Infonomics and Second Party Data

The term infonomics does not yet run unmarked through my English spellchecker, but there are some information available on Wikipedia about infonomics. Infonomics is closely related to the often-mentioned phrases in data management about seeing data / information as an asset.

Much of what I have read about infonomics and seeing data / information as an asset is related to what we call first party data. That is data that is stored and managed within your own company.

Some information is also available in relation to third party data. That is data we buy from external parties in order to validate, enrich or even replace our own first party data. An example is a recent paper from among others infonomic guru Doug Laney of Gartner (the analyst firm). This paper has a high value if you want to buy it as seen here.

Anyway, the relationship between data as an asset and the value of data is obvious when it comes to third party data, as we pay a given amount of money for data when acquiring third party data.

Second party data is data we exchange with our trading and other business partners. One example that has been close to me during the recent years is product information that follows exchange of goods in cross company supply chains. Here the value of the goods is increasingly depending on the quality (completeness and other data quality dimensions) of the product information that follows the goods.

In my eyes, we will see an increasing focus on infonomics when it comes to exchanging goods – and the related second party data – in the future. Two basic factors will be:

pdl-top-narrow

Who will become Future Leaders in the Gartner Multidomain MDM Magic Quadrant?

Gartner emphasizes that the new Magic Quadrant for Master Data Management Solutions Published 19 January 2017 is not solely about multidomain MDM or a consolidation of the two retired MDM quadrants for customer and product master data. However, a long way down the report it still is.

If you want a free copy both Informatica here and Riversand here offers that.

The Current Pole Position and the Pack

The possible positioning was the subject in a post here on the blog some while ago. This post was called The Gartner Magic Quadrant for MDM 2016. The term 2016 has though been omitted in the title of the final quadrant probably because it took into 2017 to finalize the report as reported in the post Gartner MDM Magic Quadrant in Overtime.

Below is my look at the positioning in the current quadrant:

mdm-mq

Starting with the multidomain MDM point the two current leaders, Informatica and Orchestra, have made their way to multidomain in two different ways. Pole position vendor Informatica has used mergers and acquisitions with the old Siperian MDM solution and the Heiler PIM (Product Information Management) solution to build the multidomain MDM leadership. Orchestra Networks has built a multidomain MDM solution from the gound.

The visionary Riversand is coming in from the Product MDM / PIM world as a multidomain MDM wannabe and so is the challenger Stibo. I think SAP is in their right place: Enormous ability to execute with not so much vision.

If you go through the strengths and cautions of the various vendors, you will find a lot of multidomain MDM views from Gartner.

The Future Race

While the edges of the challengers and visionaries’ quadrants are usually empty in a Gartner magic quadrant, the top right in this first multidomain MDM quadrant from Gartner is noticeably empty too. So who will we see there in the future?

Gartner mentions some interesting upcoming vendors earning too little yet. Examples are Agility Multichannel (a Product Data Lake ambassador by the way), Semarchy and Reltio.

The future race track will according to Gartner go through:

  • MDM and the Cloud
  • MDM and the Internet of Things
  • MDM and Big Data

PS: At Product Data Lake we are heading there in full speed too. Therefore, it will be a win-win to see more MDM vendors joining as ambassadors or even being more involved.

MDM: The Technology Trends

There are certainly many things going on in the Master Data Management (MDM) realm when it comes to technologies applied.

The move from on premise based solutions to cloud based solutions has been visible for some years. It is not a rush yet, but we see more and more master data services being offered as cloud services as well as many vendors of full stack MDM platforms offers both on premise, cloud and even hybrid solutions.

As reported in the post Emerging Database Technologies for Master Data new underlying database technologies are put in place instead of the relational database solutions that until now have ruled the MDM world. As mentioned graph databases as Neo4J and document databases as MongoDB (which now also support graph) are examples of new popular choices.

blockchainAs examined by Gartner (the analyst Firm) there are Two Ways of Exploiting Big Data with MDM, either doing it directly or by linking. Anyway, the ties between big data and master data management is in my eyes going to be a main focus for the technology trends in the years to come. Other important ties includes the raise of Industry 4.0 / Internet of Things and blockchain approaches.

We are still waiting for The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Master Data Management Solutions 2016 and the related Critical Capabilities document, so it will be very exciting, in fact more exciting that the vendor positioning, to learn about how Gartner sees the technology trends affecting the MDM landscape.

What are your expectations about Master Data Management and new emerging technologies?

Gartner MDM Magic Quadrant in Overtime

The Gartner Master Data Management Solutions Magic Quadrant 2016 did not go live in 2016. Estimated release date was 19th November 2016, but still there is no sign of the quadrant either on the Gartner site or at vendor bragging on social media.

We can only guess about why the quadrant is delayed, but a possible explanation is that vendor feedback on the suggested positioning has been harsh. I am not among the ones who believes Gartner actually takes money from vendors for inclusion and positioning in the quadrant. Still, Gartner has a substantial business relationship with those vendors. If a vendor feels they are really wrongly misplaced, they may question the judgement in the other payable services from Gartner.

While waiting, there is still time to have your guess on who has persuaded Gartner to be where in the quadrant as already many have done in the post The Gartner Magic Quadrant for MDM 2016.

And yes, the prize for best guess is still a genuine Product Data Lake t-shirt.

t-shirt

The Gartner Magic Quadrant for MDM 2016

The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Master Data Management Solutions 2016 is …… not out.

Though it can be hard for a person not coming from the United States to read those silly American dates, according to this screenshot from today, it should have been out the 19th November 2016.

gartner-mdm-2016

I guess no blue hyperlink means it has not be aired yet and I do not recall having seen any vendor bragging on social media yet either.

The plan that Gartner will retire the old two quadrants for Customer MDM and Product MDM was revealed by Andrew White of Gartner earlier this year in the post Update on our Magic Quadrant’s for Master Data Management 2016.

Well, MDM implementations are often delayed, so why not the Multidomain MDM quadrant too.

In the meantime, we can take a quiz. Please comment with your guess on who will be the leaders, visionaries, challengers and niche players. Closest guess will receive a Product Data Lake t-shirt in your company’s license level size (See here for options).

Interenterprise Data Sharing and the 2016 Data Quality Magic Quadrant

dqmq2016The 2016 Magic Quadrant for Data Quality Tools by Gartner is out. One way to have a free read is downloading the report from Informatica, who is the most-top-right vendor in the tool vendor positioning.

Apart from the vendor positioning the report as always contains valuable opinions and observations about the market and how these tools are used to achieve business objectives.

Interenterprise data sharing is the last mentioned scenario besides BI and analytics (analytical scenarios), MDM (operational scenarios), information governance programs, ongoing operations and data migrations.

Another observation is that 90% of the reference customers surveyed for this Magic Quadrant consider party data a priority while the percentage of respondents prioritizing the product data domain was 47%.

My take on this difference is that it relates to interenterprise data sharing. Parties are per definition external to you and if your count of business partners (and B2C customers) exceeds some thousands (that’s the 90%), you need some of kind of tool to cope with data quality for the master data involved. If your product data are internal to you, you can manage data quality without profiling, parsing, matching and other core capabilities of a data quality tool.  If your product data are part of a cross company supply chain, and your count of products exceeds some thousands (that’s the 47%), you probably have issues with product data quality.

In my eyes, the capabilities of a data quality tool will also have to be balanced differently for product data as examined in the post Multi-Domain MDM and Data Quality Dimensions.

Adding Things to Product Data Lake

Product Data Lake went live last month. Nevertheless, we are already planning the next big things in this cloud service for sharing product data. One of them is exactly things. Let me explain.

Product data is usually data about a product model, for example a certain brand and model of a pair of jeans, a certain brand and model of a drilling machine or a certain brand and model of a refrigerator. Handling product data on the model level within business ecosystems is hard enough and the initial reason of being for Product Data Lake.

stepping_stones_oc

However, we are increasingly required to handle data about each instance of a product model. Some use cases I have come across are:

  • Serialization, which is numbering and tracking of each physical product. We know that from having a serial number on our laptops and another example is how medicine packs now will be required to be serialized to prevent fraud as described in the post Spectre vs James Bond and the Unique Product Identifier.
  • Asset management. Asset is kind of the fourth domain in Master Data Management (MDM) besides party, product and location as touched in the post Where is the Asset. Also Gartner, the analyst firm, usually in theory (and also soon in practice in their magic quadrants) classifies product and asset together as thing opposite to party. Anyway, in asset management you handle each physical instance of the product model.
  • Internet of Things (IoT) is, according to Wikipedia, the internetworking of physical devices, vehicles (also referred to as “connected devices” and “smart devices”), buildings and other items—embedded with electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and network connectivity that enable these objects to collect and exchange data.

Fulfilling the promise of IoT, and the connected term Industry 4.0, certainly requires common understood master data from the product model over serialization and asset management as reported in the post Data Quality 3.0 as a stepping-stone on the path to Industry 4.0.

Bookmark and Share