dq:view - Steve Tuck on Data Quality

dq:View has moved...

Hi folks,

Thanks to everyone that has been following dq:View, but I've now taken the decision to move the blog to Datanomic's corporate site. I hope you'll continue to follow my witterings at http://www.datanomic.com/category/resources/blog/ or via an appropriate feed; RSS or Atom.

You can also find me online on LinkedIn as http://www.linkedin.com/in/SteveTuck, on Plaxo as http://stevetuck.myplaxo.com and if you're into Twitter, you can follow my Tweets at http://twitter.com/SteveTuck.

All the best,

Steve

p.s. There are already 2 new entries for you to read on data quality related topics at http://www.datanomic.com/category/resources/blog/.

Trillium Software's Identity Crisis

They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery.  I thought someone was pulling my leg when I first heard about this, but it's true - Trillium Software is currently paying for an advertisement on Google, that uses one word only - Datanomic!  Why would such a well established data quality software vendor make such prominent use of a competitor's name?  And why has Trillium singled Datanomic out for this special treatment?  I'll let you make up your own mind about that.  Meanwhile, here's a screenshot I just grabbed that shows the advert.

---

---

Feel free to Google Datanomic and click on Trillium's link - it takes you to the registration page for a White Paper, but if you want the real Datanomic, simply go to www.datanomic.com.  And Kevin, well spotted but no, this doesn't mean that Datanomic has been acquired by Trillium Software!  LOL

Gone Away - The need for Patient Data Integration in the NHS

In my blog entry on 28th March (Lost in migration), I discussed the issues surrounding the migration of patient data at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre.  This is part of a national programme to bring together patient data from different NHS Trusts to provide a "single patient view".

Each trust has been given a timetable to complete a CRS Migration, moving data from their Care Record Systems (CRS) or Patient Administration Systems (PAS) to a central "spine".  The Nuffield got a lot of press attention because it was one of the first trusts to complete a migration and ,as an out-patient at the centre I took a personal interest in it.

The need for Patient Data Integration is obvious; of course every clinician I see should have a complete history of my health treatment.  But just how disconnected the present system is was brought home to me again recently, courtesy of a good old "Gone Away".

My consultant at the Nuffield has decided to refer me to another department, which is based at the John Radcliffe Hospital (also in Oxford) and duly sent a note through to the appropriate person.  Of course, the easiest way of identifying me in the NHS computer systems is by my NHS Number, so this was supplied.  Unfortunately though, the systems at the Nuffield and the JRH are disconnected, so my details are stored separately on each.  And, having not received treatment at the JRH for some years, they still had my old address - so that's where they sent my appointment.

Thankfully, the current occupiers of the property still had a copy of our forwarding address and the letter arrived just a few days later.  The impact in this case was minimal, but consider what happens if a treatment centre cannot identify a casualty because their computer system is disconnected and out of date.  The diligence of the health workers means that most cases are resolved, but it takes time, effort and yes, money to do so.  Joining up the hundreds of NHS computer systems will improve efficiency, but most of all it will improve patient care - that's why NPfIT, the National Programme for IT, needs to succeed.

dn:Director - a fresh approach to data quality

Why do so many organisations turn a blind-eye to data quality?  One thing for sure is that the legacy data quality software providers have done little to help address this crucial business issue by delivering products that require years of expertise to successfully leverage all of the functionality available (and, just as importantly, to know when to use something else instead).  After a dozen years of working in the field, and having built a highly profitable consultancy business to help clients address this short-fall, I decided a year or so ago to join Datanomic.  I'm delighted to say that, last month, we celebrated the launch of dn:Director, a data quality product that is setting new standards for data quality management in the 21st Century.

I've been privileged to work on data quality projects with many leading, blue-chip companies over the years, but one of the things that struck me was that I was being asked the same questions by clients in 2004 as I was asking myself more than a decade earlier; they were identifying the same old deficiencies in data quality products and having to employ the same workarounds to resolve them.  Sure, the vendors have done something to smarten up the look of their software, but, under the covers sits essentially the same code that was initially developed for mail-room efficiency in the 1980's.

Two more things struck me:

1. All of the software vendors talked about delivering a tool for "business users" but the reality was that just about every project relied on the IT department to develop the business rules.
2. Because of the complexity of using the software to good effect, the cost and duration of projects was prohibitive; the reason I was working with so many blue-chip companies was that they were the only ones that could afford to undertake such major projects!

These were the things that motivated me to create Tranato and subsequently to join Datanomic in 2005 and bring together the two technologies under a shared approach.  Put simply, we feel that a data quality product needs to be much more accessible - you shouldn't need to be a software guru to get value from it.

dn:Director is the result of many years experience in data quality and data management; not just my own, but that of people like Gerry Kelley (Datanomic's VP of Professional Services) and his team, and the shared experiences of our clients and partners.  Taking Datanomic's approach (The Four Cornerstones) and methodology as its foundations, dn:Director has been built from the ground up, using the best-available modern technology.

Developing dn:Director in Java and using standards-based interfaces (such as JDBC, JMS and XML) has enabled us to deliver a technically advanced and extensible data quality product that supports both batch and real-time processes (providing data quality services through SOA).  But the thing that everybody notices first is just how easy it is to use - you should hear what out customers and partners have had to say about it:

"This is great - it's so easy understand and configure business rules"

"I love the way that you can build rules from the data - it's so quick and intuitive"

"This will halve the time it takes to deliver a project"

For more information visit Datanomic's website or call on +44 (0)1223 228400.

Note: I know this is very commercial for a blog entry, but given the amount of personal time, energy (and money) I've committed to making dn:Director a success, I hope you'll forgive me.

Lost in migration

Another failing government IT project made the headlines earlier this month, appearing in the mainstream (The Telegraph) and IT (Computing) press, but this one caught my eye for some rather personal reasons.  The project in question is the migration of patient records at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in Oxford - and the headline in The Telegraph, Hospital computer system may 'lose' patients, particularly worried me - you see I'm an outpatient at the centre.

The Nuffield was the first hospital to go live with the new NHS patient records computer system as part of the NPfIT programme, but it experienced so many problems that it issued a "serious untoward incident" report, amid fears for patient safety.  This could involve patients being "lost" from waiting lists or being called in for treatment, so it was a great relief to me today that the receptionists at the Nuffield were expecting me when I attended an appointment.

The project went live just before Christmas, even though the validation and migration of data were incomplete.  A report to Nuffield's board on 6th March described the issues resulting from the data migration as "critical", but this is only one of a long list of failings in this project: staff reported that, "Major configuration and software problems led to significant operational disruption, and potential risk to patient safety, business continuity, staff morale, and public and patient confidence."

I'm pleased to report that I saw no evidence of these problems at the hospital today.  I did spot two examples of poor data quality during my visit though: the first was the clock on the parking meter that was an hour fast (following the start of British Summer Time at the weekend); the second was the age old challenge of a doctor's handwriting causing the radiologist to call my doctor to confirm what x-rays she required.

I'm equally pleased to say that the company I work for, Datanomic, is providing tools and expertise  to help NHS trusts successfully migrate their data from legacy Patient Administration Systems to the Local Service Providers and the "Spine".  If you'd like to learn more about this, visit Datanomic here.

User error

When The Data Warehousing Institute asked in a survey "where does dirty data come from?" the main cause cited was sloppy data entry.  But my experience is that it's sometimes unfair to blame the users; let me give you an example.

I was asked to look at some problem addresses for a UK-based client's data migration project.  The dodgy records were coming from the company's CRM system and the users entering the data were being blamed for the poor quality.  When I looked at the data, I spotted a trend - all of the information was there, just in the wrong order, so I asked to see the data entry screen.

I talked to some of the data entry staff, and watched them enter some new customer records.  Every record they entered looked fine; the addresses on the screen read perfectly.  The problem was the screen layout and the fields that they we putting the address into.

For some reason best known to the CRM system vendor, the address was represented as low-level elements, which appeared on the screen in a 2-column tabular format.  The data entry staff have no idea what a dependant thoroughfare or a double dependent locality are, so they simply entered the address as they would expect to see it on an envelope, using the fields in the left-hand column.

The problem was compounded by the fact that the fields weren't in the order that they occur in a correctly formatted address.  During the migration, the addresses were rebuilt, but this time they followed the Royal Mail's standards, in short the address was put back together in a different order.

So who should we blame for these data quality issues?  Should we put it down to "user error" or should be look to the people responsible for the poorly thought through, and over-engineered CRM system?