conclusion

Whether standalone or as subproject of another project, a Data Migration can be or become quite a complex thematic that, through its outcomes, affects the business considerably. In the above paragraphs were considered some of the important aspects of such a project, the focus being more on figuring out what a migration implies rather than a detailed exploration. It’s also a mental exercise and an invitation into the thematic.

06 June 2012

🚧Project Management: Lessons Learned (Definitions)

"The learning gained from the process of performing the project. Lessons learned may be identified at any point. Also considered a project record." (Timothy J  Kloppenborg et al, "Project Leadership", 2003)

"The systematic capturing of experiences to learn for the future and to avoid mistakes. Lessons learned sessions can, for instance, be held at completion of a project or project phase." (Lars Dittmann et al, "Automotive SPICE in Practice", 2008)

"The learning gained from the process of performing the project. Lessons learned may be identified at any point. Also considered a project record, to be included in the lessons learned knowledge base." (Project Management Institute, "Practice Standard for Project Estimating", 2010)

"An important step in wrapping up management of any implementation process, this step documents successes and failures in each systems development phase as well as the project as a whole." (Linda Volonino & Efraim Turban, "Information Technology for Management 8th Ed", 2011)

"Information from past projects, such as problems that occurred and risks that were encountered, that can inform future projects." (Gina Abudi & Brandon Toropov, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Best Practices for Small Business", 2011)

"Information provided by team members and other stakeholders about how aspects of the project can be repeated or enhanced and how problems and issues can be prevented or resolved. This information can be used to improve the performance of future projects. Lessons learned are collected in a knowledge base or report." (Bonnie Biafore & Teresa Stover, "Your Project Management Coach: Best Practices for Managing Projects in the Real World", 2012)

"The knowledge gained during a project which shows how project events were addressed or should be addressed in the future with the purpose of improving future performance. |" (For Dummies, "PMP Certification All-in-One For Dummies, 2nd Ed.", 2013)

03 June 2012

📦Data Migrations (DM): What is Data Migration?

Data Migration
Data Migrations Series

If you are working in a data-centric business it’s almost impossible for the average worker not to have heard this term, even tangentially. Considering the meaning of “migration” - the act or process of moving from one place to another - the intuition might even tell what data migration is about: the process of moving data from one place to another. It’s pretty basic, isn’t it? Now as data are moved over and over again between various places, for example the various layers of an applications, between databases, between media storage devices, and so on, we need some precision in defining the term because not all these can be considered as data migration examples. Actually we can talk about data copying or data movement without speaking of data migration. So, what is data migration? Here are a few takes on defining data migration:

process of transferring data from one platform or operating system to another” (Babylon)

"Data migration is the process of transferring data between storage types, formats, or computer systems." (Wikipedia)

 "Data migration is the movement of legacy data to new media and technologies as the older ones are displaced." (Toolbox)

 “The purpose of data migration is to transfer existing data to the new environment.” (Talend)

 “Data Migration is the process of moving data from one or more sources into a target application” (Utopia Inc.)

 “[…] is the one off selection, preparation and transportation of appropriate data, of the right quality, to the right place, at the right time.(J. Morris)

Resuming the above definitions, data migration can be defined as “the process of selecting, assessing, converting, preparing, validating and moving data from one or more information systems to another system”. The definition isn’t at all perfect, first of all because some of the terms need further explanation, secondly because any of the steps may be skip or other important steps can be identified in the process, and thirdly because further clarifications are needed. Anyway, it offers some precision, and at least for this reason, could be preferred to the above definitions.

So, resuming, data migration supposes the movement of data from one or more information systems, referred as source systems, to another one, the target system. Typically the new system replaces the old systems, they being retired, or they can continue to be used with reduced scope, for example for reporting purposes or . Even if performed in stages, the movement is typically one time activity, so everything has to be perfect. That’s the purpose of the other steps – to minimize the risks of something going wrong. The choice of steps and their complexity depends on the type of information systems involved, on the degree of resemblance between source and target, business needs, etc.

As mentioned above, not everything that involves data movement can be considered as data migration. For example data integration involves the movement and combination of data from various information systems in order to provide a unified view. Data synchronization involves the movement of data in order to reflect the changes of data in one information system into another, when data from the two systems need to be consistent. Data mirroring involves the synchronization of data, though it involves an exact copy of the data, the mirroring occurring continuously in real time. Data backup involves the movement/copy of data at a given point in time for eventual restore in case of data loss. Data transfer refers to the movement of row data between the layers of information systems. To make things even fuzzier, these types of data movements can be considered in a data migration too, as data need to be locally integrated, synchronized, transferred, mirrored or back up. Data migration is overall a complex thematic.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

01 June 2012

🚧Project Management: Business Case (Definitions)

"The business reason or value for undertaking the project." (Timothy J  Kloppenborg et al, "Project Leadership", 2003)

"A “needs assessment” or justification to show why an endeavor is necessary to an organization." (Margaret Y Chu, "Blissful Data ", 2004)

"A business problem, situation, or opportunity that justifies the pursuit of a technology project." (Sharon Allen & Evan Terry, "Beginning Relational Data Modeling" 2nd Ed., 2005)

"[...] a formal document used to justify investments in new products, product enhancements, and marketing expenditures." (Steven Haines, "The Product Manager's Desk Reference", 2008)

"The process that documents the customer's justification for their investments in products and services." (Steven Haines, "The Product Manager's Desk Reference", 2008)

"A document that provides a justification for a business investment, often used in terms of technology investments. Business cases can be built by identifying financial (hard-dollar) benefits and intangible benefits, including mitigation of risk." (Janice M Roehl-Anderson, "IT Best Practices for Financial Managers", 2010)

"A structured format for organizing the reasons, benefits, and estimated costs for initiating a project or program." (DAMA International, "The DAMA Dictionary of Data Management", 2011)

"A written document that is used by managers to justify funding for a specific investment and also to provide the bridge between the initial plan and its execution." (Linda Volonino & Efraim Turban, "Information Technology for Management 8th Ed", 2011)

"An analysis of the benefits and costs of making a change to the way things are done." (Mike Clayton, "Brilliant Project Leader", 2012)

"The justification for a project or program, against which performance is compared throughout the life cycle. Typically, the business case contains costs, benefits, risks, and timescales." (Paul C Dinsmore et al, "Enterprise Project Governance", 2012)

"Framework for making decisions, explanation of benefits and costs, anticipated outcomes, and project factors associated with a performance improvement effort." (Joan C Dessinger, "Fundamentals of Performance Improvement" 3rd Ed, 2012)

"A documented economic feasibility study used to establish validity of the benefits to be delivered by a program." (Project Management Institute, "The Standard for Program Management" 3rd Ed., 2013)

"A documented economic feasibility study used to establish validity of the benefits of a selected component lacking sufficient definition and that is used as a basis for the authorization of further project management activities." (For Dummies, "PMP Certification All-in-One For Dummies, 2nd Ed.", 2013)

"Information necessary to enable approval, authorisation and policy-making bodies to assess a project proposal and reach a reasoned decision." (Chartered Institute of Building, "Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development, 5th Ed", 2014)

"A written analysis of the financial, productivity, auditability, and other factors to justify the investment in software and hardware systems, implementation, and training." (Robert F Smallwood, "Information Governance: Concepts, Strategies, and Best Practices", 2014)

"A compilation of costs and benefits associated with a planned project or investment." (Gregory Lampshire, "The Data and Analytics Playbook", 2016)

"A business case captures the reasoning for initiating a project or task. The business case justifies the investment." (by Brian Johnson & Leon-Paul de Rouw, "Collaborative Business Design", 2017)

"A documented evaluation (pre-project) of the potential impact a problem or an opportunity has on the organization to determine if it is worthwhile investing the resources to correct the problem or take advantage of the opportunity for improvement. It captures the reason for initiating a potential project or program." (H James Harrington & William S Ruggles, "Project Management for Performance Improvement Teams", 2018)

"Documentation of the rationale for making a business investment, used both to support a business decision on whether to proceed with the investment and as an operational tool to support management of the investment through its full economic life cycle." (ISACA)

30 May 2012

🚧Project Management: Performance [Measurement] Baseline (Definitions)

"The original approved plan for work such as a project. Usually used with a modifier, e.g., cost baseline, schedule baseline, performance measurement baseline." (Margaret Y Chu, "Blissful Data ", 2004)

"An approved integrated scope-schedule-cost plan for the project work against which project execution is compared to measure and manage performance. Technical and quality parameters may also be included." (Cynthia Stackpole, "PMP® Certification All-in-One For Dummies®", 2011)

"An approved plan for a project, plus or minus approved changes. It is compared to actual performance to determine if performance is within acceptable variance thresholds. Generally refers to the current baseline, but may refer to the original or some other baseline. Usually used with a modifier (e.g., cost performance baseline, schedule baseline, performance measurement baseline, technical baseline). |" (Cynthia Stackpole, "PMP Certification All-in-One For Dummies", 2011)

"An approved, integrated scope-schedule-cost plan for the project work against which project execution is compared to measure and manage performance. The PMB includes contingency reserve, but excludes management reserve." (For Dummies, "PMP Certification All-in-One For Dummies" 2nd Ed., 2013)

"Integrated scope, schedule, and cost baselines used for comparison to manage, measure, and control project execution." (Project Management Institute, "A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)", 2017)

"Integrated scope, schedule, and cost baselines used for comparison to manage, measure, and control project execution." (Project Management Institute, "A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide)" 6th Ed., 2017)

"An approved set of integrated plans for the project’s Scope, Schedule, and Budget against which project execution will be compared to measure and manage performance. They include 'contingency reserve' but not 'management reserve' allocations." (H James Harrington & William S Ruggles, "Project Management for Performance Improvement Teams", 2018)

"The approved version of a work product that can be changed using formal change control procedures, and is used as the basis for comparison to actual results." (Project Management Institute, "Practice Standard for Scheduling" 3rd Ed., 2019)

06 May 2012

🚧Project Management: Variance (Definitions)

"The difference of revenues, costs, and profit from the planned amounts. One of the most important phases of responsibility accounting is establishing standards in costs, revenues, and profit and establishing performance by comparing actual amounts with the standard amounts. The differences (variances) are calculated for each responsibility center, analyzed, and unfavorable variances are investigated for possible remedial action." (Jae K Shim & Joel G Siegel, "Budgeting Basics and Beyond", 2008)

"A quantifiable deviation, departure, or divergence away from a known baseline or expected value. " (Cynthia Stackpole, "PMP® Certification All-in-One For Dummies®", 2011)

"The difference between the baseline and estimated dates, work, or cost in a project." (Bonnie Biafore, "Successful Project Management: Applying Best Practices and Real-World Techniques with Microsoft® Project", 2011)

"The difference between planned or baseline schedule or cost data and the actual schedule or cost data." (Bonnie Biafore & Teresa Stover, "Your Project Management Coach: Best Practices for Managing Projects in the Real World", 2012)

"Deviation or difference between an estimated value and the actual value." (Tom Klammer, "Statement of Cash Flows: Preparation, Presentation, and Use", 2018)

"The difference between a planned value and the actual measured value" (ITIL)

15 April 2012

🚧Project Management: Change Control (Definitions)

"Identifying, documenting, approving or rejecting, and controlling changes to the project baselines." (Project Management Institute, "Practice Standard for Project Estimating", 2010)

"A process for managing requests for change in an auditable way, to ensure that only appropriate changes to the project are undertaken once it has received approval. Also ensures that where changes are authorised, appropriate additional resources are allocated. " (Mike Clayton, "Brilliant Project Leader", 2012)

"A formal procedure that is used to approve and manage all modifications to software and hardware running on the network. Change control is usually coordinated by a change control board (CCB)." (Mark Rhodes-Ousley, "Information Security: The Complete Reference" 2nd Ed., 2013)

"A process whereby modifications to documents, deliverables, or baselines associated with the project are identified, documented, approved, or rejected." (For Dummies, "PMP Certification All-in-One For Dummies" 2nd Ed., 2013)

"A process that ensures potential changes to the deliverables of a project or the sequence of work in a project, are recorded, evaluated, authorised and managed." (Chartered Institute of Building, "Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development" 5th Ed, 2014)

"The process of controlling the changes that take place during the life cycle of a system and documenting the necessary change control activities." (Adam Gordon, "Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK" 4th Ed., 2015)

"A systematic approach to managing all changes made to a product or system. The purpose is to ensure that no unnecessary changes are made, that all changes are documented, that services are not unnecessarily disrupted, and that resources are used efficiently." (William Stallings, "Effective Cybersecurity: A Guide to Using Best Practices and Standards", 2018)

12 April 2012

🚧Project Management: Program Evaluation and Review Technique (Definitions)

"A method of depicting, scheduling, and prioritizing a complex set of activities in a way that supports effective project management. This method provides excellent visibility into a project's progress and potential obstacles and risks." (Steven Haines, "The Product Manager's Desk Reference", 2008)

"A technique for estimating that applies as weighted average of optimistic, pessimistic, and most likely estimates when there is uncertainty with the individual activity estimates." (Project Management Institute, "Practice Standard for Project Estimating", 2010)

"A model for project or process management to evaluate tasks involved in the project or process in order to find the shortest duration possible." (DAMA International, "The DAMA Dictionary of Data Management", 2011)

"Evaluates the probable duration of a project by calculating a weighted average of the best-case estimate, most likely case estimate, and worst-case estimate." (Bonnie Biafore, "Successful Project Management: Applying Best Practices and Real-World Techniques with Microsoft® Project", 2011)

"A statistical approach to estimating that uses a weighted average of three values: optimistic, pessimistic, and most likely." (Bonnie Biafore & Teresa Stover, "Your Project Management Coach: Best Practices for Managing Projects in the Real World", 2012)

"An estimating technique that starts with a network chart and combines optimistic, best estimate and pessimistic estimates to produce an overall estimate of the most likely duration and standard deviation (spread of likely durations) for a project activity." (Mike Clayton, "Brilliant Project Leader", 2012)

"An event-oriented network analysis technique used to estimate project duration when there is a high degree of uncertainty with individual activity duration estimates. PERT applies the critical path method to a weighted average duration estimate. It is considered a probabilistic method." (Peter Oakander et al, "CPM Scheduling for Construction: Best Practices and Guidelines", 2014)

🚧Project Management: Residual Risk (Definitions)

"A risk that remains after risk responses have been implemented." (Cynthia Stackpole, "PMP Certification All-in-One For Dummies", 2011)

"The remaining possibility and impact of a future uncertain event or condition after response to the original risk has been planned." (Bonnie Biafore & Teresa Stover, "Your Project Management Coach: Best Practices for Managing Projects in the Real World", 2012)

"The risk remaining after risk treatment." (David Sutton, "Information Risk Management: A practitioner’s guide", 2014)

"The risk that remains after implementing security controls to mitigate risk. Senior management is responsible for deciding what security controls to implement, and for any losses related to residual risk." (Darril Gibson, "Effective Help Desk Specialist Skills", 2014)

"Risk that remains after implementing a control. Threats × vulnerabilities × assets × (control gap) = residual risk." (Adam Gordon, "Official (ISC)2 Guide to the CISSP CBK" 4th Ed., 2015)

"Once all other risk treatment options have been explored, it is often the case that some (usually small) risk remains. It is normal to accept or tolerate this, since further treatment might either have no effect, or might be prohibitively expensive. Because residual risks are often very small, they are occasionally (incorrectly) overlooked." (David Sutton, "Information Risk Management: A practitioner’s guide", 2014)

"The risk remaining after risk treatment." (ISO 73:2009)

10 April 2012

🚧Project Management: Risk assessment (Definitions)

"Describes risks under the initial project plan and may indicate areas of needed risk management." (Timothy J  Kloppenborg et al, "Project Leadership", 2003)

"A process to identify potential situations that could cause change to an effort from both internal and external forces, assign severity and priority ranks in order to determine overall risk, managing a situation or project to mitigate or minimize the occurrence of risk, and if the risk materializes, to minimize loss or damage." (DAMA International, "The DAMA Dictionary of Data Management", 2011)

[Qualitative risk assessment:] "Mostly entirely subjective and therefore less accurate than quantitative risk assessments. However, their benefit is that they are much quicker to produce than the quantitative kind" (David Sutton, "Information Risk Management: A practitioner’s guide", 2014)

[Qualitative risk assessments:] "these are subjective in nature, and are generally expressed in verbal terms such as ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’. This is not an ideal state of affairs, as it renders risk assessments unreliable, and should be grounded in more rigorously." (David Sutton, "Information Risk Management: A practitioner’s guide", 2014)

"An analysis of threats and vulnerabilities against assets. A risk assessment allows the risks to be prioritized." (Weiss, "Auditing IT Infrastructures for Compliance" 2nd Ed., 2015)

"A process used to quantitatively or qualitatively determine the risk associated with an actual or hypothesized system." (O Sami Saydjari, "Engineering Trustworthy Systems: Get Cybersecurity Design Right the First Time", 2018)

"The overall process of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation." (William Stallings, "Effective Cybersecurity: A Guide to Using Best Practices and Standards", 2018)

"'analyze assets’ value, identify threats and evaluate their vulnerability to those threats" (ITIL)

"the overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation" (ISO Guide 73:2009) 

"The process of identifying and subsequently analyzing the identified project or product risk to determine its level of risk, typically by assigning likelihood and impact ratings."  (ISTQB)

09 April 2012

🧭Business Intelligence: Enterprise Reporting (Part XI: Between Products, Partners, People and Processes)

Business Intelligence
Business Intelligence Series

In the previous post, “BI between Potential, Reality, Quality and Stories”, I was commenting five of the important findings of a study led by KPMG in respect to the state of art in BI initiatives. My comments were centered mainly on the first 3 of the 4Ps (Products, People, Partners, respectively Processes) considered in ITSM (IT Service Management). The connection to IT Service Management isn’t accidental, BI being also an organizational capability. Many of the aspects related to the 4Ps perspectives, reveal the maturity of an organization in leveraging its BI infrastructure.  In this post I would like to consider BI landscape from these 4 perspectives.

Products

Products or technology perspective has within BI context a dual nature. First of all we have to consider the BI infrastructure – the whole set of BI tools we have at disposal for our shiny reports. Secondly, because the BI infrastructure doesn’t stand on itself, we have to consider also IT infrastructure on which BI infrastructure is based upon – a full range of ISs (Information Systems) in which data are entered, processed, transported and consumed before they are used by the BI tools. For Data Quality issues, we often have to consider the broader perspective, and tackle the problems at the source. Otherwise we might arrive to treat the symptoms and not the causes. It’s important to note that the two layers or perspectives are interconnected, the consequences being bidirectional.

A typical BI infrastructure revolves around several databases, maybe one or more data warehouses and data marts, and one or more reporting systems. Within the most basic scenario, the data flow is unidirectional from databases to data warehouse/marts, reports being built on top of the data warehouse/marts or directly on the IS’ databases. In more complex scenarios, the data can flow between the various ISs when they were integrated, and even between data warehouses/marts, within a unidirectional or bidirectional flow.  Unless the reports are based directly on the ISs’ databases, such architectures lead to data duplication, conversions between complex schemas, delays between the various layers, to mention just a few of the most important implications. In some point in time the complexity falls down on you.

One of the problems I met is that a considerable percent of the IS are not developed to address BI requirements. It starts with data validation, with the way data are modeled, structured, formatted and made available for BI consumption. If you want to increase the quality of your data, you have sooner or later to address them. It’s important thus the degree to which the systems are designed to cover the BI needs in particular, and decision making in general. This presumes that BI requirements need to be addressed in early phases of implementations, software design or when tools are consider for purchase.

In addition many ISs come with their own (standard) reports or reporting frameworks, becoming thus part of your BI infrastructure, intended or unintended. Even if such reports are intended to cover basic immediate reporting requirements, they not always so easy to consume, the logic behind them is not visible, are hard to extend, are not always tested, the additional reports built in other tools need to be synchronized with them, etc.

Partners

We gather huge volumes of data, we are drowning in it; we want to take decision rooted in data and get visibility into the past, actual and future state of business. How can we achieve that if we don’t have the knowledge and human resources to achieve that? “Partners” is the magic word – external suppliers specialized, in theory, to provide this kind of services: BI analysts and developers, business analysts, data miners, and other IT professionals work together in order to build your BI infrastructure. One detail many people forget is that BI tools provide potentiality; are the skills and knowledge of those working with them that transforms that potentiality into success. On their capabilities depends the success of such projects. Not to forget that BI projects are similar to other IT projects, falling under same type of fallacies plus a few other fallacies of their own derived from exploratory and complex nature of BI projects.

There is a dual nature also in “partners” perspective – except the external perspective which concerns the external partners and the IT department or the business as a whole, there is also the internal perspective in which the IT department plays again a central role. I heard it often loudly affirmed that the other departments are customers of the IT department, or the reciprocal. I have seen also this conception brought to extreme, in which the IT had no word to say in what concerns the IT infrastructure in general, respectively the BI infrastructure in particular. As long the IT department isn’t treated as a business partner, an organization will be more likely sabotaged from inside. Sabotage it’s a word too strong maybe, though it kind of reflects the state of art.

People

Same as partners, people perspective includes a considerable variety of types: IT staff, executives, managers, end-users and other types of stakeholders, each of them with a word to say, grouped in various groups of interests that don’t always converge, situations in which politics plays a major role. It’s actually interesting to see how the decision for a given BI solution is made, how the solution takes its place into the landscape, how it’s used and misused, how personalities and knowledge harness it or stand in the way. I feel that there are organizations (people) which do BI just for the sake of doing something, copying sometimes recipes of success, without uniting the dots, without clear goals and strategy. There are people who juggle with numbers and BI concepts without knowing their meaning and what they involve. This aspect is reflected in how BI tools are selected, implemented and used.

Having the best tools, consultants and highest data quality, won’t guarantee the success of BI initiative without users’ acceptance, without teaching them how to make constructive use of tools and data, on how to use and built models in order to solve the problems the business is confronted with, on how to address strategic, tactical and operational requirements. The transformation from a robot to a knowledge worker doesn’t happen over night. Is needed to make people aware of the various aspects of BI – data quality, process and data ownership, on how models can be used and misused, on how models evolve or become obsolete, how the BI infrastructure has to evolve with the business’ dynamics. There are so many aspects that need to be considered. It’s a continuous learning process.

Processes

In processes' perspective can be depicted a dual nature too. First of all we have to consider the processes which are used to manage efficiently and effectively the whole BI infrastructure. They are widely discussed in various methodologies like ITIL, whose implementation is thoroughly documented. Secondly, it’s the reflection of departmental processes within the various data perspectives – how they are measured, and how the measurements are further used for continuous improvement. 

Considering that this aspect is correlated with an organization’s capability model, I don’t think that many organizations go/rich that far. Sure the trend is to define meaningful KPIs, growth, health and other type of metrics, but the question is – are you using those metrics constructively, are you aligning them with your strategic, tactic and operational goals? I think there is lot of potential in this, though in order to measure processes accordingly is imperative to have also the system designed for this purpose. Back to technological perspective…

06 April 2012

🚧Project Management: Project Risk (Definitions)

"An undesirable event which, if it occurs, can jeopardize the success of the project. These risks may affect cost or schedule." (Richard D Stutzke, "Estimating Software-Intensive Systems: Projects, Products, and Processes", 2005)

"A quantitative measure of the possibility of an accident, the product of the likelihood of the accident and its severity; in project management, an unwelcome impact on cost, effort, functionality, or schedule." (Bruce P Douglass, "Real-Time Agility", 2009)

"Threats to the management of equipment, finances, resources, technology, time frames, and people associated with specific projects." (Annetta Cortez & Bob Yehling, "The Complete Idiot's Guide To Risk Management", 2010)

"A risk related to management and control of the project." (Requirements Engineering Qualifications Board, "Standard glossary of terms used in Requirements Engineering", 2011)

"An uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on a project's objectives." (Cynthia Stackpole, "PMP Certification All-in-One For Dummies", 2011) 

"Refers to the possibility of occurrence of an event, whether uncertain or of undetermined term, which is not entirely under the control of the people involved and is contrary to their expectations or interest. Risk can be voluntary, when a person acts despite being aware of that possibility." (Humbert Lesca & Nicolas Lesca, "Weak Signals for Strategic Intelligence: Anticipation Tool for Managers", 2011)

"Project risk is uncertainty that can affect outcomes. Risk can introduce a positive (opportunity) or negative (threat) change." (Mike Clayton, "Brilliant Project Leader", 2012)

"In the context of business decisions, the cost of a particular outcome. When a set of outcomes are possible, this cost is often weighted by the probability, if known, of that particular outcome occurring. Not to be confused with uncertainty, a term often used incorrectly to communicate the level of risk." (Kenneth A Shaw, "Integrated Management of Processes and Information", 2013)

"Combination of the probability or frequency of occurrence of a defined threat or opportunity and the magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence." (Chartered Institute of Building, "Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development" 5th Ed., 2014)

"An uncertain event that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on one or more objectives." (Paul H Barshop, "Capital Projects", 2016)

"The chance of a negative thing happening." (Pamela Schure & Brian Lawley, "Product Management For Dummies", 2017)

🧭Business Intelligence: Enterprise Reporting (Part X: Between Potential, Reality, Quality and Stories)

Business Intelligence
Business Intelligence Series

Have you ever felt that you are investing quite a lot of time, effort, money and other resources into your BI infrastructure, and in the end you don’t meet your expectations? As it seems you’re not the only one. The “Does your business intelligence tell you the whole story” paper released in 2009 by KPMG provides some interesting numbers to support that:
1. “More than 50% of business intelligence projects fail to deliver the expected benefit” (BI projects failure)
2. “Two thirds of executives feel that the quality of and timely access to data is poor and inconsistent” (reports and data quality)
3. “Seven out of ten executives do not get the right information to make business decisions.” (BI value)
4. “Fewer than 10% of organizations have successfully used business intelligence to enhance their organizational and technological infrastructures”  (BI alignment)
5. “those with effective business intelligence outperform the market by more than 5% in terms of return on equity” (competitive advantage)

The numbers reflect to some degree also my expectations, though they seem more pessimistic than I expected. That’s not a surprise, considering that such studies can be strongly biased, especially because in them are reflected expectations, presumptions and personal views over the state of art within an organization.

KPMG builds on the above numbers and several other aspects that revolve around the use of governance and alignment in order to increase the value provided by BI to the business, though I feel that they are hardly scratching the surface. Governance and alignment look great into studies and academic work, though they alone can’t bring success, no matter how much their importance and usage is accentuated. Sometimes I feel that people hide behind big words without even grasping the facts. The importance of governance and alignment can’t be neglected, though the argumentation provided by KPMG isn’t flawless. There are statements I can agree with, and many which are circumstantial. Anyway, let’s look a little deeper at the above numbers.

I suppose there is no surprise concerning the huge rate of BI projects’ failure. The value is somewhat close to the rate of software projects’ failure. Why would make a BI project an exception from a typical software project, considering that they are facing almost the same environments and challenges?  In fact, given the role played by BI in decision making, I would say that BI projects are more sensitive to the various factors than a typical software project.  

It doesn’t make sense to retake the motives for which software projects fail, but some particular aspects need to be mentioned. KPMG insists on the poor quality of data, on the relevance and volume of reports and metrics used, the lack of reflecting organization’s objectives, the inflexibility of data models, lack of standardization, all of them reflecting in a degree or other on the success of a BI project. There is much more to it!

KPMG refers to a holistic approach concentrated on the change of focus from technology to the actual needs, a change of process and funding.  A reflection of the holistic approach is also the view of the BI infrastructure from the point of view of the entire IT infrastructure, of the organization, network of partners and of the end-products – mainly models and reports. Many of the problems BI initiatives are confronted with refer to the quality of data and its many dimensions (duplicates, conformity, consistency, integrity, accuracy, availability, timeliness, etc.) , problems which could be in theory solved in the source systems, mainly through design. Other problems, like dealing with complex infrastructures based on more or less compatible IS or BI tools, might involve virtualization, consolidation or harmonization of such solutions, plus the addition of other tools.

Looking at the whole organization, other problems appear: the use of reports and models without understanding the whole luggage of meaning hiding behind them, the different views within the same data and models, the difference of language, problems, requirements and objectives, the departmental and organizational politics, the lack of communication, the lack of trust in the existing models and reports, and so on. What all these points have in common are people! The people are the maybe the most important factor in the adoption and effective usage of BI solutions. It starts with them – identifying their needs, and it ends with them – as end users. Making them aware of all contextual requirements, actually making them knowledge workers and not considering them just simple machines could give a boost to your BI strategy.

Partners doesn’t encompass just software vendors, service providers or consultants, but also the internal organizational structures – teams, departments, sites or any other similar structure. Many problems in BI can be tracked down to partners and the ways a partnership is understood, on how resources are managed, how different goals and strategies are harmonized, on how people collaborate and coordinate. Maybe the most problematic is the partnership between IT and the other departments on one side, and between IT and external partners on the other side. As long IT is not seen as a partner, as long IT is skip from the important decisions or isn’t acting as a mediator between its internal and external partners, there are few chances of succeeding. There are so many aspects and lot of material written on this topic, there are models and methodologies supposed to make things work, but often between theory and practice there is a long distance.

How many of the people you met were blaming the poor quality of the data without actually doing something to improve anything? If the quality of your data in one of your major problems then why aren’t you doing something to improve that?  Taking the ownership over your data is a major step on the way to better data quality, though a data management strategy is needed. This involve the design of a framework that facilitates data quality and data consumption, the design and use of policies, practices and procedures to properly manage the full data lifecycle. Also this can be considered as part of your BI infrastructure, and given the huge volume, the complexity and diversity of data, is nowadays a must for an organization.

The “right information” is an evasive construct. In order to get the right information you must be capable to define what you want, to design your infrastructure with that in mind and to learn how to harness your data. You don’t have to look only at your data and information but also at the whole DIKW pyramid. The bottom line is that you don’t have to build only a BI infrastructure but a knowledge management infrastructure, and methodologies like ITIL can help you achieve that, though they are not sufficient. Sooner or later you’ll arrive to blame the whole DIKW pyramid - the difficulty of extracting information from data, knowledge from information, and the ultimate translation into wisdom. Actually that’s also what the third and fourth of the above statements are screaming out loud – it’s not so easy to get information from the silos of data, same as it’s not easy to align the transformation process with organizations’ strategy.

Also timeliness has a relative meaning. It’s true that nowadays’ business dynamics requires faster access to data, though it requires also to be proactive, many organizations lacking this level of maturity. In order to be proactive it’s necessary to understand your business’ dynamics thoroughly, that being routed primarily in your data, in the tools you are using and the skill set your employees acquired in order to move between the DIKW layers. I would say that the understanding of DIKW is essential in harnessing your BI infrastructure.

KPMG considers that the 5% increase in return on equity associated with the effective usage of BI is a positive sign, not necessarily. The increase can be associated with hazard or other factors as well, even if it’s unlikely probable to be so. The increase it’s quite small when considered with the huge amount of resources spent on BI infrastructure. I believe that BI can do much more for organizations when harnessed adequately. It’s just a belief that needs to be backed up by numbers, hopefully that will happen someday, soon.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

About Me

My photo
Koeln, NRW, Germany
IT Professional with more than 24 years experience in IT in the area of full life-cycle of Web/Desktop/Database Applications Development, Software Engineering, Consultancy, Data Management, Data Quality, Data Migrations, Reporting, ERP implementations & support, Team/Project/IT Management, etc.