Posts Tagged SOA

MDM is a Capability, Not a Product

I had bookmarked, and finally just read, an article by Loraine Lawson of IT Business Edge titled “Consultant: Master Data Management Can Pay off During M&As” which referred to this blog post from Evan Levy, “MDM and M&A“.

MDM is an interesting topic, and one that has a lot of relevance in my work environment. M&As are also interesting and can have a huge impact on a great many people. But while reading these articles, I was reminded of an important MDM axiom.

Even writes:

MDM provides a company the capability to link the data content from disparate systems within and across companies.

Remember that MDM is a capability and not a technology. You cannot buy MDM, but you can build a MDM strategy. This strategy will likely cross several technologies and platforms. It may consist of data warehousing elements, SOA, and SaaS applications. It will surely consist of certain disciplines such as data governance, data quality management, and data integration.

Vendors will continue to push their MDM solutions, but be careful not to trap yourself into thinking that the job is done once you’ve installed. Vendors can wrap most technologies necessary for MDM into a single package, but they cannot provide you with a strategy or the personnel to make it work for your organization.

MDM is a capability you create, and not a product you can buy.

Tags: , , , ,

2 Comments

Business Processes and the Integrated Enterprise

It’s time to think about business processes.

In a recent post, I defined a business process as “the complete response that a business makes to an event”. Because this is such an important topic for data warehousing, I thought I’d share some additional thoughts.

IntegrationBusiness processes include such activities as accounts receivable, orders, sales, and inventory management. Each process has a specific event (or goal) that defines the process and in many cases allows us to gauge the health of that process. For example, an order is an event within the orders business process. Inventory movement is an event within the inventory management process. And so on.

For a few years now, there has been a significant push — mainly by service oriented (SOA) and data warehousing architects — to get businesses to think more about business processes and not about departments, applications, and technologies. Traditionally, most organizations have structured IT around specific software purchases and departmental needs. Integrating these disparate systems later becomes a significant challenge for business intelligence, performance management, and master data initiatives.

James Gibson, in his research piece “A Research Strategy for Investigating Business Process Management Approaches”, wrote that it’s time to start thinking about process and process processing rather than data and data processing (I had to read that more than once too!). The key is that the business process — which is tied to a specific event — is a driver that can lead all other initiatives along. Actionable insights (typically what you hope to derive from your Business Intelligence and Performance Management initiatives) are only useful if they’re tied to a process that can be improved.

Thinking more about business processes, and developing architectures to support them, leads to a more integrated enterprise

Data Warehousing with dimensional modeling is solely focused on the business process. In fact, you cannot develop a true dimensional model without modeling it around some business event. And it should be clear that a single business event can span multiple source systems and departments. The dimensional model pulls all this together.

On the transactional and operational side of the fence, SOA is the right approach to take. Essentially, SOA provides a standard way to access myriad resources across a network through RPC, Web Services, and APIs (among other techniques). One application can communicate with another in real-time.

Developing an SOA and a Data Warehouse one-process-at-a-time is smart. I will talk more about this in a future posting, but the idea is simple: start with a single business process that will make the most impact and is most feasible. Then, in an iterative way, expand into additional processes. This allows development to quickly turn over key functionality while leaving room to resolve business process volatility issues and political ramblings. If you are lucky enough to be starting both data warehousing and SOA programs simultaneously, it makes most sense for the same business process to be the subject for both!

Master Data Management is about data governance and forms a core part of the integrated enterprise. Through SOA, applications can access master copies of shared entities, such as Customer and Product. Master data might be derived partly from a data warehouse using ETL and partly by operational applications in a transactional environment through SOA. When it is time to embark on an MDM initiative, it makes a lot of sense to start thinking about business processes, conformed dimensions, and how to maintain this critical data.

So imagine for a moment an enterprise with dozens of departments all using different tools and software solutions to manage their day-to-day operations. Through SOA, these applications can all talk to each other so that when a customer checks on an order, the clerk can also see who took the order, where the product currently is in transit, the customer’s order history and much more. The data is not integrated, but the processes are. At the end of the day, when the regional salespeople need their numbers, the data warehouse — which has integrated data arranged around various business events — provides the results quickly giving all subscribers a complete and integrated view of all relevant business processes.

Adopt architectures that facilitate business’ natural orientation towards the business process. Business Intelligence, Performance Management, Business Process Reengineering, and Master Data Management initiatives will benefit tremendously. I’ve been saddled by the department-oriented mentality by business for too long. Better IT/Business alignment in this area will create more opportunities for defining clear business processes which in turn will lead to a better integrated organization.

Tags: , ,

1 Comment

Book Review: SOA Approach to Integration

I posted a review of the book “SOA Approach to Integration” by Matjaz, B. Juric, Ramesh Loganathan, Dr. P., and G Sarang (published by Packt Publishing) over at Amazon this past weekend. Please check it out if you get the chance. Unlike my last review, this one is more favorable!

I wanted to read more about SOA for two reasons: curiosity and to round-out my knowledge of various integration strategies. Those who know me, know me as a “data guy”. I like to design data models, create databases, normalize things, and sketch integration strategies in UML. Boring. I know.

I suppose this comes directly from my background as a VFP application developer. In the nineties, I developed a dozen or so customized, vertical applications that existed for the most part in departmental islands. Their purpose was to solve business problems, usually at the process level. I soon began writing code to integrate these applications, the fancy term is “Enterprise Application Integration (EAI)”, but I never really called it that. Using Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) and shared objects, I was able to build point-to-point bridges allowing these islands to communicate with one another.

When I had the chance to start developing data warehouses, I jumped. I no longer write applications, instead, I do a lot of data modeling and I write code and design workflows to integrate data from any number of disparate applications spread out across an enterprise. I find this work more than just “satisfying”.

SOA is a different approach to integrating an enterprise. It is like EAI in some ways, but overall, the SOA approach is more advanced and scalable. Up until I read this book, I could not easily draw the line between exposing a few functions in a peer-to-peer api/RPC scenario, to this “Enterprise Service Bus” that coordinates and orchestrates entire business processes off in some far off place using XML and web services.

As you know from my postings and articles, I talk a lot about “Business Processes” in regards to dimensional modeling. This book brought me greater insight into what a “process” is and what it could be. In Dimensional Modeling, we take a bottom-up approach to building an enterprise database. Using conformed dimensions, we start process-by-process to construct a complete data warehouse. Unlike what some detractors and skeptics conclude (are there really any of those still?), we’re not creating new silos or islands, but rather an integrated, highly valuable data warehouse organized by business process, facilitated by the use of conformed dimensions. SOA looks at the business process in much the same way, but while the data warehouse typically gets a hold of a transaction after it occurs, SOA is part of the transaction. They’re two pees in the same pod.

While I agree that SOA is necessary for real-time transactional and document-related (”doc-literal”) integration, I don’t feel that data warehouses are threatened by the emergence of this “technology”. SOA solves a “business logic” problem, where business logic is spread out across an organization. Data warehousing solves reporting, analytical, and data exploration problems. A fully integrated organization will rely on SOA and data warehousing.

To buy this book, click here.

Check out these other reviews as well:

Tech Initiatives
Ken Guest’s online diary
Enterprise Architecture SOA and More

Tags: ,

No Comments

What is MDM Anyway?

What is master data and what is the master data domain? What does it cover? Where is the business value in MDM? Is MDM a data warehousing function? How can business users be sold on the MDM investment?

While the industry dukes it out over answering these questions (you can’t get two experts or vendors to give you the same answer to any of those questions), I thought I’d share my thoughts. I admit, that my MDM experience to this point is minimal, having only been involved in one official MDM project (and only at the planning and data modeling level). But nevertheless, I do have some of my own ideas.

The bottom line, though, is that MDM is important and should not be overlooked when planning for new business intelligence or enterprise integration initiatives.

What MDM is

Master Data Management, an information activity, is the process of ensuring that an organization’s data (including its metadata) is consistent, reliable, accessible, distinctive and well defined. This master data, once it meets these requirements, can then be used by the enterprise as a system of record for key business entities and attributes.

There are different types of MDM: Analytical (A-MDM), Operational (O-MDM), and Enterprise (E-MDM). I see it like this: A-MDM is related to data warehousing and would therefore be implemented solely as a compliment to (or a reaction from) a data warehouse/business intelligence project (I don’t agree that simply having conformed dimensions constitutes “having” A-MDM, though). O-MDM is about collecting, managing, and redistributing master data to be used by operational systems (which is largely an effort in synchronization). E-MDM, is the Holy Grail, and would be a combination of both O-MDM and A-MDM. E-MDM reminds me of Enterprise Data Modeling (EDM), in that you truly need a 360-degree view of the business to make it work (READ: get business and IT together for tea).

Data governance and stewardship, as well as data quality management, data integration, and service-oriented architecture (SOA) are all functions and processes related in some way to Master Data.

What MDM is Not

MDM is not a technology. It is a business function. You are either managing master data, or you are not. It is unlikely that any single approach or software technology will solve the Master Data problem. It drives me nuts to hear about how vendors sell MDM (and BI, for that matter), but I digress…

The work of developing and maintaining master data is not a data warehousing function. To restate: Data warehouses are not developed to create master data (even A-MDM). Some will disagree with me on this. In my opinion/observation, MDM is a separate, highly important activity that works in conjunction with the data warehouse and all other applications and processes that exist in the enterprise.

Other Thoughts

I think that a common mistake made with regard to planning for, and implementing MDM, is that there is not enough emphasis on the data quality gains that will be realized. In addition, the data integration process for data warehousing projects will be infinitely easier, as the complex work of conforming dimensions and attributes will already be complete (at least in definition, with plenty of good metadata to use as a reference).

Master data, in many ways, provides a new way of looking at data as an asset with tangible, strategic value.

I’ll post more on this topic as time rolls on. As always, thoughts, questions, and criticisms welcome!

Tags: , , ,

2 Comments