Archive for the ‘Silos’ Category

Opening Standards: The Global Politics of Interoperability

Sunday, March 31st, 2013

Opening Standards: The Global Politics of Interoperability Edited by Laura DeNardis.

Overview:

Openness is not a given on the Internet. Technical standards–the underlying architecture that enables interoperability among hardware and software from different manufacturers–increasingly control individual freedom and the pace of innovation in technology markets. Heated battles rage over the very definition of “openness” and what constitutes an open standard in information and communication technologies. In Opening Standards, experts from industry, academia, and public policy explore just what is at stake in these controversies, considering both economic and political implications of open standards. The book examines the effect of open standards on innovation, on the relationship between interoperability and public policy (and if government has a responsibility to promote open standards), and on intellectual property rights in standardization–an issue at the heart of current global controversies. Finally, Opening Standards recommends a framework for defining openness in twenty-first-century information infrastructures.

Contributors discuss such topics as how to reflect the public interest in the private standards-setting process; why open standards have a beneficial effect on competition and Internet freedom; the effects of intellectual property rights on standards openness; and how to define standard, open standard, and software interoperability.

If you think “open standards” have impact, what would you say about “open data?”

At a macro level, “open data” has many of the same issues as “open standards.”

At a micro level, “open data” has unique social issues that drive the creation of silos for data.

So far as I know, a serious investigation of the social dynamics of data silos has yet to be written.

Understanding the dynamics of data silos might, no guarantees, lead to better strategies for dismantling them.

Suggestions for research/reading on the social dynamics of data silos?

Posted in Data Silos, Interoperability, Silos, Standards | No Comments »

Analysis and synthesis of metadata goals for scientific data

Friday, June 29th, 2012

Analysis and synthesis of metadata goals for scientific data by Craig Willis, Jane Greenberg and Hollie White. (Willis, C., Greenberg, J. and White, H. (2012), Analysis and synthesis of metadata goals for scientific data. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.. doi: 10.1002/asi.22683)

Abstract:

The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg’s () metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (>0.6), a Fisher’s exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p < .05).

Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have “scheme harmonization” (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective “abstraction” (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective “sufficiency” (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective “data publication” do not have the objective “element refinement.” The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes.

The authors remark on the scope of metadata:

Scope is a broad term, but is commonly used in the software requirements and metadata communities to identify what is included as part of a system or scheme. In the context of metadata for scientific data, it seems that each community has scoped their metadata based on discipline-specific needs and practices. This observation makes sense, given that the metadata efforts examined are initiated within silos, embedded in the scientific practice of the community. To extend this research, it seems that more questions are needed to address these fundamental requirements in the context of communities’ approaches to science and communication.

And later advocate the study of metadata in broader communities to break down the barriers created by silos.

The quest to avoid/abandon silos is a quixotic one.

A more realistic goal would be to build a bigger silos that encompasses related areas of science/data by providing trans-silo mappings from more specialized silos.

Any metadata that we establish today will be a “silo” when viewed ten years hence.

We can create mechanisms that ease our transition from one silo to the next or continue the pretense we can move beyond them.

Which will you choose?

Posted in Metadata, Science, Silos | No Comments »

Breaking Silos – Carrot or Stick?

Thursday, June 7th, 2012

Alex Popescu, in Silos Are Built for a Reason quotes Greg Lowe saying:

In a typical large enterprise, there are competitions for resources and success, competing priorities and lots of irrelevant activities that are happening that can become distractions from accomplishing the goals of the teams.

Another reason silos are built has to do with affiliation. This is by choice, not by edict. By building groups where you share a shared set of goals, you effectively have an area of focus with a group of people interested in the same area and/or outcome.

There are many more reasons and impacts of why silos are built, but I simply wanted to establish that silos are built for a purpose with legitimate business needs in mind.

Alex then responds:

Legitimate? Maybe. Productive? I don’t really think so.

Greg’s original post is: Breaking down silos, what does that mean?

Greg asks about the benefits of breaking down silos:

  • Are the silos mandatory?
  • What would breaking down silos enable in the business?
  • What do silos do to your business today?
  • What incentive is there for these silos to go away?
  • Is your company prepared for transparency?
  • How will leadership deal with “Monday morning quarterbacks?”

As you can see, there are many benefits to silos as well as challenges. By developing a deeper understanding of the silos and why they get created, you can then have a better handle on whether the silos are beneficial or detrimental to the organization.

I would add to Greg’s question list:

  • Which stakeholders benefit from the silos?
  • What is that benefit?
  • It there a carrot or stick that out weighs that benefit? (in the view of the stakeholder)
  • Do you have the political capital to take the stakeholders on and win?

If your answer are:

  • List of names
  • List of benefits
  • Yes, list of carrots/sticks
  • No

Then you are in good company.

Intelligence silos persist despite the United States being at war with identifiable terrorist groups.

Generalized benefit or penalty for failure, isn’t a winning argument to break a data silo.

Specific benefits and penalties must matter to stakeholders. Then you have a chance to break a data silo.

Good luck!

Posted in Data Governance, Data Integration, Data Silos, Silos | No Comments »

Silo Indictment #1,000,001

Friday, May 25th, 2012

Derek Miers writes what may be the 1,000,001st indictment of silos in Silos and Functional Decomposition:

I think we would all agree that BPM and business architecture set out to overcome the issues associated with silos. And I think we would also agree that the problems associated with silos derive from functional decomposition.

While strategy development usually takes a broad, organization-wide view, so many change programs still cater to the sub-optimization perspectives of individual silos. Usually, these individual change programs consist of projects that deal with the latest problem to rise to the top of the political agenda — effectively applying a Band-Aid to fix a broken customer-facing process or put out a fire associated with some burning platform.

Silo-based thinking is endemic to Western culture — it’s everywhere. This approach to management is very much a command-and-control mentality injected into our culture by folks like Smith, Taylor, Newton and Descartes. Let’s face it: the world has moved on, and the network is now far more important than the hierarchy.

But guess what technique about 99.9% of us use to fix the problems associated with functional decomposition? You guessed it: yet more functional decomposition. I think Einstein had something to say about using the same techniques and expecting different results. This is a serious groupthink problem!

When we use functional decomposition to model processes, we usually conflate the organizational structure with the work itself. Rather than breaking down the silos, this approach reinforces them — effectively putting them on steroids. And when other techniques emerge that explicitly remove the conflation of process and organizational structure, those who are wedded to old ways of thinking come out of the woodwork to shoot them down. Examples include role activity diagrams (Martyn Ould), value networks (Verna Allee), and capability mapping (various authors, including Forrester analysts).

Or it may be silo indictment #1,000,002, it is hard to keep an accurate count.

I don’t doubt a word that Derek says, although I might put a different emphasis on parts of it.

But in any case, let’s just emphasize agreement that silos are a problem.

Now what?

Posted in Functional Decomposition, Hierarchy, Networks, Silos | No Comments »