 Hello and welcome. My name is Shannon Kemp and I'm the executive editor of Data Diversity. We would like to thank you for joining this month's Summit of Monthly Data Diversity Webinar Series, CDO Vision. This series is designed to give you around education on data strategy topics in addition to our annual face-to-face CDO Vision event. We're already well underway for planning next year's event to be held in Atlanta, Georgia. In fact, we've got a call for presentations out right now, if anyone, that's extended through tomorrow. This month in the webinar series, John Lyle and Kelly O'Neill will discuss data governance and EIM, taking the scary stuff out of your programs. Just a couple of points to get us started. Due to the large number of people that attend these sessions, you will be muted during the webinar. For questions, we'll be collecting them by the Q&A in the bottom right-hand corner of your screen. Or if you'd like to tweet, we encourage you to share how it's a question by Twitter using hashtag CDO Vision. As always, we'll send a follow-up email within two business days containing links to the slides. The recording of this session and additional information requested throughout the webinar. Now, let me introduce our speakers for today. Well-known industry analyst John Lyle is a business technology thought leader and recognized authority in all aspects of enterprise information management. With 30 years experience in planning, project management, improving IT organizations, and successful implementation of information systems. He is the president and chief delivery officer at Perth San Francisco Partners. As well as Kelly O'Neill, Kelly is the founder and CEO of Perth San Francisco Partners. Having worked with the software and system providers key to the formulation of enterprise information management, Kelly has played important roles in many of the groundbreaking initiatives that confirm the value of EIM to the enterprise. Recognizing an met need for clear guidance and advice on intricacies of implementing EIM solutions, she founded Perth San Francisco Partners in early 2007. And with that, I will turn it over to John and Kelly to get today's webinar started. Hello and welcome. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Shannon and John here and Kelly over there. And we're going to have a little fun today with some serious topics because sometimes you have to have fun with this stuff. So we're going to kind of follow the October theme here. And while we're here, and the reason, well, while not while we're here, but why are we here? And we're going to talk about some of those things that motivate people to do things that aren't quite beneficial to EIM programs, data governance programs, analytics, MDM, data quality, whatever, all of those. We all, probably all of us listening probably have some sense of where things with messages can't get across, why there's hesitancy, why there's delays, and there's a lot of time. And Kelly, you can echo a lot of our questions after a session at a conference are based on, how do I get someone to listen? They won't do this, they won't do that. And we're going to kind of dive into that in a life-hearted way today, but hopefully with some good serious advice for those of you that are brave enough to stay with us during this almost terrifying webinar and learn some coping skills. Most of this is induced by fear. Two basic human emotions, if you talk to a psychiatrist and psychologist, and that is love and fear. And fear does motivate us, even though we don't quite know it is fear. And we're going to use that theme here today. And Kelly and I are going to go back and forth and tag team on things. We have a list of scary things, and it's not the spiders and the pumpkins and the hands and all of that, but it's just some topics. I'm not going to read them all. They're there for you to look at when you found those or whatever. But it goes across a bunch of scenarios, a bunch of things people say, and we're going to look at what those fears that come in that topic are, and then we're going to look at what some of the responses you could have. Along the way, we're going to see a lot of Halloween scary things. And for absolutely no prize whatsoever other than our acknowledging you during the Q&A session, if you can guess the media or source of the picture we're putting up there, then you might be able to embrace 2.4 seconds of fame here on this webinar. So pay close attention and have your fingers ready to ask us questions and submit some things. So the first one here is failure is not an option. In fact, for most of us we have to acknowledge it is inevitable. Kelly, these things don't go perfectly smooth right off the gate, do they? Certainly not. And I think that this idea of being prepared to fail and it be okay is, like you said, it's inevitable and should be planned for. That's right. So when the poor soul here in the picture did pick out the brain from a Mr. A, B, and normal, there was certain chastising going on, but he didn't get fired because as far as I would know, he was in the rest of the movie. Some things you might hear on this is I need to focus on my area. This is distracting. I don't have time. It's never worked before. One thing I heard very recently which I really enjoyed was our data. It's like the weather around here. We get the first number and we ignore it because we know it's going to change tomorrow. Those are signs of people not being particularly enthused or engaged, but to Kelly's point is there should be no penalties. Tell people either the people you're working with, your stakeholders, employees, whatever. You're using predictive models, you're using analytics. You know what? The first ones are going to require adjusting. You're using data quality program. Those first profiles are going to show ugly stuff and you might realize that the profiles are maybe overstating data quality problems or something like that. You have to be aware or ask for a little bit of leeway when these first two things happen. For example, if you're rolling out a policy and the policy doesn't quite sit well with the organization, then nobody should feel like they're going to get fired over that. Just make some adjustments. If you're going to do data standards and they're a bit too harsh, which they tend to be initially, you should have the leeway to adjust those. You don't want people to say that it's not going to work. It's going to fail, so we're just not going to engage. We're not going to participate. Anything to add to that one, Kelly? I think that this is one of the topics that we've touched on in a variety of different ways throughout the year. The idea is that with a new initiative comes change. With change comes trying and sometimes failing. This thought process of an initial launch that is really enthusiastic, lots of dedication, lots of resources, executive sponsorship, et cetera. And then as the work starts to happen, things might fail and things might go wrong. And so then as people start to get discouraged, they fall into what we call the trough of disillusionment. And that trough of disillusionment many times is where programs get abandoned, as opposed to understanding that that trough inevitably occurs in any sort of change cycle. And the idea is to pick up on those learnings from the failures to move out of the trough of disillusionment so that you ultimately come out on the other side with a stronger program, stronger success, better understanding of your data, et cetera. So this is, I'm glad that this is the first one, because to me that's a really good and important thing is understanding that failure will occur and it's actually an opportunity to learn in a positive thing. Absolutely. And by the way, the winner of Absolutely Nothing for the first panel was Todd, who successfully identified this as a scene from Young Frankenstein or Frankenstein, because that's how it's really pronounced. The answer has already come in from the second slide. Oh my gosh. Now we know how to get them to pay attention, Kelly. Okay. Award here. All right. Crazy scenarios. There's a spirit where we hear, boy, we see this a lot. Things headed in different directions. Did we miss one? I think we missed one. Did we miss one? Can you go back one? Yeah. Did we miss one? There we are. This is another one of my favorites. There is a ghost. There is a ghost here in my presentation because let's get this slide. So we have a poltergeist. Okay. Consequences of mistakes. So not only do you have people thinking you're going to fail and you have to allow for that, it's your own personal fears. You've never done this before. We're drinking out of a fire hose with this effort. There's too many moving parts. We have this roadmap from this consultancy that brought us this with 10 million things to do. We can never get caught up in all of that. Here's some things we tell folks. Neither has a lot of other people. You're not alone with this. These things can be overwhelming. Data governance especially, there is a tendency for folks to realize this was a lot more work than I thought it was going to be. And that is a great maturing moment right there. The other thing, a lot of people forget this. Kelly, I don't know why. We took over 30 years plus for some of these systems to get to this point with data. And you're not going to fix it in one or two. We've seen some CDOs in the last few years move on from their jobs because they didn't work miracles in the 18 months they were given to work miracles. And that's frankly unfair to the chief data officer. And then lastly, prioritization is a core business function. You're supposed to prioritize things. Do what helps the business earlier. So, you know, slice this thing up. We're going to talk more about slices in a little bit. But do what's important first, right, Kelly? Absolutely. I think everyone prioritizes in their job. I haven't talked to anybody who's not feeling like they're overworked or too busy. That's the nature of the world we live in now. So regardless of whether it's EIM or any other aspect of the business, prioritization is a requirement. Absolutely. And the winner of absolutely nothing on this slide is Wayne, who has once again young Frankenstein and Gene Wilder, the late grade Gene Wilder as featured on here. And he's saying at this point in time it's alive, right? So now let's go to this other slide, which someone has already got the correct answer for. Who doesn't have, Kelly, who doesn't have a whole bunch of stuff going on that seem to be disparate areas in the EIM world, but nobody's talking to each other, right? That's right. Yeah. So this is manifested by, you know, there's the MDM program over there, and then the analytics program, and you've got a consulting firm X and IT working here and consulting firm Y and the business area working over here, and they've never talked to each other. You've got IT doing something for a business unit, and the business isn't paying attention, because they don't want to talk to IT. They, because they don't like them. Or you have the executive vice president getting everything they want, the squeaky wheel has been greased, and they have their consultants in there, and it's a darling effort, and there's been no balance or business alignment done, but it's out there banging away anyway. And the scary part is, and we're talking about scary things today, is all three of these can be happening at the same time, right? That's the real scary part. Kelly, I'm up about, maybe I can count maybe on two hands, but I'm somewhere between five and 10 big organizations in the last four years, I've talked to, that are doing exactly this. Three things headed in different directions, and it's all the same discipline. And I think the irony is that many times they know that they're headed in different directions, and it's difficult to break down those walls in between groups that have accountability for a program and what is an enterprise accountability. And if someone's given the requirement to execute a program many times, especially in the form of master data management, people associate it really tightly with a project, then they go off because they've got a time commitment, a budget commitment, et cetera, and their incentive and potentially a bonus is based on the successful delivery, as opposed to an integrated delivery approach based on the fact that the data is being used also in the analytics program, also in the data governance and data quality program. So I think that organizations actually set up these silos and these walls sometimes purposefully, which is scary. It's scary, and we're talking about scary things. The other scary thing is I have had conversations and interviews with EVPs and VPs, and I said, yes, I know this is going on over there, but what can I do about it? I've told them we really should do something more integrated, and they go, no, or some of the other excuses we're going to see here in a little while. That's where we come up with our remedy, which is, and this is a real simple one step. What we've talked about this during the year is technical debt and data debt. We don't need to go into it now and listen to our metrics presentation we did a few months ago or just sent us an email, whatever. You can measure the amount of technical and data debt you are accruing by doing this. It is not that hard to measure it nowadays, and if you show that number to somebody and they do ignore it, then the illness is on them because you show them a pretty scary, scary number, and we're talking about scary stuff today. The winner is Maxine on that slide, who nailed this one within a nanosecond of the slide coming up, so there we go. That's pretty good. And of course, that's McCauley where the heck is he now? Culkin as the actor in that role. Moving on, let's see if the ghost doesn't get us, and we can go from six to seven. Yes, we can. There we go. Again, different directions. You want to go an easier way, but you're going to create long-term havoc, but something is politically expedient to do it that way, so we will get, again, we're going to coordinate different data governance efforts. Or our MDM project is dependent on data governance, and we're going to do the data governance, so it'll be standalone. Or if someone says, you know, why rent to a conference and data lakes are great because the data volumes remove the need for data quality or data governance, that means they were just letting someone spelling a product. And so they make a pronouncement and go down the wrong direction at will. So this is similar to the prior slide, but they're mentioning all three together, and again, it's the same solution, add up the technical depth. Anything to add to that, Kelly? Kind of a similar thing, the last one. That's another idea. I just think this idea, and whether it is owned by governance or maybe it's owned by the EIM program, but the idea of adding up the technical depth and the data depth, I think, is going to flow throughout all of these scary statements, and nobody in the organization has that on their title, but it might be something to consider as owners of these programs to keep your own little cheat sheet of what you think the implications are going to be of some of these decisions, because it really can add up quite significantly over time and without recognition. So it's a great concept. Absolutely, and the other remedy, because everyone's wondering, gee, where's our scary picture? The other piece of advice is don't hide behind the chainsaws. Now let's see how fast it takes for someone to get this one right while I move ahead. This was one of my favorite things I saw on television last year. And we got an answer, and it is incorrect. So we're going to let that one percolate a while. Everyone take a good look at that picture, and we will move on. But one last piece of advice, when there's lots of nasty things going on, don't hide behind the chainsaws. See, that's important. That's valuable advice today, right, Kelly? I mean, where else are you going to hear that, to not hide behind the chainsaws in a data management forum here? Okay. Us versus them. And when I was looking, you know, for the pictures here, I wanted to get, you know, what is weird, and nothing defines weirds for, there we go, the Adam's family. And that's Gail and Sue. Got those literally simultaneously here. And someone, Maxine, just got the last one, it is from a GEICO commercial that aired last year. IT has a poor reputation. Data management has a poor reputation. Or worse, other strategic benedicts can do that, but they're weird and I don't want to do what they're doing. So you're like that weird neighbor, the Adam's family, and you can't either afraid to go outside or afraid to be seen in public. Now, the remedies here are, call a truce, all right? First of all, IT is not out there deliberately to mess with business people, nor is the opposite true. Things have evolved to get where they are. At some point you have to say, look, let's move forward together. Everyone needs to do some sort of data management in this world. There is no such thing as doing business without data management now. There's no such thing as being a regulated business without having data governance now. You know, embrace that. There's no longer an option. Someone has to deal with that. You know, the Adam's family had some neighbors that didn't like them. You know what, they moved in, they bought the house, and they decorated it kind of weird. But you know what, you're stuck with it. You've got to move on. You've got to live with it, right? Absolutely, absolutely. And the blending across all of these different organizational boundaries, it's no longer in us versus them in any stretch. I think people are starting to see that. I think that's the good news. That is the good news. That is the good news. And several people, again, like I said, Sue and Gail simultaneously. I guess the Adam's family there, of course, that's the TV version that was on when I was a little shaver. And everyone who watched it growing up now has that stupid theme song in the stuck in their head snapping their fingers as we speak. Unfortunately, I can't do the music through this facility or we would be stinging it together. We're going to move our picture ahead a little bit here, the cartoons of the 80s. And we're talking about fear. Rupro, it's too severe. We just can't take this risk. We can't mitigate the risk. It's too scary. You know, data governance does equal change. So does predictive analytics. So is MDM. So is all of this. We also hear it's too busy to get it. We don't have time to absorb it, things like that. A couple of ways to get around this one. And I know you've got thoughts on this one, Kelly, because we've had some interesting clients in the last two or three years of various degrees of resistance that have been exhibited. Yet the perception of change and impact independently assessed. Okay. And someone come in and has lots of firms that do change impact analysis. They'll say this isn't a big deal. This is a seed change, but this is how you need to deal with it. Urging folks that this is a long-term proposition. You hear people complain that we're always thinking tactically. We're always thinking tactically. Always well-hanging. Well, guess what? This stuff is long-term. You finally got what you asked for. And remember, you know, Grandma said, you know, be careful what you ask for. You might get it. A lot of folks we work with are actually getting the onus of starting up a long-term seed change of a business program. And it's kind of scary. It never did it before. There are remedies, like just do core data elements first, do core metrics first, go a domain at a time. We've talked about all these rollout options before. There's all kind of ways to lessen the impact and not make it severe. But, you know, again, it's a source of fear, but there are ways around it. The fact that the fears themselves, those statements are unfounded. In fact, it does equal a change, but, you know, nothing worth doing right is going to be no change, right? Anything to add to that, Kelly, before I move on? Well, I think in our day and age, the impact of doing nothing is more severe than the impact of getting started. And so if you're thinking about the assessing an impact, that would be a perspective that I think would be extraordinarily meaningful. And, John, like you said, it doesn't need to be Big Bang. It doesn't need to be a big program. The idea is that you start by doing something that's small, meaningful, and impactful, and grow from there. So I think sometimes, and, you know, I feel like sometimes we're guilty of creating this impression at the conferences and all of that, that it is, you know, that there's a lot to it. It's a big program. You know, we've got all these frameworks, right, that are so comprehensive, et cetera. But the implementation can be bit by bit. And over time, it grows. It's, you know, it's planting one flower in the field. And after a while, you've got a field of a thousand different flowers. So that is the way of making the impact, as opposed to waiting and seeing what the impact is if you do nothing. Yep, yep. One other bit of a remedy before we move on here and don't forget the Scooby Snacks. Right? This one was really easy. A lot of correct answers. This was like, so we're going to make this one a little bit harder. Name the character on the far left of the picture. All right. And also name the personality or actor who provided the voice of that character. And we'll see how, what kind of trivia knowledge we have out there in the area of cartoons. There's some rapid Googling happening right now. Bang, yes. There's people that, yeah. So it's, there we go. We had three people, Noelle and Todd and Gideon. I'll guess that that shaggy is the character and Casey Kasem, the greatest jockey in the American top 40, was the voice of shaggy. Oh, very, very good. Oh, another problem. This is such a smart group here. Well, they're already snapping in names to the next one and I haven't even answered the question. Good. But I got a twist for you folks that are typing furiously right now. Just wait till the end of this slide. All right. Another monolithic strategy. Boy, have we heard that. Oh, this is just like dot, dot, dot. Insert your expired program here, right? All right. There's something else that we see here when people say we're not going to do a big bang. We're not going to get into that. We're going to be incremental because we're not going to do it like that other thing we did. That was a big bang. And then we start to look at road maps and how things are rolling out and do assessment of current programs. And what we find inevitably is without conscious effort, people are sneaking towards a big bang. We just recently, not where I'm sitting now, but with another client recently, looked at everything. I said, do you realize you've crafted a big bang here for yourselves? Oh, no, it's incremental. We incremental are doing four different work tracks and they all get implemented on the same day. No, that's a big bang, okay? And a lot of people will think it has to be centralized and people don't consider, even with all the literature that's out there, that federation is really, really important. So the remedy here, you know what, we've learned a lot in the last five to 10 years about these types of projects. These things are becoming more and more successful and you're going to see stuff from us coming up next year that we're getting ready for of success stories and the ads, the more and more analytics success stories, the governance success stories, they are adding up like crazy right now. So no, folks, this stuff can work and you need to convey that to people. You need to create value, though. You need to show value. It's not just putting in the tool. Putting in the tool and getting the tool it up is not success. You need to show business value. And the last thing is a lot of us have strategies out there and they go, why don't we implement our roadmap that the consulting firm did? Well, because you don't know how to execute and no one bothered to learn how to execute on a roadmap. And it's a useless vehicle unless someone has told you how to take action on it. So that is the other remedy. Before we wrap up here, Kelly, anything to add on this? Yeah, I think just a couple of things. I think one is we've learned a ton as an industry. I think the other thing is if you hear a comparison, it's just like this other failed program, that's a learning opportunity as well. Why did it fail? What were the challenges? How can we prevent it from happening again? What can we learn from it? Again, failure is going to occur. So how can we learn from that failure rather than repeating it? So I think that that's one thing. And I think the other thing is in terms of tying it to a strategy, it can't be an isolated strategy. It needs to be tied back to the core strategy of the business. So if there's not a clear link between the data strategy or the information strategy and the business strategy, then people will start to lose interest over time. They won't have the stamina to make it through the trough of disillusionment. And they won't necessarily see that the resources that are being requested are meaningful and will have an impact on the way that they're taking their business anyway. So for example, moving from a B2B business to a B2C business, a lot of companies that have traditionally sold through distributorships are trying to create a relationship with the customer directly. It's happening in every industry. We've got a client who's looking at that right now. And that is a corporate strategy. And that has a huge information and data impact. Therefore, everything that should be done should tie back to the execution of that corporate strategy. And thus, your information strategy is your corporate strategy and vice versa. Oh, I guess that's another remedy here, that if you are in a program that's languishing now as governance analytics or whatever and you can't get the engagement and all that and you have a nice roadmap, try to say we are doing these for trying to do these types of data governance activities or MDM activities or data quality, whatever. And what business strategy, what bottom line balance sheet and income statement results might we be helping with our activity? If you can't answer that, you haven't done alignment as alignment should be viewed. If we just recently looked at another roadmap done by a different firm and we were just asked to do a review and it was a fine, fine document. It was hefty and had lots of great pictures in it and roadmap and it was very detailed and it was actually pretty good quality work except it was missing one thing and that was all this activity that's being done. What's it for? And I suggest ask whoever did this for you what is the intent behind it and they went, well, you're going to use this and do your business things. Well, why isn't that in there? Why don't you have content to show that to people? I said, well, you know, the organization is based on these two principles where we're wonderful with our customer and we're super efficient, most competitive price type stuff. We go, that's awesome, but if you are that, what do you want to, what's it look like next year? What does being customer intimate look like next year? What's the goal? What's the target that you're trying to hit? How does it tie that together? So they had a pretty decent strategy, they had a pretty decent roadmap, no way that's going to stick, no way that's going to stick. You've got to be careful who you ask for help from. Now, this particular character on this slide, everyone we've had, let's see, we have Maxine, Michelin and Wayne have correctly identified Michael Keaton and the movie Beetlejuice, but here is our little twist. I don't say Beetlejuice three times or you are on your own, right, if you remember the movie, but notice how I spelled that. This is pronounced Beetlejuice by those that are in the hobby, but it also represents something else. What does that represent? And we'll see if anyone is, and then what is the correct pronunciation for sure? Oh, there we go. Todd is on fire. So is Jill. I'm waiting for the pronunciation. We'll keep going here and see if anyone can phonetically spell it and go from there. We're going to have to wait, open it up for Q&A because everybody else is on mute. I thought about asking to unmute everybody today, but I would have been a bit chaotic. This next one is kind of, it's scary because people act like this. We're having fun today, but this is kind of scary. All right, we got the answer correct. The last one, the word I put up there is a binary star system, which we call Beetlejuice in the astronomy hobby world, but the correct pronunciation is Betelgas. But when I hear Beetlejuice, you think of, if you have a telescope, you think of the star formation. All right, so this thing here, hiding the truth versus being honest. Has anyone out there in a listener land done a data quality work or looked at some accuracy of some data and said, boy, this is really awful? And then heard, well, we can't tell anyone it's that awful. We'll get blamed for doing it. That's not really the honest approach, right? So people polish their results or someone's resistance. We're supposed to, you know, put using that access database. We now have a really, really good source of analytics here. You don't need to do access anymore. And that person says, well, I really like this. I'm comfortable with it. It more or less is what you've got. So I really am just going to go ahead and use it. And someone says, well, leave that person alone because he's worked here for 30 years or something. That's not honest. That's not honoring the work that's been done. People say do change management later. Don't honor the organization impact. That's a real common tactic and that's not an honest approach either. You're saying that people won't be affected or they will just romp into the new world without any help. You know, essentially any time you hide the truth or hide the difficulty or anything that you're doing, you're organization and disturbances. So what's happened with fear here? Again, we're talking about scary stuff. The fear here is that you're going to say something and get blamed or get in trouble or get censured in some way. And that's not a healthy environment. To get away from that, communicate until they're sick of hearing about it. I tell this to people all the time. Kelly tells us to people all the time. We look at communication plans we do for people and they're not executing them. You must do all of those communication events and you do them over and over and I had one vice president tell me we communicated until they threw up. Now that's a bit colorful, maybe an exaggeration, but that surely gets the point across, that that is how much they had to communicate and then the light bulb went on. It's not easy. It requires some conscious effort but the payoffs are huge by being honest, admitting to the amount of work that has to be done so then you can do it incrementally and then communicate about it. What's different? What's new? How are we doing this? Over-communicate. Over-communicate. Over-communicate. So there we're going out. Kelly, we're going to weigh in on that one a little bit here. We just have a few slides left actually so we've got plenty of time for Q&A here today. Yeah, absolutely. I think there's a couple of things. This slide to me is really what calls out a lot of organizational fear and its fear of exposing the fact that people spend a lot of time fixing the data and remediating the data and weekends and nights and they don't want to admit to their management that they are spending all of this time because management doesn't know and if they found out they would be appalled. We've gone into many organizations where if you ask an EVP or a senior person, tell us how data quality negatively impacts your business. They'll say, well, we have no data quality problems. Our data quality is fine. And the more you drill into that and the more you speak with the people who actually work with the data, we ask the same question, tell me how data quality negatively impacts your business and the people who work with the data start to fidget and look sideways and look up and see if their neighbor's going to speak first, et cetera, et cetera. And I think the reality is is nobody wants to admit how much time is spent fixing data because management thinks that the data is fine. I can't remember which of the webinars that we've talked about, spoke about this topic, but they think you're already doing it. They think that the data is fine already. They think that it's governed. They think it's high quality. And the fear is people admitting that in fact we aren't there yet and there's some very viable reasons that we aren't there yet. So that's one thing I wanted to add is that this fear factor is real. And for the senior people that are listening in on the webinar, it's pervasive across all industries. So it's important to recognize that you need to let your people admit that there's poor data quality issues and give them the space to fix it and the opportunity to fix it. So that's one of my ramps on this slide. I have another ramp. Do I have time for another ramp? Yeah, you've got a minute for another ramp. Okay, so I'm going through the watching people respond on the chat and everything. And Jill Wanlis says, I communicate so much I'm sick of hearing me or I'm sick of hearing myself. And I think a lot of you on the line can probably appreciate what Jill is saying. And I heard from someone that you have to say something 28 times for people to remember it. And sometimes I feel like because people's work, lives and personal lives for that matter are so busy and so dense and they're doing so many things that it's probably more than 28 times. And so it's important to communicate not just repetitively but in a variety of different ways so that they can see things visually. They can hear things. They can talk to their friends about it. They can engage. And there's this way to get a point across without having to repeat the same words but you're repeating the same concepts and continuing to communicate so that people do truly buy into and can repeat back and internalize the content and the information that they're receiving. Absolutely. Got a lot of correct answers to this one right away, young Frankenstein. So I'm going to just up this a notch here. This is a scene where the actor, playing young Frankensteins, I would like that actor's name. I would also like the other actor in this scene who is a very well-known actor that begged Mal Brooks to have a part in this movie and got it. And I would like to know the name of that actor who was also in the scene who actually lit the man's thumb on fire. So some things are obvious. Be honest. Dude, your thumb's on fire. Just point it out. No one's going to be upset. Oh, there we go. We got Peter Boyle there and Gene Hackman. Very, very good. This is a sharp group here. All right. Losing the big picture. This is a... We hear this manifested and we already got the character. But okay, what's the show? What's the TV show this is from, too? And we already got the... And the Addams family's already come in. Boy, they're quick. So we hear low-hanging fruit, a proof of concept of data governance, really, things like that. Losing sight of the big picture, wanting to do little bits because the longer... And the fear here is that when someone in management says, I want a proof of concept, I want low-hanging fruit first, what they're really saying, and this is the absolute truth is, they don't understand your target vision. And actually, this is good feedback for you to actually go back and communicate some more because the light bulb hasn't gone on. So they want to see a proof of concept. They don't know what your vision is. And don't take that personally, whatever method you used to present the vision, you didn't accomplish your mission. Go back and try it again. The other thing is there's a real difference between doing something that's tactical because it can be non-aligned and non-strategic and remember what Kelly said about alignment, that is so, so really, really important. And if you do something one-off, just to keep someone attention, great. You've got their attention, but inevitably subconsciously or consciously, they remember that what you did is not tied to that business strategy and it really didn't move the organization farther down the road towards that strategy because you didn't connect it. So in the long run, low-hanging fruit to me, and I will just claim personal with this, I don't want Kelly to be at trouble, is bogus. It is an excuse to not execute. All right? There are intervals and increments which are short-term deliverables. Low-hanging fruit does not fit that category unless it is strategically aligned to the long-term vision. If you're just throwing something on a wall and look like you're busy, you're doing everyone a disservice. This is the other slide where people aren't being honest. You really have to think hard to get it connected to the strategy. This is an enterprise issue. It's a long-term consideration. You just have to find the right way to present it. There, I had a... there's someone else who said they hate that phrase, long-hanging fruit, so they are obviously a genius like I am. Anyway, Kelly, I know this is something I am on the soapbox about. I don't see I have anything to add to this here in the next few minutes. No, no, no, no. You can stay on your soapbox. Oh, well, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Well, let's go on. I think this is our last one, and then we're going to go into the Q&A here. Keeping management engaged, because everyone's afraid. Wow. Bang. Gideon. Got it again. The shining. All right. Who's the actor? Which is easy. You've got to be boom, boom. Maxine comes through again on that one. Jack Nicholson. Gears. Johnny. Fear. In effect, the sponsor. The sponsor, you get a sponsor, and they're really cool, and they're really hip, and they're really on board. And then some resistance hits, and you hit a rough patch, and your sponsor sends a direct report to your meeting, because your sponsor is now afraid of bad consequences. And then you get distractions and bad status reports and ineffective issue resolution. And at that point, your sponsor has gone over the way of the shining, and has been possessed by the dark side. I should put a Darth Vader picture there, too, because they've gone over to the dark side. All right. Anyway, remedy here. Hey, leadership. Walk the talk. That's all you have to do. All right. Present evidence all the time that you're supporting this. That's how we know you're engaged. We actually do a formal sponsor evaluation. We have a little sponsorship engagement scorecard. We do. I'm sure that there's other similar vehicles out there, but we actually will sit down with the sponsor and through an interview we can find out if they're really on board or not, and then recommend possibly rotate another sponsor in there, which, by the way, is our other remedy. A lot of people say, I can do this, but I can't do it forever. I don't want to do this forever. Rotate your council chairs. Rotate your sponsors. Rotate your champions. Let people take turns doing this. That spreads the message. That spreads the wealth. Anything else on that one, Kelly? Yeah, I think it's really important to consider the with them. So just because somebody is a senior executive or they're a leader within the organization, there needs to be a clear what's in it for me. And so when identifying a sponsor, when working with a sponsor, or anyone else within the leadership group, it's important to consider why they should care about information, why they should care about data, how it ties back to their specific line of business, how it ties back to their future role in the company. So if they are on a promotion track, there might be an opportunity to give them a differentiator and to help them with the next phase in their career. So the with them for the leadership group is extraordinarily important to keep them engaged and to make sure that there is that level of personal contact with those leaders. One of the things that is common and that we do and I'm sure a lot of you have already done is to do some sort of influence analysis around your leaders to understand who do they go to for advice? Who do they go to for help? And so making sure that you are engaged and working with those individuals that your sponsor or your leaders listen to for advice will help to have other people within your organization communicating similar messages to what you're trying to communicate and their hearing from a messenger that they trust so that there's a higher likelihood that they will agree, absorb and action the messaging based on the advice coming from that trusted individual. Okay. And on our last one here and then Shannon, I'm going to actually turn control back over to you. You can take control back. I'll talk to this one and Kelly is going to moderate the Q&A because I have to leave this spot where I'm sitting right now. And if we don't have a scary cartoon, we're ending up on kind of a nice note here. People say this stuff isn't important. And Kelly, I'm going to let you run with this one and I will be listening in and I will do that color commentary on this as well as the Q&A. So turn that one back over to you, Kelly. Sure. And so a couple of things. And I think that this is a nice way to kind of wrap everything up in the sense that the fear and the concern is that it's pie in the sky. We're not quite sure why we're doing it. We were told that we needed to do it at a conference. There's not a clear view of why this is important and also what the outcome will potentially be. Another issue that comes up in terms of it not being important is the expectation that the data is already within a state of being usable, understood, consumable. And so therefore trying to go through lots of additional effort is too expensive and irrelevant. Just give me the data and I'll figure out what to do with the data myself. Thinking that anything around information management is tied to IT is another big concern. And that is one of the things that reduces, in many people's view, the importance of information and data. So what are some of the things that we want to do about it? So the planning and the visioning components of this, so that it isn't pie in the sky, that it is truly aligned to expectations. And it's a very clear message around what is the vision, what is the picture of the future that you're going to have, what is the purpose that you have in executing this program, what is the plan in which you are going to deliver this program and who participates. So that sort of five-step process that we talk about is a way of creating a communication to make it real and to tie the execution back to the purpose and the vision. And there is work associated with developing it, validating it, getting your leaders involved with doing the work and communicating it as well. Another remedy, ensuring that this is identified as a budgeted and prioritized effort. Thinking that this is something that can be done as a Skunk's work project is a short-term viewpoint because at some point there needs to be greater investment in the way that data and information is managed, governed and shared, just like there's additional investment anytime there's a new view of the importance within the organization. There will be additional investment in the consumption of the data, whether it's through an analytics project, whether it is looking at a big data infrastructure, etc. So therefore the analogous investment needs to be made in the data and information that feeds into those efforts as well. And then I think the idea that talk about the funding in the very beginning and start thinking about how that funding is tied back to the value and the strategy should indicate why the funding is actually a good investment, should articulate the cost analysis, as well as the benefit analysis. I'm very hesitant to say ROI, just because it's very hard to look at a true return on investment, not the risk of incarceration, but the return on investment from a short-term perspective. So those are some thoughts in terms of trying to elevate the importance of information management and of data within the organization. And of course to make sure that it is viewed as an asset, just like any other asset within the company. And I think that that's the most important thing as we wrap up here, is to think about the fact of communicating around how it is important and the fact that it is an asset just like any other. And with that, I think we're going to go to the Q&A, because we've got about 10 minutes left. So... Perfect. Thank you, Kelly. And thank you, John, for this fantastic presentation, for this very scary presentation. Just a reminder next in the series is Real World Data Strategy Success Stories. That is happening on November 3rd. And just a reminder, I will be sending a follow-up email within two business days with links to the slides, links to the recording, and anything else requested throughout. You know, Kelly, backing up, too, when you guys are talking about communication and quality, can you give examples of how you communicate in this scenario and any tricks for ensuring your communications are read? So a couple of things on that. One of the things that I always challenge people to think about is how to communicate outside of email, because everybody is inundated with email. People prioritize what they read, and that because you can easily get de-prioritized, that is a risk associated with using email as a communications vehicle. So when we think about all of the other communication options, one thing would be to get your communications group, if you are, sorry, at a large company that has a marketing communications group, an internal marketing communications group, leverage them as much as possible. So that's one thing, to start embedding it into the communications within the company. The other thing is I would think about it as who you need to communicate with and targeting your communications to those audiences specifically. And participating face-to-face as much as possible or in some sort of conversational manner. So that could be participating in departmental meetings or quarterly meetings that those organizations have. It could be doing lunch and learns. It could be doing a road show. It could be bringing to your different field offices something that would be compelling to them to help communicate why information is important to those different field offices. Anything that can tie into communication vehicles that are already occurring or a communication approach that already occurs within the organization. Anything that you could do around video. Anything that you could do in which your peers participate in video. I know that Jill, who we talked about earlier, did this fantastic video a few years ago that was focused on why data governance is important. And it essentially went viral within the organization because people wanted to see how their peers were participating in this video. Whether it was for amusement purposes or whether it was to be impressed with the group, the idea is it was visual. It was involving their peers. And people really wanted to see it. And by nature of wanting to see it, they heard the message. So I know that's a long answer, but communication is so important and it's really important to be creative around the communication process. Sure. No, that's great. And continuing on from that, what is a good way to tie in an analyzed bottom line impact of poor data quality and DG efforts? So the easiest way to tie poor data quality and therefore the requirement for data governance is around productivity and usage of the data. So the way that people go through the process of identifying what data they need, accessing the data, or getting access to the data, having the data shared with them, and then the way that they use the data, that sort of productivity impact and the assessment and analysis of that process is always the first place that we look for any sort of quantitative impact. So if it takes seven days to create a strategic report, how can you reduce the seven days to something like two based on making sure that the data is more available or more understood, more fit for purpose, is of higher quality, potentially more complete, et cetera. So that productivity and usage of the data is the first place that we look for anything that's quantitatively tied to the improvement of data quality because it's the most direct way of tying it. Another place to look that is along the same lines but slightly different is the amount of effort associated with the data piece in any sort of new big strategic project. So whether you are doing a deployment of a new capability, whether you are upgrading an application from a prior version to a more current version, there is a data piece of that that always occurs. So what is the cost associated with that data migration? What is the cost associated with ensuring that the data is structured and mapped in an appropriate way for the new application that you are implementing? That data piece of a project is, well, not easy, but can be quantified and the ability to reduce the amount of time, effort and therefore cost in the project as it pertains to that data piece is another place to find hard dollars. Now the negative of that is that you are always looking in the rear view mirror, but if you are able to say and you can demonstrate trending over time where you have reduced that data component of project initiation, that is something where you can deliver clear value to the organization. All right. We just have just a couple of minutes left, but I think we've got time for another question. And this is one that we hear quite often. Our current issue is associated with a group we roll up into our quote-unquote ineffective sponsor. We sit in IT which has caused major issues with funding the build out of our IG DG capability. Any thoughts on how to address this? So the challenge of having an ineffective sponsor not getting the credit that you need being exacerbated by sitting in IT, I think the first thing that I would say is to look at how you can have an impact. What is that impact? And how can you start to quantify the impact? And if you can't quantify it, where can you find those stories and those anecdotes that will be relevant to the rest of the organization? And so that is one way of doing more or less a grassroots effort where you are looking at how you can improve operational processes, improve the consumption of data or the usage of data by improving data quality, data understanding, et cetera. So that would be one thing. The other thing I would look at is how does your corporate strategy impact the view of data? So I would go back to what your, well, 2017 goals now as we're looking into 2017 and what are the implications of not having good data to the execution of your corporate objectives? Now, going back to the slide, that might be too high in the sky. So how can you get down to your divisional objectives, your departmental objectives and tie data specifically to it? So for example, if you are trying to acquire a new customer base, maybe you are shifting from a business customer to a consumer customer, what is the data requirement to, A, identify that new market, B, understand how to go after that new market, identify whether you already have customers within that market, et cetera, et cetera. So by tying the actual data and information management pieces into the written approved and distributed strategy is the kind of top-down way to go and then the bottom-up way to go in terms of those specific anecdotes, stories and potentially quantitative benefits. So those would be the two tactics I would take. And of course, that's a big question. And so more than happy to take an e-mail or a phone call and talk about that further. Well, we are right at the top of the hour. Oh, John, you're breaking up. I'm sorry, just the third one is tell that person that no matter how hard they work, they're not going to succeed. That might open their mind to another sponsor. Sure. And again, we are right at the top of the hour. I just want to thank Stone and Kelly for another, again, fantastic presentation. And thanks to all of our attendees for being so engaged in everything we do. I'll get the remaining questions over to John and Kelly for you. And just a reminder, I will send a follow-up e-mail for this webinar by End of Day Monday with links to the slides and links to the recording. I hope everyone has a great day. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Boo. Bye-bye.