We had our very first user conference for our core data management product recently.
The conference took place in Dublin and we had visitors from Europe, and US, representing a broad diversity of the user base in terms of operation role and focus. We had data management directors, heads of performance, as well as client reporting & distribution from the front office . In terms of the firms in attendance they represented firms who had both strong institutional and strong retail focus.
A key element of the conference was each client sharing some of the use cases where our product has added a great deal of value to their operating models. What also came to light as part of the client sharing exercise is the diversity in approach to data governance.
A key thing I learned here was that what works very well in one firm, is not necessarily the right approach for another firm. In fact there were some notably diverse approaches, from one that is IT/data led to programs that are 100% business led and everything in between. The idiosyncrasies, organizational structure and specific culture of each firm has directly led to a very different view of what the target operating model for governance of client facing product data. In one firm they have a very clear internal and external view of how client facing data is managed. Within this firm the internal governance of client facing data is driven by the performance team. The internal team are tasked with driving quality and timeliness into the month and quarter end publication cycles. The governance relating to consistency and appropriateness is shared with the client data governor, ensuring the depth and breadth of data is communicated externally. Therefore the data that is used for a consultant database, RFP responses, factsheets, web, data utilities and vendors remains without doubt: timely, accurate, complete, consistent and appropriate.
In another firm they have embarked on an enterprise wide data governance program that is lead by data and technology. This firm’s program has a data governance executive committee, who are representatives from the deliver value and create value sides of the business. The program is replete with the genesis of the policies, standards, processes and procedures required to ensure the same target result – of high quality timely data. In this firm the stewardship is shared between data management specialists and domain experts from performance. While both approaches are seemingly quite different , the two programs will ultimately yield the same results. Why is this? In both cases there is a strong tie between the technology, data and the business stakeholders. The common goal between all three is building a stewardship structure that is well marshaled. Also present is a sturdy technical framework to support a federated stewardship process. This framework spans the technology, data and business teams that are required to deliver the results that the business needs. Steering all of this process success is substantial C-level support driving meticulous oversight and accountability into the firm from the top down.
It was clear from what our users had to say that both programs, while different, ultimately made their jobs easier in the long run.
Filed under: asset management, client reporting, Data management, Data Quality, distribution, Dublin, Event Tagged: accuracy, asset management, automation, back-office, chief data officer, client reporting, consistency, control, Data Quality, data quality management, data steward, distribution, firms
