The Algebra of Collaboration
Jim Harris in Books, Data Quality tagged Business-IT Collaboration, Collaboration, Data Governance, Philosophy Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 3:00AM Most organizations have a vertical orientation, which creates a division of labor between functional areas where daily operations are carried out by people who have been trained in a specific type of business activity (e.g., Product Manufacturing, Marketing, Sales, Finance, Customer Service). However, according to the most basic enterprise arithmetic, the sum of all vertical functions is one horizontal organization. For example, in an organization with five vertical functions, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 (and not 5).
Other times, it seems like division is the only mathematics the enterprise understands, creating perceived organizational divides based on geography (e.g., the Boston office versus the London office), or hierarchy (e.g., management versus front-line workers), or the Great Rift known as the Business versus IT.
However, enterprise-wide initiatives, such as data quality and data governance, require a cross-functional alignment reaching horizontally across the organization’s vertical functions, fostering a culture of collaboration combining a collective ownership with a shared responsibility and an individual accountability, requiring a branch of mathematics I call the Algebra of Collaboration.
For starters, as James Kakalios explained in his super book The Physics of Superheroes, “there is a trick to algebra: If one has an equation describing a true statement, such as 1 = 1, then one can add, subtract, multiply, or divide (excepting division by zero) the equation by any number we wish, and as long as we do it to both the left and right sides of the equation, the correctness of the equation is unchanged. So if we add 2 to both sides of 1 = 1, we obtain 1 + 2 = 1 + 2 or 3 = 3, which is still a true statement.”
So, in the Algebra of Collaboration, we first establish one of the organization’s base equations, its true statements, for example, using the higher order collaborative equation that attempts to close the Great Rift otherwise known as the IT-Business Chasm:
Business = IT
Then we keep this base equation balanced by performing the same operation on both the left and right sides, for example:
Business + Data Quality + Data Governance = IT + Data Quality + Data Governance
The point is that everyone, regardless of their primary role or vertical function, must accept a shared responsibility for preventing data quality lapses and for responding appropriately to mitigate the associated business risks when issues occur.
Now, of course, as I blogged about in The Stakeholder’s Dilemma, this equation does not always remain perfectly balanced at all times. The realities of the fiscal calendar effect, conflicting interests, and changing business priorities, will mean that the amount of resources (money, time, people) added to the equation by a particular stakeholder, vertical function, or group will vary.
But it’s important to remember the true statement that the base equation represents. The trick of algebra is just one of the tricks of the collaboration trade. Organizations that are successful with data quality and data governance view collaboration not just as a guiding principle, but also as a call to action in their daily practices.
Is your organization practicing the Algebra of Collaboration?
Related Posts
The Business versus IT—Tear down this wall!
The Collaborative Culture of Data Governance
Collaboration isn’t Brain Surgery
Dot Collectors and Dot Connectors
No Datum is an Island of Serendip
The Three Most Important Letters in Data Governance
Are you Building Bridges or Digging Moats?
Has Data Become a Four-Letter Word?
Reader Comments (1)
From the TDWI Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing LinkedIn Group, Valena Hernandez commented:
“Hi, I've never been very good at algebra. However, I do understand the principals behind successful partnerships across functional roles, such as in Data Governance. I like the way you call out for everyone to step up and contribute, when and where they can, daily. However, I think we also need to account for the individuals who collaborate, but are not officially part of the equation.
Maybe that is the “X” factor?
“X” people will facilitate and work towards the same objectives but are not official project resources.
I have an appreciation for these stand-up people that help find solutions because of a shared passion for the vision or success. They know how to navigate through the political and corporate climate. At times, “X” people have conveyed my sincere desire to collaborate with a key role that was passive in their department engagement or to expedite the acquisition of information needs. I'm sure you can think of a few more project examples where one or two “X” people helped navigate through the algebra of collaboration.
Selfishly, we ask “X” people to lunches and cups of coffee. We listen and ask questions we wouldn’t ask anyone else. From that, we gain insights and improve alliances. Again, I'm not good at algebra, but I do know “X” is unknown and with that I make an effort to seek these individual’s out. When present, they can make a difference. Thanks for your posting.”
And I responded:
Thanks for your excellent comment, Valena.
Many mathematical formulas ask us to “solve for X” (which is why that phrase was chosen by Google as the name of its recent think tank project to incite collaboration to solve global issues — wesolveforx.com).
But, as you said, within many organizations, there is a significant amount of what could be called indirect collaboration that wouldn’t necessarily show up as a known constant in the collaboration equation.
Yet this unknowable, but unquestionably essential, variable is often the X factor required for success.
Best Regards,
Jim
And Richard Jarvis commented:
“Business = IT. Even that simple equation is very interesting Jim, and has a lot of implications.
Are business and IT truly one and the same thing? In a lot of brick and mortar businesses they’re not, but that’s where the industry is heading. With cloud storage, software as a service, platform as a service, self service software etc. We’re already at the point where a large IT department is unnecessary for many startups, and the budget is being moved to marketing. In your enterprise analogy, we’re approaching the point where (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0) = 1!
Clearly though, what we’re really talking about is the infrastructure; the need for data governance (DG) doesn’t magically disappear just because business intelligence (BI) is being run as a service on an Amazon virtual server. Until now IT infrastructure was inextricably linked to IT process, but that’s no longer the case. In fact, with IT process being decoupled from the infrastructure, the business is far more responsible for DG than in the past (think about self service BI as an example).
Perhaps then, the equation should Business Process = IT Process?”
And I responded:
As always, you make excellent points, Richard.
Yes, the consumerization of IT may be rendering the equation as: Business - IT = Business
(By which I mean IT becomes imbedded within the enterprise instead of being viewed as a separate "business unit" — although a formal centralized IT function remains in more of an advisory capacity, and less of a service capacity).
And with many enterprise equations being further modified with + Cloud and + SaaS (and other "as a service" components), it can leave some organizations with the mistaken corollaries of - Data Governance and - Data Quality without realizing that Business Intelligence simply doesn’t compute that way.
I agree that these are shifts in infrastructure, not shifts in ownership, responsibility, or accountability. So, just because we write our equations in the cloud instead of on the white boards in cubicles doesn’t obviate the need for data governance, data quality, and business intelligence being treated as organizational disciplines driven by a culture of collaboration.
Best Regards,
Jim