Indulgent Moderator or Ruthless Terminator?

30th January 2012

I am the founder/moderator of two small niche LinkedIn groups in the data quality and Master Data Management (MDM) realm:

As a moderator I feel responsible for keeping the discussions in the group on target.

I guess my challenges in doing so resemble what nearly every other moderator on LinkedIn groups are faced with.

The postings that keep creating trouble are related to:

  • Jobs
  • Promotions

LinkedIn does have a facility to place entries into these two alternative tabs. But people seldom do that voluntary.

Jobs

In fact I’m pleased when a job is posted in one of the groups. But I also know that many people don’t like job postings coming up among the “normal” discussions in the groups.

I’m not so naive that I think recruiters forget to post as a job or don’t know how to do it. Many recruiters don’t respect the rules even if reminded. And some recruiters keep on entering the same job over and over again.

Therefore I have to mark recruiters, who twice “forget”, as subject to indulgent moderation. As said, I like job postings, so until now I haven’t practiced ruthless termination apart from deleting double entries – but that is also a destination of data matching anyway.

Promotions

With the relative small number of members in the groups in question, and recognising that most participants are tool vendors and service providers, I find it refreshing and informative with entries with promotional content, however most pleased when it’s done with limited marketing triviality.     

My indulgence may be explained by that I’m interconnected with tool makers and service providers myself. So these promotions are great ready-made competitor monitoring.

However, my indulgence has its limits when it comes to off topic promotion.

A special case here is outsourcing promotions. I find it peculiar that those people practicing this trade don’t target the message for the group where posted. It shouldn’t be too hard to make an angle with data matching or Multi-Domain MDM for your services. But I find that most out-sourcing people copy-paste their usual stuff.

So, in this area I mostly am the ruthless terminator. And there is seldom any hasta la vista, baby.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | Data Matching, Multi-Domain MDM, Social Media | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

Multi-Occupancy

26th January 2012

The fact that many people doesn’t live in a single family house but live in a flat sharing the same building number on a street with people living in other flats in the same building is a common challenge in data quality and data matching.

The same challenge also applies to companies sharing the same building number with other companies and not to say when companies and households are in the same building. So this is a common party master data issue.

Address verification and geocoding is seen as important methods for achieving data quality improvement related to the top data quality pain all over being quality of party master data and aiming at getting a single customer view.

Multi-occupancy is a pain in the (you know) getting there.

My pain

I have had some personal experiences living at multi-occupancy addresses lately.

One and a half years ago I was living a painless life in single family house in a Copenhagen suburb.

Then I moved closer to downtown Copenhagen in a flat as mentioned in post Down the Street.     

The tradition in Denmark is to send letters and make deliveries and register master data with a common format of units within a building and having separate mailboxes with flat ID and names for each flat. I have received most of my post since then and got all deliveries I’m aware of.

Then I moved to London in a flat. Here the flats in my building have numbers. But the postman delivers the letters in one batch in the street door, and there are no names on the doorbells in front of the door.

So now I sense I don’t get many letters and today I had to order the same stuff trice from amazon.co.uk, because I haven’t received the first two packages despite of their state of the art online accessible package tracking systems that tells me that delivery was successful.    

Master data pains unresolved

Address reference data at building number level and related geocodes are becoming commonly available many places around these days.

But having reference data and real world aligned location and related party master data at the unit level is still a challenge most places. Therefore we are still struggling with using address verification and geocoding for single customer view where a given building number has more than a single occupancy.

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments | Big Reference Data, Data Matching, Master Data | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

The Present Birthday

28th September 2011

Today (or maybe yesterday) Steve Jones of Capgemeni wrote a blog post called Same name, same birth date – how likely is it? The post examines the likelihood of that two records with the same name and birthday is representing same real world individual. The chance that a match is a false positive is of course mainly depending on the frequency of the name.

Another angle in this context I have observed over and over again is the chance of a false negative if the name and other data are the same, but the birthday is different. In this case you may miss matching two records that are actually reflecting the same real world individual.

One should think that a datum like a birthday usually should be pretty accurate. My practical experience is that it in many cases isn’t.

Some examples:

Running against the time

Every fourth year when we have Olympic Games there is always controversies about if a tiny female athlete really is as old as said.

I have noticed the same phenomenon when I had the chance to match data about contesters from several years of subscription data at a large city marathon in order to identify “returning customers”.

I’m always looking for false positives in data matching and was really surprised when I found several examples of same name and contact data but a birthday been raised one year for each appearance at the marathon.

That’s not my birthday, this is my birthday

Swedish driving license numbers includes the birthday of the holder as the driving license number is the same as the all-purpose national ID that starts with the birthday.

In a database with both a birthday field and a driving license number field there where heaps of records with mismatch between those two fields.

This wasn’t usually discovered because this rule only applies to Swedish driving license numbers and the database also had registrations for a lot of other nationalities.  

When investigating the root cause of this there were as usual not a single explanation and the problem could be both that the birthday belonged to someone else and the driving license belonged to someone else.

Using both fields cut down the number of false negatives here.

Today’s date format is?

In the United States and a few other countries it’s custom to use the month-day-year format when typing a date. In most other places we have the correct sequence of either day-month-year or year-month-day.  Once I matched data concerning foreign seamen working on ships in the Danish merchant fleet. When tuning the match process I found great numbers of good matches when twisting the date formats for birthdays, as the same seaman was registered on different ships with different captains and at different ports around the world.

When adding the fact that many birthdays was typed as 1st January of the known year of birth or 1st day in the known month of birth a lot of false positives was saved.

The question about occupation in the merchant fleet was actually a political hot potato at that time and until then the parliament had discussed the matter based on wrong statistics.

PS

I have used birthday synonymously with “date of birth” which of course is a (meta) data quality problem.

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments | Data Matching, Identity Resolution | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

Single Customer Hierarchy View

28th August 2011

One of the things I do over and over again as part of my work is data matching.

There is a clear tendency that the goal of the data matching efforts increasingly is a master data consolidation taking place before the launch of a master data management (MDM) solution. Such a goal makes the data matching requirements considerably more complex than if the goal is a one-shot deduplication before a direct marketing campaign.

Hierarchy Management

In the post Fuzzy Hierarchy Management I described how requirements for multiple purposes of use of customer master data makes the terms false positive and false negative fuzzy.

As I like to think of a customer as a party role there are essentially two kinds of hierarchies to be aware of:

  • The hierarchies the involved party is belonging to in the real world. This is for example an individual person seen as belonging to a household or a company belonging at a place in a company family tree.
  • The hierarchies of customer roles as seen in different business functions and by different departments. For example two billing entities may belong to the same account in a CRM system in one example, but in another example two CRM accounts have the same billing entity. 

The first type of hierarchy shouldn’t be seen differently between enterprises. You should reach the very same result in data matching regardless of what your organization is doing. It may however be true that your business rules and the regularity requirements applying to your industry and geography may narrow down the need for exploration.

In the latter case we must of course examine the purpose of use for the customer master data within the organization.

Single Customer View

It is in my experience much easier to solve the second case when the first case is solved. This approach was evaluated in the post Lean MDM.

The same approach also applies to continuous data quality prevention as part of a MDM solution. Aligning with the real world and it’s hierarchies as part of the data capture makes solving the customer roles as seen in different business functions and by different departments much easier.  The benefits of doing this is explained in the post instant Data Quality.

It is often said that a “single customer view” is an illusion. I guess it is. First of all the term “single customer view” is a vision, but a vision worth striving at. Secondly customers come in hierarchies. Managing and reflecting these hierarchies is a very important aspect of master data management. Therefore a “single customer view” often ends up as having a “single customer hierarchy view”.    

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | Data Matching, Hierarchy Management, Master Data | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

Some Deduplication Tactics

24th August 2011

When doing the data quality kind of deduplication you will often have two kinds of data matching involved:

  • Data matching in order to find duplicates internally in your master data, most often your customer database
  • Data matching in order to align your master data with an external registry

As the latter activity also helps with finding the internal duplicates, a good question is in which order to do these two activities.

External identifiers

If we for example look at business-to-business (B2B) customer master data it is possible to match against a business directory. Some choices are:

  • If you have mostly domestic data in a country with a public company registration you can obtain a national ID from matching with a business directory based on such a registry. An example will be the French SIREN/SIRET identifiers as mentioned in the post Single Company View.
  • Some registries cover a range of countries. An example is the EuroContactPool where each business entity is identified with a Site ID.
  • The Dun & Bradstreet WorldBase covers the whole world by identifying approximately 200 million active and dissolved business entities with a DUNS-number. The DUNS-number also serves as a privatized national ID for companies in the United States.

If you start with matching your B2B customers against such a registry, you will get a unique identifier that can be attached to your internal customer master data records which will make a succeeding internal deduplication a no-brainer.

Common matching issues

A problem is however is that you seldom get a 100 % hit rate in a business directory matching, often not even close as examined in the post 3 out of 10.

Another issue is the commercial implications. Business directory matching is often performed as an external service priced per record. Therefore you may save money by merging the duplicates before passing on to external matching. And even if everything is done internally, removing the duplicates before directory matching will save process load.

However a common pitfall is that an internal deduplication may merge two similar records that actually are represented by two different entities in the business directory (and the real world).

So, as many things data matching, the answer to the sequence question is often: Both.

A good process sequence may be this one:

  1. An internal deduplication with very tight settings
  2. A match against an external registry
  3. An internal deduplication exploiting external identifiers and having more loose settings for similarities not involving an external identifier

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments | Big Reference Data, Business Directories, Data Matching, National ID | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

Lean MDM

17th August 2011

With a discipline as master data management there will of course always be an agile or lean way of doing things.

What is lean MDM?

A document from 2008 called A LEAN APPROACH TO MASTER DATA MANAGEMENT by Duff Bailey examines the benefits of lean MDM.

The document has a view close to me saying that: “While there is little argument over what constitutes an individual person, many existing data models make the mistake of modeling “roles” (customer, employee, stock-holder, vendor contact, etc.) instead”.

As discussed in the article similar views can be made around organization entities, location entities and product entities.

In conclusion Duff says that: “Because of their universality and their abstract nature, these core data models can be established quickly, without the need for lengthy review that normally accompanies an enterprise data model. Thereafter, the focus of the lean data managemnent effort will be to grow the models and populate the repositories in support of specific business objectives”.

MDM in the high gear

The fast time-to-value for lean MDM was also emphasized by MDM guru Aaron Zornes in a tweet yesterday:

The mentioned LeanMDM offer from Omikron Data Quality (which is one of my employers) is described in the link (in German). A short resume of the text is that you among other things will get this from lean MDM:

  • An increase in the corporate value of customer data
  • Short project times and fast results
  • Lower implementation costs through service-oriented architecture (SOA)

I have been involved in one of the implementations of the LeanMDM concept as described in this article (in English) about how the car rental giant Avis achieved lean MDM for the Scandinavian business.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | Data Matching, Data Quality Tools, Master Data | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

The 20 Million Rupees Question

11th August 2011

Here we go again. The same old question: “What is the definition of customer?”  Latest Informatica (a data quality, master data management and data integration firm) has hired David Loshin to find out – started in the blog post The Most Dangerous Question to Ask Data Professionals.

Shortly, my take is that this question in practice has two major implications for data quality and master data management but in theory, it should only have one:

  • The first one is real world alignment. In theory real world alignment is independent of the definition of a customer as it is about the party behind the customer.
  • The second is party roles. It’s actually here we can have an endless discussion.

In practice we of course mix things up as discussed in the post Entity Revolution vs Entity Evolution.

And Now for Something Completely Different

Instead of saying that “What is the definition of customer?”  is the million dollar question it’s probably more like the 20 million rupees question as most data management these days are taking place in India.

The amount of money involved is taken from the film Slumdog Millionaire where 20 million rupees is the top prize in the local “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” (Kaun Banega Crorepati), which by the way has the same jingle and graphics as all over the world.

And oh, how much is 20 million rupees? It’s near ½ million US dollars or 300.000 euro (with a dot as thousand separator). But a lot in buying power for a local customer. Exactly 2 crores (2,00,00,000 rupees).  

Party on.

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments | Identity Resolution, Master Data | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

Psychographic Data Quality

5th July 2011

I have just read an article on Mashable by Jamie Beckland called The End of Demographics: How Marketers Are Going Deeper With Personal Data.

The article explains how new sources of available data makes it possible for marketers to get a much closer look at potential customers and thereby going from delivering a broad message to a huge crowd to delivering a very targeted message to a small group of people with a high probability of getting a response.  In short: Marketers are going from demographic marketing to psychographic marketing.

I believe this is true and ongoing (as I have also been involved in such activities).

The data quality issues we have always known in direct marketing is surely very similar in the psychographic marketing which is going on in the social media realm and in connection with eBusiness.

In my eyes, the concept of a single customer view is also a key to getting success in psychographic marketing.  

You are not delivering a targeted message if you are delivering two different messages to two user profiles belonging to the same real world individual.

Your message will be very frustrating if you treat someone as a prospect customer if that someone already is an existing customer perhaps in another channel.

The effectiveness of psychographic marketing depends on a match between the psychographic variables, the behavioral variables and the demographic variables. As seen in the example in the Mashable article a good old thing as geocoding will be needed here.

An exciting thing in the rise of psychographic marketing is that it will add to the trend in data quality technology where it’s much more than simple name and address cleansing and deduplication.  Rich location data will despite the virtual playground be further important. The relations between customers and products as described in the post Customer Product Matrix Management will be further refined in psychographic marketing.       

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | Big Reference Data, Direct Marketing, Identity Resolution, Multi-Domain MDM, Social Media | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

B2C versus B2B Data Quality

8th June 2011

The data quality issues in doing business with private consumers (business-to-consumer = B2C) and doing business with other business’s (business-to-business = B2B) have a lot of similar challenges but also differs in a lot of ways.

Some of my experiences (and thoughts) related to different master data domains are:

Customer master data

In B2C the number of customers, prospects and leads is usually high and characterized by relatively few interactions with each entity.  In B2B you usually have a relatively small number of customers with a high number of interactions.

One of the most automated activities in data quality improvement is matching master data records with information about customers. Many of the examples we see in marketing material, research documents, blog posts and so on is about matching in the B2C realm. This is natural since the high number of records typically with a low attached value calls for automation.

Data matching in the B2B realm is indeed more complex due to numerous challenges like less standardized names of companies and typically more options in what constitutes a single customer. The high value attached to each customer also makes the risk of mistakes a showstopper for too much automation.

So in B2B we see an increasing adaption of creating workflows that insures data quality during data capture often by exploiting external reference data which also in general are more available related to business entities.

Location master data

The location of B2C customers means a lot. Accurate and timely delivery addresses for everything from direct mails to bringing goods to the premises are essential. Location data are used to recognize household relations, assigning demographic stereotypes and in many cases calculating fees of different kind. I had a near disaster experience with a really bad address in my early career.

Even though location data for B2B activities theoretically is just as important, I have often seen that a little less precision is fit for purpose or anyway lower prioritized than more pressing issues.

Product master data

Theoretically there should be no difference between B2C and B2B here, but I guess there is in practice?

The most interesting aspect is probably the multi-domain aspect examining the relations between customers and products.   

I had some experiences some years ago with the B2B realm as described in the post What is Multi-Domain MDM?: 1,000 B2B customers buying 1,000 different finished products can be a quite complicated data quality operation.

Within the B2C realm the most predominant multi-domain data quality issues I have met is related to analytics. As discussed in the post Customer/Product Matrix Management it is about typifying your customers correctly and categorizing your products adequately at the same time.

Bookmark and Share

8 Comments | Data Matching, Master Data, Multi-Domain MDM | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

We All Hate To Watch It

14th May 2011

Tonight the European Song Contest finale will be watched by over 100 million people, despite the fact that most people agree about that the songs aren’t that good.

The winner will be selected by summing up an equal number of votes from each country. Usually there are big differences in how countries votes. A trend is that some neighboring groups of countries like to vote for each other. Such groups include a “Balkan Block” and a “Viking Empire”.

It’s a bit like survivorship when merging matched data rows into a golden record in an enterprise master data hub. Maybe the winning data isn’t that good and several departments probably don’t like it at all.

So I see no reason why Denmark shouldn’t win tonight.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | Supposed to be a joke, Survivorship | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Henrik Liliendahl Sørensen

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers