In researching Master Data Management, I found an interesting article on the Information Management website dealing with the “Top 5 Mistakes in MDM Delivery”. The entire article contains wisdom everyone should heed when starting out to create a MDM solution:

1. Do not overanalyze the requirements.
2. Have the big picture in mind from the start.
3. Determine the modeling approach to use.
4. Use a holistic approach that includes both analytical and operational points of view.
5. Do not underestimate the political dimension.

The last point caught my attention. Having been in the industry for more than 20 years, I have had a bit of experience with the political aspect of an implementation. Over time, I have learned that where two or more are gathered, politics is to be found. Maybe experienced is a better word for it.

I have been involved in simple accounting implementations with only one person and huge enterprise implementations where I had to work with many more people to get a system up and running. In every case, politics came into play. Sometimes it was subtle and other times not so much. I was always the outsider coming in to change everything. More like to ruin everything if you ask some of them.

After time, you come to expect the resistance and the accompanying politics. But, you always hope each project will be different. That this next one will be met with pure joy and elation and everything will go smooth as silk. This is rarely, if ever the case.

So why does politics come into play? Remember, the person coming in to change things is the outsider. No matter how much experience we may have in an industry, or with the client, we do not and cannot know everything.

These people own their systems and the data within them. They know everything about what they do and they typically do it well without our help. This is true even when the systems are manual, horribly outdated, or failing. In some of my implementations, the express goal of the new system was to break the ownership cycle and open the data up for use by management in making intelligent business decisions, really!

One of my clients was told on a regular basis that his business was profitable and doing very well. This was always backed up by hand written financials presented to the president and the board during the bi-annual board meetings. Again, really! I don’t need to tell you that the politics involved in this extreme form of data ownership was difficult.

So what do we do, when implementing a new system? Whether the new system is a new application, a data warehouse, or a master data management solution the approach needs to be well thought out and as gentle as possible.

Always take into account the emotional aspect of data ownership. The longer the person has owned the data the more emotionally attached they become. Anyone messing with the data is messing with them. This makes it very important to sit down with the owners and demonstrate to them that their data is as safe in the new system as in the old one.

In cases where people have been in the organization for years, changes in their routine are very stressful. Gently introducing the new procedures and routines is very important when working with some people. They need to be shown how much easier and more accurate their job will be with the new system.

Many times, the best approach is to show how the changes this person experiences, including loss of ownership, can benefit the organization as a whole. Work to change that focused ownership to a broader view of contributing to the success of the company. In a Master Data Management solution it may help to point out that relinquishing full ownership of the data means that the data they have will become more useful to them in the long run and that it will keep everything more current within all departments that track the same type of data.

Playing politics is difficult. Often times you simply have to step out of the line of fire and ask management or the internal project manager to help out.

The easiest implementation I did involved 23 employees changing an accounting and sales management system over to a completely different one. Some of the employees were very resistant to the change. However, the manager spearheading the project decided to do an initial conversion and work through the main issues. After determining that we had discovered the majority of the issues, she had me do one more

more conversion.  When that conversion was complete she printed final reports from the old system and simply turned it off and had it removed.  Remarkably, there were very few additional issues and everything went extremely well.

In case you are wondering about the implementation I mentioned earlier with the hand written financials, they are on the new system.  However, the financials are still being created by hand from reports even though they can be printed directly from the system.  Sometimes you just can’t get everyone on board and have to leave it completely to management to handle it.  Sometimes even they have trouble with the politics.

Corporate communication has changed fairly significantly since the advent of the internet.  Corporate presence in general has changed a lot.  In my own days growing up, television news and newspapers were where you would learn about companies, through articles or press releases.  Corporations were large and faceless, and that was what people expected.

The internet has brought us entirely new expectations.  Web sites give us immediate access to a wealth of information on a company.  Issues that might have been hushed up, ignored by the press, or simply not noticed can now spread like wildfire as concerned internet citizens share, discuss, and polarize each other.  What once would have been barely a blip now can quickly become a huge public relations challenge demanding a response.

Along with this, has come the expectation that a company is more than an entity, but is rather a collection of individuals.  If your company makes a mistake, the world wants to know how it happened, who it was, and what will be done about it.  This is just as true of good outcomes.  The public expects to see real people, and wants to connect personally.

Witness how the White House now has a public photo stream on Flickr and videos on a YouTube channel.  We are given sometimes intimate glimpses of the president and those around him like never before.

Look at how Microsoft now has hundreds of blogs from individuals throughout the company.  Microsoft has their people talking at conferences – even Linux and Apple events!  Microsoft isn’t just a corporate building somewhere, but rather a company with real people with real opinions and a genuine interest in seeing their products and technologies succeed.

So what does this have to do with social networking?  Well, if your company has considered getting into social networking but isn’t sure if it’s right, or where to start, stop planning and start doing!  Create groups on Facebook, accounts on Twitter, photos on Flickr, videos on YouTube, and blogs on your web site.  This is how people relate to your company.  The days of slick corporate videos are dwindling.  Someone chatting to a camera from their desk is perfectly acceptable.  Blogging about the challenges of a getting a new product through regulatory scrutiny makes delays acceptable.  Posting micro-updates on Twitter or Facebook keeps people interested in-between the press releases and makes people feel more invested in a company.

Of course all of this comes with some risk.  It’s this risk that makes people think twice about all of this openness in the first place!  People posting hate messages in comments, swear words, spam, or just calling your company out for a wrong (perceived or real) are all very possible outcomes of an open presence.

Does this mean it’s not worth the risk?  Not by a long shot!  In some cases, you may need to moderate comments.  You might allow flagging so you can delete abusive comments.  Maybe you just turn off comments in some cases.  This shouldn’t be the norm though.  The most popular companies encourage collaboration and discussion among their customers/users.  Use this new avenue.  Perhaps you will learn the top issues that need addressing.  Take the opportunity to right wrongs when possible.  All of this only serves to strengthen your perception.  Of course I’m assuming you’re an honest company with little to hide in the first place!

I’ve seen computer software companies become more responsive than ever in the last few years.  More frequent pre-releases, interviews, and requests for comments all work together to get early feedback so a final product serves the largest possible audience and is a good fit for the most people.

There is much untapped potential for openness in many companies right now.  It’s not just computer software companies that serve to benefit.  Sending out product samples to select people, getting them talking, and fine-tuning before a general release can get the hype started and create a better final product.  A focus group is great for face-to-face interaction, but it’s so limited in scope compared to the audience available across the internet.

The days of a faceless corporation being the expectation are nearing an end.  You need to connect with your customers and the public.  Listen to and encourage feedback.  Not only will you build up brand loyalty, but you’ll benefit from better input than any focus group can provide.