By tobyehatch-Oracle on Dec 17, 2015
By Guest Blogger, Gilles Demarquet
Does this complaint sound familiar? “We attend meetings where people arrive with “different figures” and end up spending too much time trying to resolve the causes of the discrepancies.”
Often these discrepancies are caused by different hierarchy definitions or different ways to roll up information. And, frequently, it’s a challenge to identify who should be in charge of the definition. In many case, it requires management involvement to define the rules and to get consensus.
In a previous post discussing hybrid environments consisting of both on-premises and cloud deployments, I emphasized that a dedicated approach for managing hierarchy changes is preferable to trying to maintain reference definitions in each application. I concluded that discussion by pointing out that successful deployments require committed people, strong processes, and technology to maintain consistent definitions for the reference data used in on-premises and cloud applications.
In this post, let’s consider who is and who should be involved in the maintenance of reference data in a hybrid implementation. There are two major areas of an organization that lay claim to “ownership” of reference data definitions – the IT department and business users.
Historically, the IT department took care of maintaining the reference data definitions since only they had access to the tools to maintain them. This approach led to dissatisfaction in the business community as IT often became a bottleneck to timely (and correct) maintenance of hierarchy definitions.
In reality, requests to update hierarchies can be proposed by any number of business users and from a variety of functional areas. For example, finance end users might submit change requests for creating a new account, while operations might request an update in the product references. Each end user might be considered an owner of his or her respective information.
A well-designed solution to hierarchy maintenance in a hybrid environment requires dedication from both of these organizational groups. So the answer to who should be involved is “everybody with a stake in having consistent hierarchy definitions.” That includes IT and business users – if you are a member of either group, then you have a stake in ensuring correct and consistent enterprise hierarchies.
Is it possible to get these groups to work together? How do you resolve potential conflicting requests? This is where the inclusion of strong processes contributes to the successful deployment. I will elaborate on this topic in the next post. Stay tuned and forward any comments that you have.
To learn more about software solutions for maintaining enterprise hierarchies, click here.