Justifying Definitions for Data

In my last post I covered some reflections on what I learned from writing my new book Definitions in Information Management (available via www.data-definition.com).  In this post, I would like to briefly cover how to justify definition as an activity.

The reason I would like to cover this is because I have noticed a trend in data management, where the value of an activity - say data modeling - is not seen as valuable by senior management.  In fact quite a lot has been written about how to justify data modeling, and how to get support for it.  Definition as an activity, seems to have this problem in common with data modeling.  But why does the problem of justification even exist?

We Never Did it Before

One of the reasons why executive management may be reluctant to support data definition as an activity is because it has not been important in the past.  In other words, we got along fine without it in the past, so why do we need it now.  There are at least two ways to answer this question: (a) you could have done better in the past if you had paid attention to definition; (b) things are different now, and if you do not pay attention to definition you will suffer. 

Argument (a) is very difficult to prove, because almost every argument about how the past would have turned out if things had been done differently is difficult to prove. 

Argument (b) is better.  CIOs, CEO's and other executives seem to be increasingly saying things like "why don't my systems talk to each other?", and "why can't we change our technology to keep up with the business?".   This is the entry point, because these questions were not asked in the past.  That in turn means that where we are today is different to where we were in the past.  And indeed we are.  We have spent 40 plus years building architectures where each component is a stand-alone silo with its own dialect of data.  Little wonder data is in a huge mess.  If we truly understand our data perhaps we can get out of this mess.  For that we need to pay attention to the activity of definition.

I Don't Do Definition in My Personal Life

It is quite surprising how we all refer to our personal lives for guidance.  I have often been astonished by how frequently executives point to some latest gadget and something like "Why can't our applications be more like that?".   It is also true that if an executive does not do something in their personal life, then they are less likely to understand it and think it worthwhile. 

Definition seems to be like this.  Perhaps the most frequent way it is encountered is via dictionaries and rote learning in school, e.g. for the SAT's.  Even if definitions are held to be important, this kind of activity seems rather worthless, so no executive will sponsor something analogous.  The way to overcome this objection is hone a constant message that data is different, and it is different because it need to be understood.  I think we are beginning to win this one.  In the past couple of years I have seen grown men and women from the business discussing the meaning of data.  They have not been talking about the formal activity of definition, but they have been trying to get to what the data means for their areas of responsibility.  We all need to identify this wave and ride it.