Master data models from information flows

[Paolo F Cantoni]

A system of record is there to meet the requirements of a "why".  If you don't know the "why" - the contractual or legal obligation - there is no "record".

Can you expand on that?  I've not heard it that way before.

There are two sorts of things organisations do.  Things they want to do and things they have to do.  When you have a good look at what a system of record it is doing (in my experience) it is capturing data about entities or events that relate to something the organisation has to do.

For example (if you are using ArchiMate) at the motivation level you should have a Stakeholder and a Driver for example "NZ Police" and "Comply with suspicious transaction reporting requirements of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009".  There should also be a Goal along the lines of not trigger the punitive damages associated with not meeting the obligations.  These motivational elements will all connect some how to a system of record for transactions.  In an industry like banking this system probably predates business analysts and architects fucking things up.  At some stage someone probably trained in systems analysis laid all the ground work for a mature and robust data model for transactions.

Where we run in to trouble is when legislation changes or a new concept is introduced and the design doesn't start at the conceptual layer.  You don't know why you are making a change beyond what is in the project scope document.  You end up with a system that records things, but not the record you need to meet the obligation.  Or a very fragile record.

Thanks, Glassboy,

That's an interesting take.  My definition of a system of record is somewhat simpler, but the end result, I think, is close to yours.

I believe (without actual proof - but else why coin it?) that the term "System of Record" derives from the epithet "Newspaper of Record" - such as is/was applied to the Washington Post, the Times of London etc.  These newspapers are so designated because they are general purpose "and their editorial and news-gathering functions are considered comprehensive, professional and typically authoritative".  In addition, should one wish to access information about a past event, one can consult their archives and determine the "facts" at that point in time.  That is, they create factual records and retain them for later consultation.

From my point of view, a System of Record needs to be able to hold past data and how that data (or the understanding of that data) has evolved via any appropriate state episodes.  So far, this corresponds with your "capturing data about entities or events that relate to something the organisation has to do".

Now where I think I align with your view is that as the facts to be held (one could say the "editorial and news-gathering functions") need to change because the environment or context changes and the system doesn't change accordingly, it can no longer be accorded the epithet "System of Record", since it can no longer record the necessary facts.

How's that sound?  I'd like to come to a useful definition because I can then add it to our Ontological Model and use it to educate our modellers, architects and users.

Paolo

[Glassboy]

That's an interesting take.  My definition of a system of record is somewhat simpler, but the end result, I think, is close to yours.

I believe (without actual proof - but else why coin it?) that the term "System of Record" derives from the epithet "Newspaper of Record" - such as is/was applied to the Washington Post, the Times of London etc.  These newspapers are so designated because they are general purpose "and their editorial and news-gathering functions are considered comprehensive, professional and typically authoritative".  In addition, should one wish to access information about a past event, one can consult their archives and determine the "facts" at that point in time.  That is, they create factual records and retain them for later consultation.

There's a simple test for that proposition and the answer seems to be no :-)  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=system+of+record%2C+newspaper+of+record&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csystem%20of%20record%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cnewspaper%20of%20record%3B%2Cc0

From my point of view, a System of Record needs to be able to hold past data and how that data (or the understanding of that data) has evolved via any appropriate state episodes.  So far, this corresponds with your "capturing data about entities or events that relate to something the organisation has to do".

Now where I think I align with your view is that as the facts to be held (one could say the "editorial and news-gathering functions") need to change because the environment or context changes and the system doesn't change accordingly, it can no longer be accorded the epithet "System of Record", since it can no longer record the necessary facts.

How's that sound?  I'd like to come to a useful definition because I can then add it to our Ontological Model and use it to educate our modellers, architects and users.

In that it may only contain a subset or cause a perceptual problem (such as believing monotremes are no different than other mammals).

[Sunshine]

FYI Gartner has something called pace layering which describes three types of system.

Systems of Record — Established packaged applications or legacy homegrown systems that support core transaction processing and manage the organization's critical master data. The rate of change is low, because the processes are well-established and common to most organizations, and often are subject to regulatory requirements.

Systems of Differentiation — Applications that enable unique company processes or industry-specific capabilities. They have a medium life cycle (one to three years), but need to be reconfigured frequently to accommodate changing business practices or customer requirements.

Systems of Innovation — New applications that are built on an ad hoc basis to address new business requirements or opportunities. These are typically short life cycle projects (zero to 12 months) using departmental or outside resources and consumer-grade technologies.

Reference https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1923014

[Paolo F Cantoni]

That's an interesting take.  My definition of a system of record is somewhat simpler, but the end result, I think, is close to yours.

I believe (without actual proof - but else why coin it?) that the term "System of Record" derives from the epithet "Newspaper of Record" - such as is/was applied to the Washington Post, the Times of London etc.  These newspapers are so designated because they are general purpose "and their editorial and news-gathering functions are considered comprehensive, professional and typically authoritative".  In addition, should one wish to access information about a past event, one can consult their archives and determine the "facts" at that point in time.  That is, they create factual records and retain them for later consultation.

There's a simple test for that proposition and the answer seems to be no :-)  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=system+of+record%2C+newspaper+of+record&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csystem%20of%20record%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cnewspaper%20of%20record%3B%2Cc0

Interesting, but I strongly suspect that the meaning then (the 1800s) is not the meaning now (we need a system of record for the epithet, "System of Record"  )

Seriously, though, I do suspect a change in meaning over time.  Like the word "Naughty", for example.

From my point of view, a System of Record needs to be able to hold past data and how that data (or the understanding of that data) has evolved via any appropriate state episodes.  So far, this corresponds with your "capturing data about entities or events that relate to something the organisation has to do".

Now where I think I align with your view is that as the facts to be held (one could say the "editorial and news-gathering functions") need to change because the environment or context changes and the system doesn't change accordingly, it can no longer be accorded the epithet "System of Record", since it can no longer record the necessary facts.

How's that sound?  I'd like to come to a useful definition because I can then add it to our Ontological Model and use it to educate our modellers, architects and users.

In that it may only contain a subset or cause a perceptual problem (such as believing monotremes are no different than other mammals).

That last sentence isn't clear to me.  can you elaborate?

Paolo

[Paolo F Cantoni]

FYI Gartner has something called pace layering which describes three types of system.

Systems of Record — Established packaged applications or legacy homegrown systems that support core transaction processing and manage the organization's critical master data. The rate of change is low, because the processes are well-established and common to most organizations, and often are subject to regulatory requirements.

Systems of Differentiation — Applications that enable unique company processes or industry-specific capabilities. They have a medium life cycle (one to three years), but need to be reconfigured frequently to accommodate changing business practices or customer requirements.

Systems of Innovation — New applications that are built on an ad hoc basis to address new business requirements or opportunities. These are typically short life cycle projects (zero to 12 months) using departmental or outside resources and consumer-grade technologies.

Reference https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1923014

I don't think the definition of System of Record above has much to do with the "of record" part.

From the descriptions (and they ARE descriptions - since they describe some properties, but you can't use the properties to classify) it may be that they were thinking of
"Recording Systems vs Differentiating Systems vs Innovating Systems", but just because you are a Recording System, it doesn't (ipso facto) make you a "System of Record".  Just as "an Officer of a Statutory Entity" is not necessarily a "Statutory Officer".

Paolo

[Mats Gejnevall]

Hi Mats,

If I understand you correctly, there are a couple of problems with what you are attempting to do.  The first is conceptual.  I hope you agree that the real Master data is the attribute or property, not the object or entity.  "Objects' are "Master Data Objects" because they include one or more Master Data Items (attributes/properties/features).  If you don't agree, good luck  .

Each Master Data Item has a lifetime.  Different sources can create/modify the value of the item at different points during its lifetime.  Indeed, at the same point, multiple sources may change the value.

Normally, information flows document flows between objects/entities not between the attributes.  There are ways around it, but you will need to decide what you are tracking.

Normally, you need to track which systems/business processes access the item and in what manner (CRUD).  This suggests that an ArchiMate "Accesses" relationship may be more appropriate.

We have implemented a "source of Truth" relationship which is (effectively) derived from the accesses and indicates that the supplier can be considered a SoT for the related attribute.

HTH,
Paolo

Thanks Paolo
Right now we solved it by having by having both information flows between applications and relations between applications and information elements (create and use). But it becomes hard to maintain over time. And some information elements are created by multiple applications.  We have a set of sensors that send the same type of information to a central strategic application. And the information is sent over the barebone network, no services are called (as a comment to Richard).

Then we created some relatedElement compartment shapescripts so we can for each application easily see which information elements an application create and use.

But we would like to have the possibility to automatically suggest updates to the relations between the appplications and information elements (create, use) to avoid some work.

Setting an attribute on the information element does not work either because then you cannot see what application is the master, just that the information is mastered or used, NOT by whom it is created or used.

[Glassboy]

FYI Gartner has something called pace layering which describes three types of system.

I'd partially forgotten about that.  It's more a tool for getting management to understand different systems have different life cycle management requirements.  Not that I've ever really seen it work.

[Sunshine]

I don't think the definition of System of Record above has much to do with the "of record" part.

From the descriptions (and they ARE descriptions - since they describe some properties, but you can't use the properties to classify) it may be that they were thinking of
"Recording Systems vs Differentiating Systems vs Innovating Systems", but just because you are a Recording System, it doesn't (ipso facto) make you a "System of Record".  Just as "an Officer of a Statutory Entity" is not necessarily a "Statutory Officer".

Agree with you 100% - was just pointing out how the term "System of Record" can be confused as  major consulting firms coin phrases which muddy the water.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

I don't think the definition of System of Record above has much to do with the "of record" part.

From the descriptions (and they ARE descriptions - since they describe some properties, but you can't use the properties to classify) it may be that they were thinking of
"Recording Systems vs Differentiating Systems vs Innovating Systems", but just because you are a Recording System, it doesn't (ipso facto) make you a "System of Record".  Just as "an Officer of a Statutory Entity" is not necessarily a "Statutory Officer".

Agree with you 100% - was just pointing out how the term "System of Record" can be confused as major consulting firms coin phrases which muddy the water.

(my emphasis)
Yes, I took that point, but wanted to emphasise it as I wanted to combat "Nobody got fired for buying/following <insert vendor/consultancy of choice>".

I no longer expect better from "the experts".

In this game, "Rigour is your friend".

Paolo