 Live from Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's The Cube at the MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium with hosts Dave Vellante and Paul Gillan. Welcome back to Cambridge, Massachusetts everybody. This is Dave Vellante and Paul Gillan is on as co-host. We're here with Peter Anlien who is the co-chair of the MIT Information Quality Symposium. Peter, welcome back to The Cube. It's great to see you again. Thanks. Great to have you guys back. You did a great job last year and a lot of folks have viewed the content and we expect the same thing this year, so thank you. You're welcome. The conference is evolving and last year it struck a cord, a very strong cord around the Chief Data Officer and that seems to be the main theme this year. I wonder if you could talk about your role as co-chair and the program, the agenda that you guys put together and how it's evolved. Well we made a shift from last year and you're right. It used to be the Information Quality Symposium. Now it's the Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium and how does that all fit together? Well you've got the emergence of this Chief Data Officer in our industry and there's a lot of talk about what exactly that means and it's going to be different in every organization because they're all different chemistry. But we're working on that. In fact, Rich Wang, Yang Li and Stu Madnik are conducting research. They're getting a baseline, conducting a baseline survey to find out if you're a Chief Data Officer, what does that mean in your organization? If your organization doesn't have one, is there a de facto one that just hasn't gained that title yet or are you nowhere near it? And I think that if you take that information and you wrap information quality around that because obviously they're related and then you place that in the context against this backdrop of big data, then you've got a very dynamic content that you can explore in a symposium like this. So that's where we're headed. And the program this year, like last year, included us, am I correct? They included a separate CDO? Former, was that merged into this one? No, it was actually separated out. We had that back in March and it was hosted by Lockheed Martin in Arlington, Virginia. So no cube there, very private? Oh yeah, no. In the vault. Yeah, you needed a password to get it. We open a little door. Okay, and then so talk about the two days, actually three days, right? So what's going on today and tomorrow and then Friday? Well, we had a great morning session with Debbie Nightingale and Jeannie Ross from MIT. And one thing we realized is when you have these resources, you have something that is unique. We have a platform that is different from any other conference or symposium anywhere. And that's the backdrop of MIT. So this year we decided to get the internal MIT experience incorporated into the symposium and I thought it was really strong. And we will do that next year and hopefully even more. The rest of the symposium is made up of many panels that were, in some cases, painstakingly put together. And they, I'd say there are about eight or nine titles that have big data in them. There are two or three that have CDO in them. And then there are many of the rest that get a little bit more into the weeds. But on the whole, we're taking a more of a balcony view of the industry than an in-the-weeds offering for the practitioners. So we're really appealing to leaders in the industry. Peter, this conference has its roots in an academic conference. It was originally primarily for colleges and universities and has taken on more of a commercial tone over time. How are you balancing those needs to maintain those academic roots but also appeal to more of a commercial user audience? Well, I think that there's this, of course, symbiotic relationship. If you look around the campus of MIT you've got names of many corporations on buildings, classrooms, et cetera. And that's, I think, the strength of what MIT has to offer. As an outsider, that's what I see. And for this to be just an academic conference, I think, is very narrowly focused. I think the beauty of it is that we do have academia. We've got industry. We've got research. And you break down the industry into different branches. We cover a lot of territory. The MIT information quality function has been sort of crusading for information quality for a long time now. I believe over 20 years. Do you see the state of information quality? I mean, are we making progress? Is information quality getting better? Or is it becoming a bigger problem now that the data sets are getting bigger? Well, I've got, I think, a couple answers to that. Number one, it's, you know, the old metaphor of trying to change a flat tire on an airplane while it's flying or a car while it's driving. That's what everybody's trying to do. And as we get more and more into the big data, it's harder to keep up with that. So I can't say that it's getting better, necessarily. When you look at the whole array of businesses to whom this matters, from your large corporations on down to your small businesses, I do believe that awareness is greatly heightened. And that the general corporate and private company population has a, that greater awareness of what information means and how important it is. So I think you're seeing more activity in businesses that weren't necessarily technology oriented. So when you think about this has been a topic for a long time, information, asset and liability management, you know, you got two sides of the coin from a, you know, the balance sheet analogy. And prior to the big data meme, at least I felt that a lot of the discussion when it related to governance and what has now emerged as the CDO role was sort of risk factors, data risk, the general council sort of driving the discussion and the CEO paying attention because he or she had to. I feel as though that's flipped and it's become more of an opportunity. In other words, you know, the bromide of course is data is the new source of competitive advantage, is the new oil. How much do you see that permeating organizations and how real is that bit flip? And how has that affected sort of what you guys are doing? Well, I don't think that people will get on the data quality bandwagon until they have to. Businesses that traditionally have not. I don't think until they see a competitive advantage that they're going to jump on board. Here at the symposium, we are at the higher end of that. We attract people who are well into those questions and trying to answer those and people who just woke up one day and somebody said, oh, we're missing out on a competitive advantage because we're not paying attention to these metrics. And you can get into it very easily with just some basic data. And as you know, from your work and from the presentations here, it can scale very quickly and into some very complex. Well, and we heard from Rick Watson this morning that you don't digitize your assets. Your bollards and your parking lot. Right. I'm thinking of all the things I can digitize. That was pretty insightful. We also heard from Gene Ross today that you may not really need big data. In fact, a lot of companies don't need big data. They should do better with the small data they've got or learn to crawl before you walk. Is that an issue that you think the big data phenomenon is causing, maybe causing companies to bite off more than they can chew? In some ways, yes. And when you get to conferences like this, you've really got the, for lack of a better word, the data nerds. The people who just love the you can get into some conversations upstairs here where you get deeply into the weeds and I get lost very quickly because I'm more of a systems thinker. I agree. It's not for everybody. The Small Business Administration, although this is changing, defines a small business that 500 employees or less. 500 employees is still a very big company. But small businesses are responsible for more jobs in this country than the large corporations are. They're responsible for more hires, more people, hires that are coming out of the schools, out of the technical schools, etc., the associate degrees. So I think that's where a lot of the fertile ground is. You know, you've got, that includes the company of 6, Joe's Roofing Company, it includes a regional broadcasting company, all the way up to some manufacturing companies. To me, that's the fertile ground. You mentioned skills and that's something that's new this year is on day three of the conference, you're going to address the data skills gaps specifically. What kind of a shortage is there? There was this spate of surveys that the results of which were published in the last, since 2012, really. Gartner was kind of the landmark one that said that by the year 2015, there are going to be 1.5 or 6 million jobs coming online. We have enough talent to fill a little better than half of those. When I started doing some digging, I found that the industry was really pointing the finger at academia saying we're not turning out data scientists, and I'm using data scientists broadly, and the associated skills. And so we have this proliferation of master's programs, it's not happening at the PhD level, master's programs are churning out these graduates and they're moving right into the workplace and they're highly sought after. Michael Rappa, if you get a chance to talk to him again, he has 86 graduates this past spring and they all got three to four job offers and they're all in the around $100,000 range, some significantly higher. So academia is responding. But my question is, what are we doing back in the shop, in our corporation to keep the people that we've got because there's a lot of churn in the industry. Their job offers that are hitting a lot of the talent in the industry. So we're not effectively taking care of what we've already got, and that falls into the leadership, communication and teamwork arena. If people aren't being heard, they're not going to stay. And what I think you'll also hear on Friday is that each of these master's programs has a curriculum that includes leadership, teamwork, communication. And when these kids, they're not all kids, when they're going into their practicums in industry, they're coming back and in some cases saying, you know, they're not practicing this stuff in the workplace. What you're telling us about communicating, we're not seeing that happen. So is that stuff going to stay in school or is industry going to catch on and really concentrate on hanging on to their talent? You talked about being in the weeds earlier and I think that, I'd make an observation that I think there'll be an abstraction layer between the hardcore data scientists who are programming and doing MapReduce and regular business people who just are trained and have the processes in place to actually access data that they need to be able to make decisions on that. So while it's true, everybody knows there's a big, you know, skills gap. You don't necessarily have to close that gap with hardcore data scientists. It's like, I remember somebody in the cube telling the story that the automobile industry was very concerned early on with, they're not being enough chauffeurs to drive the cars. We're in a telephone operation, right? Exactly. So the question is, is there a similar analogy here where there's, as I say, this abstraction layer where you don't have to necessarily have that deep, intense, whether it's mathematical skills or programmatic skills? Well, one of the prescriptions for more effective and efficient output is teams where we don't need to have everybody be a great communicator or a leader. We can have a team with the different disciplines that we need to attack a project and get it done in the best fashion possible. Accenture came out with a paper on that. I've seen a couple of others. But when you start talking about teamwork, then you get into some of the basic questions again. Do we just tell these teams what's right and what's wrong for working together, or are we going to be able to foster those behaviors in that team to get the most out of it? So big data is a team sport. Should be, yeah. Is there hope for the software skills, for the people who don't have the hardcore data analytics type of skills but still want to take advantage of opportunities in this market? Oh, absolutely. You know, Paul Barth said that the technology is really getting easier. But he says what is absolutely needed is more effective leadership. And as that message spreads, you look at CEOs of companies who came from different industries and who are really out of their, you would think, comfort zone. But they come in and they have the leadership skills to just look at whatever this new industry for them is as in the same light that they saw their former company and they're successful at that. I should have a good example, but I don't. But the leaders, we also hear that you can't make decisions today without data. The days of seat of the pants decision-making are over. In fact, is that the future you envision or is there still a role for intuition in decision-making? Absolutely, there's a role for intuition. But there's this basic skill called inspiring a shared vision and this goes back to Jim Collins, Cousins and Posner, the leadership challenge. There's a difference between inspiring a shared vision and sharing an inspired vision. And the very successful leaders inspire a shared vision. That means everybody gets to contribute to it. That doesn't mean we all get in the huge auditorium and word Smith a vision statement, but that means that I as the CEO, you guys as the C-suite, you as the middle managers are going into the front lines, you're spending time, you're listening, you're taking that feedback into account, you're making sure those folks know they were heard and they're helping to shape the direction of the company because they're seeing things that we and the C-suite aren't seeing. Okay? Company I used to work for, the CEO used to gather all the administrative assistants and secretaries into a room at lunch because he believed those were the people who really knew what was going on in the company. And he listened. He was probably right. He was and he listened. And a lot of us still don't do that. We're afraid to ask those questions because we have to do something with it and a lot of us don't know what to do with it and there are methods for dealing with it effectively that aren't going to take up all your time. Peter, a lot of stakeholders this year at the company you see from the backdrop behind us more constituents. You've sort of opened up the umbrella or is it these guys that were involved before and you're sort of giving formal recognition what's going on there? We have a lot of new faces this year and I think a really good sign. We got a lot of last-minute interest. People heard about what was going on. We were snowballing toward today and I think it had to do somewhat with social media, Paul, and word of mouth. We also made a concerted effort, excuse me, to make sure that we had some thought leaders who would invite other people to come out. As you're going to head to the future of this event where do you plan to take it? Could this become as big as it'll get? Could you see eventually having hundreds, thousands of people attending? Will you intentionally keep it more intimate? Will its academic versus commercial orientation change in the future? I think that the academic slash industry combination is unique, especially as tied to MIT. I don't think we want it to get too big because I think that it will lose some of its effectiveness. We don't want to be in a civic center with 3,000 chairs in with two large screens. I just think the intimate aspects of it are part of what make it special. As you start coming for one, two, or three years in a row, you see a lot of the same faces here. I see Joe McGuire standing right there and you establish relationships and that's really what it's all about. I think we'd like to grow another, we're a little over 300 people this year. I think we'd like to grow another couple of hundred, but we're not going to do it if it doesn't happen in the organic fashion that we've been growing the last couple of years. How about your consulting firm? We did a little gig earlier this year. You had me skype in. What's going on there? Thank you. That was fun. I am working with, we got Dave to be online with us with an outfit called Groundwork Labs where it's an accelerator in Durham, North Carolina which is becoming more and more of a hotbed for startups. And Dave, being the startup guru that he is, we interviewed him in front of a room full of entrepreneurs and archived it online. And it's going really well. In fact, when I get back to town, I've got a new class Monday and Tuesday coming in. And these people, it's so refreshing working with these people because they're hungry for new knowledge, they're hungry to find out who they are, the tools that they bring to their projects, their new companies, what's missing, what are their strengths, and to see some of them go on to be very successful. We have, in this latest class, we had a company that has a new device that will hold the chest open, a retractor for heart surgery. We have another company that developed a fingernail polish for girls that will immediately detect the date rate drug if they're at a party. Now what parent is in good health? Where do I get that? Where do I get two dogs? And then we have games. We have a startup that is kind of an Airbnb for hostels around the world. And I imagine how much fun that is to have all these different people come through with these great ideas. And mostly are all millennials, right? Mostly, yeah. You know, you'll love this. We're doing a partnership with the International House down in Harlem and the Global Post and the Ground Truth with Charles Sennett. And the theme of the conference that the Cube will be at is Generation TBD. It's all about youth unemployment. And the reason we're there is obviously to broadcast they love the Cube, but also kind of exporting that Silicon Valley entrepreneurialism which is what you're doing in Chapel Hill, right? And that is one answer anyway. One answer anyway to this youth unemployment problem. So I'm glad to see you attacking it. Well, it's kind of like the, our downtown died like most downtowns did back in the 70s, 80s, they started coming back about six or seven years ago. But artists used to be the group that would help revive it. They'd move in, they'd be in these dilapidated apartments and then the business folks would come in and raise the rents and move them out. Well, these entrepreneur scenes are kind of the same thing. They bring this excitement, this freshness, this youth that really is key in revitalizing. Yeah, a lot of positive messages. I mean, being in the Durham area, which has been such a hotbed of technology innovation for several decades, have you seen the profiles of these startups change as data has become more ubiquitous, more available, more immediate, more mobile? Are you seeing different kinds of startups emerge out of that? I'm seeing a lot of apps. I'm seeing everybody needing technical help and the websites and the tools that they need to incorporate into those are getting very sophisticated, complex. They're always trying to figure out where, you know, they're straddling the fence. We don't have money to pay somebody. Do we give them equity? Do we go overseas? Where are we going to find this type of help? Do we take longer and do it ourselves? But it's actually a really good question because they need technology. They need data. And I think all of them really depend on it. So, yeah, that's a good point. I'm seeing more of that. All right, Peter, we got to leave it there. Yes, sir. The planes are backing up, as Mark Hopkins says. Certainly. But really, thank you so much for having us again this year. Thanks, guys. Great to have you here. I'll be great to have you here. All right, pleasure. Take care. Good to see you again. John and Jeff will be back. We're live. This is theCUBE from MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Right back.