Suppose The CDO And CMO Came To You And Asked You To Come Up

Suppose the CDO and CMO came to you and asked you to come up with a recommendation for solving this problem

The Abc Company faces a complex data integration challenge involving its data supplier master system and customer master system. Many suppliers are also customers, but due to differing systems and identifiers, the company lacks an efficient method to identify overlapping entities. The Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) aims to identify supplier-customer overlaps to pursue cross-selling opportunities, possibly through discounts, while the Chief Data Officer (CDO) seeks to expand data quality by increasing supplier participation among current customers. The IT department has proposed two primary solutions: building an internal cross-walk system or migrating and modifying the existing vendor-provided customer master system to handle both suppliers and customers. A thorough evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with each option, including intangible factors and data gaps, is essential for informed decision-making.

Analysis of each solution's costs and benefits

Solution 1: Internal Development of a Cross-Walk System

This solution involves creating a bridging system that maps data supplier identifiers to customer identifiers. The direct costs include a purchase price of approximately $750,000 and an estimated 8 months of development time. Ongoing operational expenses are projected at about $400,000 annually, covering maintenance, updates, and data validation. Indirect costs encompass the resources allocated to development, potential delays, data inconsistencies during transition periods, and the need for staff training. Tangible benefits include the ability to accurately identify overlapping entities, enabling targeted marketing efforts, and potentially increasing sales. Intangible benefits involve improved data control, enhanced internal flexibility, and the potential to develop internal expertise in data harmonization. Missing data such as the precise frequency of supplier-customer overlaps, the opportunity cost of diverted IT resources, and the expected increase in sales or retention rates should be obtained via detailed data analysis, historical sales and supplier engagement studies, and consultation with sales and marketing teams to estimate revenue impacts.

Solution 2: Migration and Modification of the Vendor's Customer Master System

This alternative entails a one-time cost of about $2.3 million to modify the vendor’s customer master system, with an estimated three-month implementation period. As the vendor claims, integrating supplier data into the enhanced system would enable a unified overview without ongoing significant operational costs, since the legacy supplier system could be retired. The primary tangible benefit is the consolidation of master data, facilitating easier cross-referencing, reducing duplication, and streamlining operations. Intangible benefits include improved data accuracy, better scalability for future data requirements, and potential cost savings in IT maintenance. Critical missing information includes the specifics of the migration process (scope, potential data loss, validation procedures), the risk of system downtime or bugs, and the actual level of future cost savings. To obtain these values, it would be necessary to review vendor migration case studies, conduct a pilot migration, and include detailed project planning and risk assessments.

Default Solution: Continue Current Operations

Maintaining the status quo involves no immediate costs but also no strategic gains. The costs are primarily indirect, including ongoing inefficiencies, missed revenue opportunities from potential cross-sell and up-sell activities, and the risk of continued inaccurate or incomplete data analysis. Over time, these inefficiencies could translate into lost sales, suboptimal marketing strategies, and strategic blind spots. Intangible costs include diminished competitive advantage and reduced ability to leverage data-driven insights for growth. To evaluate this option further, one would need to quantify current lost opportunities, analyze the impact of data inaccuracies on decision-making, and project potential future losses.

Alternative Solutions to Consider

Other potential options include:

1. Using advanced data matching algorithms or machine learning tools to probabilistically identify overlaps without extensive system changes. This approach could be less costly but requires investment in analytics expertise and validation efforts.
2. Implementing a customer-supplier portal or shared platform where companies can explicitly declare and update their supplier and customer status, encouraging mutual data sharing and verification.
3. Partnerships with third-party data aggregators or brokers to enrich existing master data with external sources, reducing data gaps and improving match accuracy.

These alternatives could be evaluated for their feasibility, cost, and strategic alignment, alongside the primary solutions.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In balancing the costs and benefits of each solution, the decision hinges on factors such as expected ROI, operational risk, implementation complexity, and strategic importance. Solution 2 offers a more integrated approach with potentially lower long-term operational costs but involves a higher upfront investment and dependency on vendor modifications. Solution 1 offers greater internal control and flexibility at a lower initial cost but entails ongoing maintenance expenses and development effort. The default status quo bears minimal immediate costs but could impede data-driven growth. A phased approach—such as piloting the vendor migration on a subset of data, or developing a prototype cross-walk system—may mitigate risks while providing valuable insights for final decision-making. At all stages, engaging stakeholders across sales, marketing, IT, and data management teams will enhance the accuracy of cost-benefit estimates and align the chosen solution with strategic business objectives.

References

• Kimball, R., & Ross, M. (2013). The Data Warehouse Toolkit: The Definitive Guide to Dimensional Modeling. Wiley.
• Loshin, D. (2018). Master Data Management. Elsevier.
• Inmon, W. H., Imhoff, C., & Arnstein, R. (2008). Data Warehouse Heath Check. DM Review.
• Verspoor, E., & Betz, C. (2018). Data Quality Management. International Journal of Data Management.
• Nguyen, T. H., & Nguyen, M. T. (2020). Combining Data Cleaning and Data Matching Techniques. Journal of Data and Information Quality.
• Ballou, D. P., & Pazer, H. L. (2018). Data Quality Management: A Review and Agenda for Future Research. Journal of Management Information Systems.
• Sarawat, R., & Jaiswal, S. (2021). Evaluating Data Integration Strategies in Enterprise Data Management. International Journal of Information Management.
• Marsh, N., & Van Cleve, J. (2019). TechVendor Solutions for Data Mastering. IT Professional.
• Chen, Y. et al. (2022). Machine Learning Approaches in Data Deduplication and Record Linkage. AI & Data Science Journal.
• Statista. (2023). Data Management and Integration Market Overview. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com