Big Master Data

Right now I am overseeing the processing of yet a master data file with millions of records. In this case it is product master data also with customer master data kind of attributes, as we are working with a big pile of author names and related book titles.

The Big Buzz

Having such high numbers of master data records isn’t new at all and compared to the size of data collections we usually are talking about when using the trendy buzzword BigData, it’s nothing.

Data collections that qualify as big will usually be files with transactions.

However master data collections are increasing in volume and most transactions have keys referencing descriptions of the master entities involved in the transactions.

The growth of master data collections are also seen in collections of external reference data.

For example the Dun & Bradstreet Worldbase holding business entities from around the world has lately grown quickly from 100 million entities to near 200 millions entities. Most of the growth has been due to better coverage outside North America and Western Europe, with the BRIC countries coming in fast. A smaller world resulting in bigger data.

Also one of the BRICS, India, is on the way with a huge project for uniquely identifying and holding information about every citizen – that’s over a billion. The project is called Aadhaar.

When we extend such external registries also to social networking services by doing Social MDM, we are dealing with very fast growing number of profiles in Facebook, LinkedIn and other services.

Extreme Master Data

Gartner, the analyst firm, has a concept called “extreme data” that rightly points out, that it is not only about volume this “big data” thing; it is also about velocity and variety.

This is certainly true also for master data management (MDM) challenges.

Master data are exchanged between organizations more and more often in higher and higher volumes. Data quality focuses and maturity may probably not be the same within the exchanging parties. The velocity and volume makes it hard to rely on people centric solutions in these situations.

Add to that increasing variety in master data. The variety may be international variety as the world gets smaller and we have collections of master data embracing many languages and cultures. We also add more and more attributes each day as for example governments are releasing more data along with the open data trend and we generally include more and more attributes in order to make better and more informed decisions.

Variety is also an aspect of Multi-Domain MDM, a subject that according to Gartner (the analyst firm once again) is one of the Three Trends That Will Shape the Master Data Management Market.

Bookmark and Share

Single Company View

Getting a single customer view in business-to-business (B2B) operations isn’t straight forward. Besides all the fuzz about agreeing on a common definition of a customer within each enterprise usually revolving around fitting multiple purposes of use, we also have complexities in real world alignment.

One Number Utopia

Back in the 80’s I worked as a secretary for the committee that prepared a single registry for companies in Denmark. This practice has been live for many years now.

But in most other countries there are several different public registries for companies resulting in multiple numbering systems.

Within the European Union there is a common registry embracing VAT numbers from all member states. The standard format is the two letter ISO country code followed by the different formatted VAT number in each country – some with both digits and letters.

The DUNS-number used by Dun & Bradstreet is the closest we get to a world-wide unique company numbering system.  

2-Tier Reality

The common structure of a company is that you have a legal entity occupying one or several addresses.

The French company numbering system is a good example of how this is modeled. You have two numbers:

  • SIREN is a 9-digit number for each legal entity (on the head quarter address).
  • SIRET is a 14-digit (9 + 5) number for each business location.

This model is good for companies with several locations but strange for single location companies.

Treacherous Family Trees (and Restaurants)

The need for hierarchy management is obvious when it comes to handling data about customers that belongs to a global enterprise.

Company family trees are useful but treacherous. A mother and a daughter may be very close connected with lots of shared services or it may be a strictly matter of ownership with no operational ties at all.

Take McDonald’s as a not perfectly simple (nor simply perfect) example. A McDonald’s restaurant is operated by a franchisee, an affiliate, or the corporation itself. I’m lovin’ modeling it.

Bookmark and Share

3 out of 10

Just before I left for summer vacation I noticed a tweet by MDM guru Aaron Zornes saying:

This is a subject very close to me as I have worked a lot with business directory matching during the last 15 years not at least matching with the D&B WorldBase.

The problem is that if you match your B2B customers, suppliers and other business partners with a business directory like the D&B WorldBase you could naively expect a 100% match.

If your result is only a 30% hit rate the question is: How many among the remaining 70% are false negatives and how many are true negatives.

True negatives

There may be a lot of reasons for true negatives, namely:

  • Your business entity isn’t listed in the business directory. Some countries like those of the old Czechoslovakia, some English speaking countries in the Pacifics, the Nordic countries and others have a tight public registration of companies and then it is less tight from countries in North America, other European countries and the rest of the world.
  • Your supposed business entity isn’t a business entity. Many B2B customer/prospect tables holds a lot of entities not being a formal business entity but being a lot of other types of party master data.
  • Uniqueness may be different defined in the business directory and your table to be matched. This includes the perception of hierarchies of legal entities and branches – not at least governmental and local authority bodies is a fuzzy crowd. Also the different roles as those of small business owners are a challenge. The same is true about roles as franchise takers and the use of trading styles.

False negatives

In business directory matching the false negatives are those records that should have been matched by an automated function, but isn’t.

The number of false negatives is a measure of the effectiveness of the automated matching tool(s) and rules applied. Big companies often use the magic quadrant leaders in data quality tools, but these aren’t necessary the best tools for business directory matching.

Personally I have found that you need a very complex mix of tools and rules for getting a decent match rate in business directory matching, including combining both deterministic and probabilistic matching. Some different techniques are explained in more details here.

Bookmark and Share

Business Directory Musings

This coming Sunday I have worked professionally within Information Technology for 30 years. As I will be on a (well deserved!) vacation in Andalusia on Sunday, I’ll better post my thoughts today.

I have had a lot of different positions and worked in a lot of different domains. The single subject I have worked with the most is business directories.

My first job was at the Danish Tax Authorities and one of the assignments was being a secretary to the committee working for a joint registration of companies in Denmark. Besides I learned a lot about working in political driven organizations and about aligning business and technology I feel good about having been part of the start of building a public sector master data directory. Such directories are both essential for an effective public administration and can be used as external reference data in private enterprises as a valuable mean to improve data quality with business partner master data.

Later I have been working a lot with improving data quality through matching solutions around business directories. This goes from the Dun & Bradstreet WorldBase holding nearly 170 million business entities from all over the world, over databases like the EuroContactPool to national databases either holding all businesses (available) in a single country or given industry segments.

I guess I also will be spending some additional years from now with integrating business directory information into business processes as smooth as possible and preferable along with a range of other kind of external reference data.

One of the new sources building up in the cloud in the realm of business directories is master data references in social networks. The LinkedIn Companies feature is a prominent example. Of course such directories have some data quality issues. This is seen in looking at the companies where I currently work:

  • DM Partner A/S seems OK
  • Omikron Data Quality has 90 employees according to the company profile (filled out by yours truly). Then it’s strange that there are only 25 profiles in the network. But that’s because most employees are in Germany where the competing network called Xing is stronger.
  • Trapeze Group Europe has not been updated with a recent merger and not all profiles has changed their profile accordingly yet. But I’m sure that will be done as time goes by.

I have no doubt though that including information from social networks will become a part of integrating business partner master data in my future.

Bookmark and Share

Algorithm Envy

The term “algorithm envy” was used by Aaron Zornes in his piece on MDM trends when talking about identity resolution.

In my experience there is surely a need for good data matching algorithms.

As I have a built a data matching tool myself I faced that need back in 2005. At that time my tool was merely based on some standardization and parsing, match codes, some probabilistic learning and a few light weight algorithms like the hamming distance (more descriptions of these techniques here).

My tool was pretty national (like many other matching tools) as it was tuned for handling Danish names and addresses as well as Swedish, Norwegian, Finish and German addresses which are very similar.

The task ahead was to expand the match tool so it could be used to match business-to-business records with the D&B worldbase. This database has business entities from all over the world. The names and addresses in there are only standardized to the extent that is provided by the public sector or other providers for each country.

The records to be matched came from Nordic companies operating globally. For such records you can’t assume that these are entered by people who know the name and address format for the country in question. So, all in all, standardization and parsing wasn’t the full solution. If you don’t trust me, there is more explanation here.

When dealing with international data match codes becomes either too complex or too bad. This is also due to lack of standardization in both the records to be compared.

For the probabilistic learning my problem was that all learned data until then was only gathered from Nordic data. They wouldn’t be any good for the rest of the world.

The solution was including an advanced data matching algorithm, in this case Omikron FACT.

Since then the Omikron FACT algorithm has been considerable improved and is now branded as WorldMatch®. Some of the new advantages is dealing with different character sets and script systems and having synonyms embedded directly into the matching logic, which is far superior to using synonyms in a prior standardization process.

For full disclosure I work for the vendor Omikron Data Quality today. But I am not praising the product because of that – I work for Omikron because of the product.


Bookmark and Share

Ongoing Data Maintenance

Getting the right data entry at the root is important and it is agreed by most (if not all) data quality professionals that this is a superior approach opposite to doing cleansing operations downstream.

The problem hence is that most data erodes as time is passing. What was right at the time of capture will at some point in time not be right anymore.

Therefore data entry ideally must not only be a snapshot of correct information but should also include raw data elements that make the data easily maintainable.

An obvious example: If I tell you that I am 49 years old that may be just that piece of information you needed for completing a business process. But if you asked me about my birth date you will have the age information also upon a bit of calculation plus you based on that raw data will know when I turn 50 (all too soon) and your organization will know my age if we should do business again later.

Birth dates are stable personal data. Gender is pretty much too. But most other data changes over time. Names changes in many cultures in case of marriage and maybe divorce and people may change names when discovering bad numerology. People move or a street name may be changed.

There is a great deal of privacy concerns around identifying individual persons and the norms are different between countries. In Scandinavia we are used to be identified by our unique citizen ID but also here within debatable limitations. But you are offered solutions for maintaining raw data that will make valid and timely B2C information in what precision asked for when needed.

Otherwise it is broadly accepted everywhere to identify a business entity. Public sector registrations are a basic source of identifying ID’s having various uniqueness and completeness around the world. Private providers have developed proprietary ID systems like the Duns-Number from D&B. All in all such solutions are good sources for an ongoing maintenance of your B2B master data assets.

Addresses belonging to business or consumer/citizen entities – or just being addresses – are contained as external reference data covering more and more spots on the Earth. Ongoing development in open government data helps with availability and completeness and these data are often deployed in the cloud. Right now it is much about visual presenting on maps, but no doubt about that more services will follow.

Getting data right at entry and being able to maintain the real world alignment is the challenge if you don’t look at your data asset as a throw-away commodity.

Figure 1: one year old prime information

PS: If you forgot to maintain your data: Before dumping Data Cleansing might be a sustainable alternative.

Bookmark and Share

Slowly Changing Hierarchies

The term “slowly changing dimensions” is known from building data warehouses and attempting to make sense of data with business intelligence using reference data.

family treeThe fact that the world is changing all the time is also present when we look at Master Data Management and the essential hierarchy building taking place when structuring these data.

Company family trees are a common hierarchy structure in Master Data. One source of information about company family trees is the D&B Worldbase – a database operated by Dun & Bradstreet holding over 150 million business entities from all over the world.

I used to have Dun & Bradstreet as a customer. I don’t have that anymore – but I’m still working with the very same project. Because since I started this assignment US based Dun & Bradstreet handed over the operation in a range of European countries to the Swedish publishing group Bonnier. They later handed it over to Swedish company Bisnode. I started the project when I worked for Swedish consultancy group Sigma, continued in my Danish sole proprietorship and now serve Bisnode through German data quality tool vendor Omikron. Slowly changing relationships indeed.

As with many other activities in the realm of data quality establishing the “golden view”, “the single version of the truth” is only the beginning. If that “golden view” is not put into an ongoing maintenance the shiny gold will fade – slowly but steady.

Bookmark and Share

Settling a Match

In a recent post on this blog we went trough how a process of consolidating master data could involve a match with a business directory.

Having more than a few B2B records often calls for an automated process to do that.

So, how do you do that?

Say you have a B2B record as this (Name, HouseNo, Street, City):

  • Smashing Estate, 1, Main Street, Anytown

The business directory has the following entries (ID, Name, HouseNo, Street, City):

  • 1, Smashing Estates, , Central Square, Anytown
  • 2, Smashing Holding, 1, Main Street, Anytown
  • 3, Smashing East, 1, Main Street, Anytown
  • 4, Real Consultants, 1, Main Street, Anytown

Several different forms of functionality are used around to settle the matter.

Here are some:

Exact match:

Here no candidates at all are found.

Match codes:

Say you make a match code on input and directory rows with:

  • 4 first consonants in City
  • 4 first consonants in Street
  • 4 digit with leading zero of HouseNo
  • 4 first consonants in Name

This makes:

  • Input: NTWN-MNST-0001-SMSH
  • Directory 1: NTWN-CNTR-0000-SMSH
  • Directory 2: NTWN-MNST-0001-SMSH
  • Directory 3: NTWN-MNST-0001-SMSH
  • Directory 4: NTWN-MNST-0001-RLCN

Here directory entry 2 and 3 will be considered equal hits. You may select a random automated match or forward to manual inspection.

Many other and more sophisticated match code assignments exist including phonetic match codes.

Scoring:

You may assign a similarity between each element and then calculate a total score of similarity between the input and each directory row.

Often you use a percentage like measure here where similarity 100 is exact, 90 is close, 75 is fair, 50 and below is far away.

match score

Selecting the best match candidate with this scoring will result in directory entry 3 as the winner given we accept automated matches with score 95 (and a gap of 5 points between this and next candidate).

The assigning of similarity and calculating of total score may be (and are) implemented in many ways in different solutions.

Also the selection of candidates plays a role. If you have to select from a directory with millions of rows you may use swapped match codes and other techniques like advanced searching.

Matrix:

The following example is based on a patented method by Dun & Bradstreet.

Based on an element similarity as above you assign a match grade with a character for each element as:

  • A being exact or very close e.g. scores above 90
  • B being close e.g. scores between 50 and 90
  • F being no match e.g. scores below 50
  • Z being missing values

Including Name, HouseNo, Street and City this will make the following match grades:

  • Directory 1: AZFA
  • Directory 2: BAAA
  • Directory 3: BAAA
  • Directory 4: FAAA

Based on the match grade you have a priority list of combinations giving a confidence code, e.g.:

  • AAAA = 10 (High)
  • BAAA = 9
  • AZAA = 8
  • A—A = 1 (Low)

Directory entry 3 and 2 will be winners with confident code 9 remotely challenged by entry 1 with confidence code 1. Directory entry 4 is out of the game.

Satisfied?

I am actually not convinced that the winner should be directory entry 3 (or 2). I think directory entry 1 could be the one if we have to select anyone.

Adding additional elements:

While we may not have additional information in the input we may derive more elements from these elements not to say that the business directory may hold many more useful elements, e.g.

  • Geocoding may establish that there is a very short distance from “Central Square” to “1 Main Street” thus making directory 1 a better fit.
  • LOB code (e.g. SIC or NACE) may confirm that directory 2 is a holding entity which typically (but not always) is less desirable as match candidate.
  • Hierarchy code may tell that directory 3 is a branch entity which typically (but not always) is less desirable as match candidate.

Probabilistic learning:

Here you don’t relay on or supplement the deterministic approaches shown above with results from confirmed matching with the same elements and combination and patterns of elements.

This topic deserves a post of its own.

The GlobalMatchBox

dnbLogo10 years ago I spend most of the summer delivering my first large project after being a sole proprietorship. The client – or actually rather the partner – was Dun & Bradsteet’s Nordic operation, who needed an agile solution for matching customer files with their Nordic business reference data sets. The application was named MatchBox.

bisnode-logoThis solution has grown over the years while D&B’s operation in the Nordics and other parts of Europe is now operated by Bisnode.

Today matching is done with the entire WorldBase holding close to 150 million business entities from all over the world – with all the diversity you can imagine. On the technology side the application has been bundled with the indexing capacities of www.softbool.com and the similarity cleverness of www.omikron.net (disclosure: today I work for Omikron) all built with the RAD tool www.magicsoftware.com. The application is now called GlobalMatchBox.

It has been a great but fearful pleasure for me to have been able to work with setting up and tuning such a data matching engine and environment. Everybody who has worked with data matching knows about the scars you get when avoiding false positives and false negatives. You know that it is just not good enough to say that you only are able to automatically match 40% of the records when it is supposed to be 100%.

So this project has very much been an unlike experience compared to the occasional SMB (Small and Medium size Business) hit and run data quality improvement projects I also do as described in my previous post. With D&B we are not talking about months but years of tuning and I have been guilty of practicing excessive consultancy.

Bookmark and Share