Tag Archives: MDM
I was recently boarding a flight in New York and started reading the New York Times. One article jumped out: “User reviews make it harder for marketers to manipulate.” A Stanford University research report proves a wealth of product information and user reviews is causing a fundamental shift in how consumers make decisions.
Consumers rely more on one another
The latest research from Dr. Simonson and Emanual Rosen is based on an experiment performed decades ago at Duke University. In the experiment participants had to choose from a group of either two or three cameras. The research found that consumers chose the cheaper product when being offered two options, but when given three choices, most went with the middle one. It was called the “compromise effect,” which has been used by marketers to impact buying decisions.
But an updated version of the experiment allowed participants to read product ratings and reviews before choosing one of the three cameras. While a portion of the participants always choose the lowest-priced product, in this new scenario more participants are selecting the most expensive product over the middle-priced product based on customer reviews.
“The compromise effect is gone,” says Dr. Simonson in this New York Times article. The Book “Absolute Value” comes with a more in depth explanation: (http://www.absolutevaluebook.com/).
Imagine if you could own and control both customer opinion and product information? The next wave taking omnichannel commerce to the next level will address information relevancy at every channel and all customer interactions – called Commerce Relevancy.
Do you know what year the first steam engine locomotive was invented? 1804. It traveled 9 miles in two hours. Now, you and I would be pretty upset of we boarded a train and it took 2 hours to go 9 miles. But, 200 years ago, this was a huge innovation and led to the invention of the modern day train and railway.
Tremendous Growth In Demand for Rail Travel Puts Pressure on Rail Infrastructure
Today, Britain is experiencing tremendous growth in demand for rail travel. One million more trains and 500 million more passengers travel by train than just 5 years ago. Over the next 30 years passenger demand for rail will more than double and freight demand is expected to go up by 140%. This puts tremendous pressure on the rail infrastructure.
Network Rail is in the modern-day rail business. Employees work day and night running, maintaining and updating Britain’s rail infrastructure, including millions of assets, such as 22,000 miles of track, 6,500 crossings, 43,000 bridges, viaducts and tunnels. Improving the rail network provides faster, more frequent and more reliable journeys between Britain’s towns and cities.
Network Rail is investing more in the rail infrastructure than in Victorian times. In the last six months, they spent about $25 million a day! In a recent news release, Patrick Bucher, group finance director said, “We continue to invest record amounts to deliver a bigger, better railway for passengers and businesses across Britain. We are also driving down the cost of running Britain’s railway to help make it more affordable in the years ahead.”
Employees Need to Trust Asset Information to Pinpoint and Fix Problems Quickly
To pinpoint and fix problems quickly, keep their operating costs low and maintain a strong safety record, Network Rail’s employees need to trust their mission-critical asset information, such as:
- What is the problem?
- Where is it?
- What equipment, tools and skills are needed to fix it?
- Who is closest to the problem that could fix it?
Difficult to Make Sense of Asset Information Scattered across Applications
Similar to many companies their size, Network Rail’s mission-critical asset information was scattered across many applications, which made it difficult for employees to make sense of asset information and the interaction between assets.
The asset information team recognized the limitations of employees depending on an application-centric view of their business. To operate more efficiently and effectively, they needed clean asset information, consistent asset information, and connected asset information.
Investing in Rail Infrastructure AND the Information Infrastructure to Support It
Network Rail now uses a combination of data integration, data quality, and master data management (MDM) to manage their mission-critical asset information in a central location on an ongoing basis, to:
- make sense of asset information,
- understand the relationships between assets, and
- track changes to asset information.
In a news release, Patrick Bossert Director of Network Rail’s Asset Information services business said, “With more accurate and reliable information about assets and their condition our team can make better business decisions, enable innovation in our asset management policy, planning and execution, and improve rail-system-wide investment decisions that benefit the rail industry as a whole.”
If you work for a company that revolves around mission-critical asset information, ask yourself these questions:
- Can our employees makes sense of our asset information?
- Can they easily see relationships between assets and how they interact?
- Can they see the history of changes to asset information over time?
Or are are they limited by an application-centric view of the business because asset information is scattered across in multiple systems?
Have a similar story about how you are managing your mission-critical asset information? Please share it in the comments below.
As I continue to counsel insurers about master data, they all agree immediately that it is something they need to get their hands around fast. If you ask participants in a workshop at any carrier; no matter if life, p&c, health or excess, they all raise their hands when I ask, “Do you have broadband bundle at home for internet, voice and TV as well as wireless voice and data?”, followed by “Would you want your company to be the insurance version of this?”
Now let me be clear; while communication service providers offer very sophisticated bundles, they are also still grappling with a comprehensive view of a client across all services (data, voice, text, residential, business, international, TV, mobile, etc.) each of their touch points (website, call center, local store). They are also miles away of including any sort of meaningful network data (jitter, dropped calls, failed call setups, etc.)
Similarly, my insurance investigations typically touch most of the frontline consumer (business and personal) contact points including agencies, marketing (incl. CEM & VOC) and the service center. On all these we typically see a significant lack of productivity given that policy, billing, payments and claims systems are service line specific, while supporting functions from developing leads and underwriting to claims adjucation often handle more than one type of claim.
This lack of performance is worsened even more by the fact that campaigns have sub-optimal campaign response and conversion rates. As touchpoint-enabling CRM applications also suffer from a lack of complete or consistent contact preference information, interactions may violate local privacy regulations. In addition, service centers may capture leads only to log them into a black box AS400 policy system to disappear.
Here again we often hear that the fix could just happen by scrubbing data before it goes into the data warehouse. However, the data typically does not sync back to the source systems so any interaction with a client via chat, phone or face-to-face will not have real time, accurate information to execute a flawless transaction.
On the insurance IT side we also see enormous overhead; from scrubbing every database from source via staging to the analytical reporting environment every month or quarter to one-off clean up projects for the next acquired book-of-business. For a mid-sized, regional carrier (ca. $6B net premiums written) we find an average of $13.1 million in annual benefits from a central customer hub. This figure results in a ROI of between 600-900% depending on requirement complexity, distribution model, IT infrastructure and service lines. This number includes some baseline revenue improvements, productivity gains and cost avoidance as well as reduction.
On the health insurance side, my clients have complained about regional data sources contributing incomplete (often driven by local process & law) and incorrect data (name, address, etc.) to untrusted reports from membership, claims and sales data warehouses. This makes budgeting of such items like medical advice lines staffed by nurses, sales compensation planning and even identifying high-risk members (now driven by the Affordable Care Act) a true mission impossible, which makes the life of the pricing teams challenging.
Over in the life insurers category, whole and universal life plans now encounter a situation where high value clients first faced lower than expected yields due to the low interest rate environment on top of front-loaded fees as well as the front loading of the cost of the term component. Now, as bonds are forecast to decrease in value in the near future, publicly traded carriers will likely be forced to sell bonds before maturity to make good on term life commitments and whole life minimum yield commitments to keep policies in force.
This means that insurers need a full profile of clients as they experience life changes like a move, loss of job, a promotion or birth. Such changes require the proper mitigation strategy, which can be employed to protect a baseline of coverage in order to maintain or improve the premium. This can range from splitting term from whole life to using managed investment portfolio yields to temporarily pad premium shortfalls.
Overall, without a true, timely and complete picture of a client and his/her personal and professional relationships over time and what strategies were presented, considered appealing and ultimately put in force, how will margins improve? Surely, social media data can help here but it should be a second step after mastering what is available in-house already. What are some of your experiences how carriers have tried to collect and use core customer data?
Recommendations and illustrations contained in this post are estimates only and are based entirely upon information provided by the prospective customer and on our observations. While we believe our recommendations and estimates to be sound, the degree of success achieved by the prospective customer is dependent upon a variety of factors, many of which are not under Informatica’s control and nothing in this post shall be relied upon as representative of the degree of success that may, in fact, be realized and no warrantee or representation of success, either express or implied, is made.
That tag line got your attention – did it not? Last week I talked about how companies are trying to squeeze more value out of their asset data (e.g. equipment of any kind) and the systems that house it. I also highlighted the fact that IT departments in many companies with physical asset-heavy business models have tried (and often failed) to create a consistent view of asset data in a new ERP or data warehouse application. These environments are neither equipped to deal with all life cycle aspects of asset information, nor are they fixing the root of the data problem in the sources, i.e. where the stuff is and what it look like. It is like a teenager whose parents have spent thousands of dollars on buying him the latest garments but he always wears the same three outfits because he cannot find the other ones in the pile he hoardes under her bed. And now they bought him a smart phone to fix it. So before you buy him the next black designer shirt, maybe it would be good to find out how many of the same designer shirts he already has, what state they are in and where they are.
Recently, I had the chance to work on a like problem with a large overseas oil & gas company and a North American utility. Both are by definition asset heavy, very conservative in their business practices, highly regulated, very much dependent on outside market forces such as the oil price and geographically very dispersed; and thus, by default a classic system integration spaghetti dish.
My challenge was to find out where the biggest opportunities were in terms of harnessing data for financial benefit.
The initial sense in oil & gas was that most of the financial opportunity hidden in asset data was in G&G (geophysical & geological) and the least on the retail side (lubricants and gas for sale at operated gas stations). On the utility side, the go to area for opportunity appeared to be maintenance operations. Let’s say that I was about right with these assertions but that there were a lot more skeletons in the closet with diamond rings on their fingers than I anticipated.
After talking extensively with a number of department heads in the oil company; starting with the IT folks running half of the 400 G&G applications, the ERP instances (turns out there were 5, not 1) and the data warehouses (3), I queried the people in charge of lubricant and crude plant operations, hydrocarbon trading, finance (tax, insurance, treasury) as well as supply chain, production management, land management and HSE (health, safety, environmental).
The net-net was that the production management people said that there is no issue as they already cleaned up the ERP instance around customer and asset (well) information. The supply chain folks also indicated that they have used another vendor’s MDM application to clean up their vendor data, which funnily enough was not put back into the procurement system responsible for ordering parts. The data warehouse/BI team was comfortable that they cleaned up any information for supply chain, production and finance reports before dimension and fact tables were populated for any data marts.
All of this was pretty much a series of denial sessions on your 12-step road to recovery as the IT folks had very little interaction with the business to get any sense of how relevant, correct, timely and useful these actions are for the end consumer of the information. They also had to run and adjust fixes every month or quarter as source systems changed, new legislation dictated adjustments and new executive guidelines were announced.
While every department tried to run semi-automated and monthly clean up jobs with scripts and some off-the-shelve software to fix their particular situation, the corporate (holding) company and any downstream consumers had no consistency to make sensible decisions on where and how to invest without throwing another legion of bodies (by now over 100 FTEs in total) at the same problem.
So at every stage of the data flow from sources to the ERP to the operational BI and lastly the finance BI environment, people repeated the same tasks: profile, understand, move, aggregate, enrich, format and load.
Despite the departmental clean-up efforts, areas like production operations did not know with certainty (even after their clean up) how many well heads and bores they had, where they were downhole and who changed a characteristic as mundane as the well name last and why (governance, location match).
Marketing (Trading) was surprisingly open about their issues. They could not process incoming, anchored crude shipments into inventory or assess who the counterparty they sold to was owned by and what payment terms were appropriate given the credit or concentration risk associated (reference data, hierarchy mgmt.). As a consequence, operating cash accuracy was low despite ongoing improvements in the process and thus, incurred opportunity cost.
Operational assets like rig equipment had excess insurance coverage (location, operational data linkage) and fines paid to local governments for incorrectly filing or not renewing work visas was not returned for up to two years incurring opportunity cost (employee reference data).
A big chunk of savings was locked up in unplanned NPT (non-production time) because inconsistent, incorrect well data triggered incorrect maintenance intervals. Similarly, OEM specific DCS (drill control system) component software was lacking a central reference data store, which did not trigger alerts before components failed. If you add on top a lack of linkage of data served by thousands of sensors via well logs and Pi historians and their ever changing roll-up for operations and finance, the resulting chaos is complete.
One approach we employed around NPT improvements was to take the revenue from production figure from their 10k and combine it with the industry benchmark related to number of NPT days per 100 day of production (typically about 30% across avg depth on & offshore types). Then you overlay it with a benchmark (if they don’t know) how many of these NPT days were due to bad data, not equipment failure or alike, and just fix a portion of that, you are getting big numbers.
When I sat back and looked at all the potential it came to more than $200 million in savings over 5 years and this before any sensor data from rig equipment, like the myriad of siloed applications running within a drill control system, are integrated and leveraged via a Hadoop cluster to influence operational decisions like drill string configuration or asmyth.
Next time I’ll share some insight into the results of my most recent utility engagement but I would love to hear from you what your experience is in these two or other similar industries.
Recommendations contained in this post are estimates only and are based entirely upon information provided by the prospective customer and on our observations. While we believe our recommendations and estimates to be sound, the degree of success achieved by the prospective customer is dependent upon a variety of factors, many of which are not under Informatica’s control and nothing in this post shall be relied upon as representative of the degree of success that may, in fact, be realized and no warrantee or representation of success, either express or implied, is made.
The Physician Payments Sunshine Act shines a spotlight on the disorganized state of physician information, which is scattered across systems, often incomplete, inaccurate and inconsistent in most pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing companies.
According to the recent Wall Street Journal article Doctors Face New Scrutiny over Gifts, “Drug companies collectively pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fees and gifts to doctors every year. In 2012, Pfizer Inc., the biggest drug maker by sales, paid $173.2 million to U.S. health-care professionals.”
The Risks of Creating Reports with Inaccurate Physician Information
There are serious risks of filing inaccurate reports. Just imagine dealing with:
- An angry call from a physician who received a $25 meal, which was inaccurately reported as $250 or who reportedly, received a gift that actually went to someone with a similar name.
- Hefty fines and increased scrutiny from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Fines range from $1,000 to $10,000 for each transaction with a maximum penalty of maximum $1.15 million.
- Negative media attention. Reports will be available for anyone to access on a publicly accessible website.
How prepared are manufacturers to track and report physician payment information?
One of the major obstacles is getting a complete picture of the total payments made to one physician. Manufacturers need to know if Dr. Sriram Mennon and Dr. Sri Menon are one and the same.
On top of that, they need to understand the complicated connections between Dr. Sriram Menon, sales representatives’ expense report spreadsheets (T&E), marketing and R&D expenses, event data, and accounts payable data.
3 Steps to Ensure Physician Information is Accurate
In recent years, some pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical device manufacturers were required to respond to “Sunshine Act” type laws in states like California and Massachusetts. To simplify, automate and ensure physician payment reports are filed correctly and on time, they use an Aggregate Spend Repository or Physician Spend Management solution.
They also use these solutions to proactively track and review physician payments on a regular basis to ensure mandated thresholds are met before reports are due. Aggregate Spend Repository and Physician Spend Management solutions rely on a foundation of data integration, data quality, and master data management (MDM) software to better manage physician information.
For those manufacturers who want to avoid the risk of losing valuable physician relationships, paying hefty fines, and receiving scrutiny from CMS and negative media attention, here are three steps to ensure accurate physician information:
- Bring all your scattered physician information, including identifiers, addresses and specialties into a central place to fix incorrect, missing or inconsistent information and uniquely identify each physician.
- Identify connections between physicians and the hospitals and clinics where they work to help aggregate accurate payment information for each physician.
- Standardize transaction information so it’s easy to identify the purpose of payments and related products and link transaction information to physician information.
Physicians Will Review Reports for Accuracy in January 2014
In January 2014, after physicians review the federally mandated financial disclosures, they may question the accuracy of reported payments. Within two months manufacturers will need to fix any discrepancies and file their Sunshine Act reports, which will become part of a permanent archive. Time is precious for those companies who haven’t built an Aggregate Spend Repository or Physician Spend Management solution to drive their Sunshine Act compliance reports.
If you work for one of the pharmaceutical or medical device manufacturing companies already using an Aggregate Spend Repository or Physician Spend Management solution, please share your tips and tricks with others who are behind.
Tick tock, tick tock….
If the recent MDM and Data Governance Summit was any indication, Master Data Management is an extremely hot topic these days. The summit was highly successful, drawing over 400 attendees comprised of business users and architects of every stripe.
I want to highlight one presentation that spoke to me directly. Quintiles is a company you may remember if you went to Informatica World 2013. Quintiles provides biopharmaceutical development and commercial outsourcing services via a vast network of over 27,000 employees across the globe. At the summit, John Poonnen, Quintiles’ director of product engineering, told of the company’s journey to multidomain MDM, which was key to enabling a web-based platform for delivering real-time insights into patient, study, site, and program activities. Poonnen presented to an audience of over a hundred technology and business professionals. (more…)
Just in time for Halloween, I’m sharing a scary story. Warning: this is a true story. You may wonder:
- Could this happen to me?
- Can this situation be avoided?
- How can I prevent this from happening to me?
Last summer, the worst wildfire in Colorado history burned hundreds of acres, 360 homes, killing two people and forcing 38,000 people to evacuate the area.
Unfortunately, it was during the Colorado wildfire that a large integrated healthcare provider with hospitals, doctors, healthcare providers and employees located throughout the United States (who shall remain nameless) realized they had a problem. They couldn’t respond in real time to the disaster by mobilizing their workforce quickly. They struggled to identify, contact and communicate with doctors, healthcare providers and employees located at the disaster area to warn them not to go to the hospital or redirect them to alternative sites where they could help.
This healthcare provider’s inability to respond to this disaster in real time was an “Aha” moment. What was holding them back was a major information problem. Because their employee information was scattered across hundreds of systems, they couldn’t pull a single, comprehensive and accurate list of doctors, healthcare providers and employees in the disaster area. They didn’t know which employees needed to be evacuated or which could be sent to assist people in other locations. So, they had to email everyone in the company.
The good news is that we’re in the process of helping them create and maintain a central location called an “employee master” built on our data integration, data quality, and master data management (MDM) software. This will be their “go-to” place for an up-to-date, complete and accurate list of employees and their contact information, such as work email, phone, pager (doctors still use them), home phone and personal email as well as their location, so they know exactly who is working where and how best to contact them.
This healthcare provider will no longer be held back by an information problem. In three months, they’ll be able to respond to disasters in real time by mobilizing their workforce quickly.
An interesting side note: Immediately before our Informatica team of experts arrived to talk to this healthcare provider about how we can help them, there was a power outage in the building. They struggled to alert the employees who were impacted. So our team personally experienced the pain of this organization’s employee information problem.
When disaster strikes, will you be ready to respond in real time? Or do you have an information problem that could hold you back from mobilizing your own employees?
I want your opinion. Are you interested in more scary stories? Let me know in the comments below. I’m thinking about making this a regular series.