>> Announcer: From around the globe, it's theCube with digital coverage of MIT, Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium brought to you by Silicon Angle Media. >> Hi, I'm Stu Miniman and this is the seventh year of theCubes coverage of the MIT, Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium. We love getting to talk to these chief data officers and the people in this ecosystem, the importance of data, driving data-driven cultures, and really happy to welcome to the program, first time guests Eileen Vitrine, Eileen is the Chief Data Officer for the United States Air Force, Eileen, thank you so much for joining us. >> Thank you Stu really excited about being here today. >> All right, so the United States Air Force, I believe had it first CDO office in 2017, you were put in the CDO role in June of 2018. If you could, bring us back, give us how that was formed inside the Air force and how you came to be in that role. >> Well, Stu I like to say that we are a startup organization and a really mature organization, so it's really about culture change and it began by bringing a group of amazing citizen airman reservists back to the Air Force to bring their skills from industry and bring them into the Air Force. So, I like to say that we're a total force because we have active and reservists working with civilians on a daily basis and one of the first things we did in June was we stood up a data lab, that's based in the Jones building on Andrews Air Force Base. And there, we actually take small use cases that have enterprise focus, and we really try to dig deep to try to drive data insights, to inform senior leaders across the department on really important, what I would call enterprise focused challenges, it's pretty exciting. >> Yeah, it's been fascinating when we've dug into this ecosystem, of course while the data itself is very sensitive and I'm sure for the Air Force, there are some very highest level of security, the practices that are done as to how to leverage data, the line between public and private blurs, because you have people that have come from industry that go into government and people that are from government that have leveraged their experiences there. So, if you could give us a little bit of your background and what it is that your charter has been and what you're looking to build out, as you mentioned that culture of change. >> Well, I like to say I began my data leadership journey as an active duty soldier in the army, and I was originally a transportation officer, today we would use the title condition based maintenance, but back then, it was really about running the numbers so that I could optimize my truck fleet on the road each and every day, so that my soldiers were driving safely. Data has always been part of my leadership journey and so I like to say that one of our challenges is really to make sure that data is part of every airmans core DNA, so that they're using the right data at the right level to drive insights, whether it's tactical, operational or strategic. And so it's really about empowering each and every airman, which I think is pretty exciting. >> There's so many pieces of that data, you talk about data quality, there's obviously the data life cycle. I know your presentation that you're given here at the CDO, IQ talks about the data platform that your team has built, could you explain that? What are the key tenants and what maybe differentiates it from what other organizations might have done? >> So, when we first took the challenge to build our data lab, we really wanted to really come up. Our goal was to have a cross domain solution where we could solve data problems at the appropriate classification level. And so we built the VAULT data platform, VAULT stands for visible, accessible, understandable, linked, and trustworthy. And if you look at the DOD data strategy, they will also add the tenants of interoperability and secure. So, the first steps that we have really focused on is making data visible and accessible to airmen, to empower them, to drive insights from available data to solve their problems. So, it's really about that data empowerment, we like to use the hashtag built by airmen because it's really about each and every airman being part of the solution. And I think it's really an exciting time to be in the Air Force because any airman can solve a really hard challenge and it can very quickly wrap it up rapidly, escalate up with great velocity to senior leadership, to be an enterprise solution. >> Is there some basic training that goes on from a data standpoint? For any of those that have lived in data, oftentimes you can get lost in numbers, you have to have context, you need to understand how do I separate good from bad data, or when is data still valid? So, how does someone in the Air Force get some of that beta data competency? >> Well, we have taken a multitenant approach because each and every airman has different needs. So, we have quite a few pathfinders across the Air Force today, to help what I call, upscale our total force. And so I developed a partnership with the Air Force Institute of Technology and they now have a online graduate level data science certificate program. So, individuals studying at AFIT or remotely have the opportunity to really focus on building up their data touchpoints. Just recently, we have been working on a pathfinder to allow our data officers to get their ICCP Federal Data Sector Governance Certificate Program. So, we've been running what I would call short boot camps to prep data officers to be ready for that. And I think the one that I'm most excited about is that this year, this fall, new cadets at the U.S Air Force Academy will be able to have an undergraduate degree in data science and so it's not about a one prong approach, it's about having short courses as well as academe solutions to up skill our total force moving forward. >> Well, information absolutely is such an important differentiator(laughs) in general business and absolutely the military aspects are there. You mentioned the DOD talks about interoperability in their platform, can you speak a little bit to how you make sure that data is secure? Yet, I'm sure there's opportunities for other organizations, for there to be collaboration between them. >> Well, I like to say, that we don't fight alone. So, I work on a daily basis with my peers, Tom Cecila at the Department of Navy and Greg Garcia at the Department of Army, as well as Mr. David Berg in the DOD level. It's really important that we have an integrated approach moving forward and in the DOD we partner with our security experts, so it's not about us doing security individually, it's really about, in the Air Force we use a term called digital air force, and it's about optimizing and building a trusted partnership with our CIO colleagues, as well as our chief management colleagues because it's really about that trusted partnership to make sure that we're working collaboratively across the enterprise and whatever we do in the department, we also have to reach across our services so that we're all working together. >> Eileen, I'm curious if there's been much impact from the global pandemic. When I talk to enterprise companies, that they had to rapidly make sure that while they needed to protect data, when it was in their four walls and maybe for VPN, now everyone is accessing data, much more work from home and the like. I have to imagine some of those security measures you've already taken, but have there anything along those lines or anything else that this shift in where people are, and a little bit more dispersed has impacted your work? >> Well, the story that I like to say is, that this has given us velocity. So, prior to COVID, we built our VAULT data platform as a multitenancy platform that is also cross-domain solution, so it allows people to develop and do their problem solving in an appropriate classification level. And it allows us to connect or pushup if we need to into higher classification levels. The other thing that it has helped us really work smart because we do as much as we can in that unclassified environment and then using our cloud based solution in our gateways, it allows us to bring people in at a very scheduled component so that we maximize, or we optimize their time on site. And so I really think that it's really given us great velocity because it has really allowed people to work on the right problem set, on the right class of patient level at a specific time. And plus the other pieces, we look at what we're doing is that the problem set that we've had has really allowed people to become more data focused. I think that it's personal for folks moving forward, so it has increased understanding in terms of the need for data insights, as we move forward to drive decision making. It's not that data makes the decision, but it's using the insight to make the decision. >> And one of the interesting conversations we've been having about how to get to those data insights is the use of things like machine learning, artificial intelligence, anything you can share about, how you're looking at that journey, where you are along that discovery. >> Well, I love to say that in order to do AI and machine learning, you have to have great volumes of high quality data. And so really step one was visible, accessible data, but we in the Department of the Air Force stood up an accelerator at MIT. And so we have a group of amazing airmen that are actually working with MIT on a daily basis to solve some of those, what I would call opportunities for us to move forward. My office collaborates with them on a consistent basis, because they're doing additional use cases in that academic environment, which I'm pretty excited about because I think it gives us access to some of the smartest minds. >> All right, Eileen also I understand it's your first year doing the event. Unfortunately, we don't get, all come together in Cambridge, walking those hallways and being able to listen to some of those conversations and follow up is something we've very much enjoyed over the years. What excites you about being interact with your peers and participating in the event this year? >> Well, I really think it's about helping each other leverage the amazing lessons learned. I think that if we look collaboratively, both across industry and in the federal sector, there have been amazing lessons learned and it gives us a great forum for us to really share and leverage those lessons learned as we move forward so that we're not hitting the reboot button, but we actually are starting faster. So, it comes back to the velocity component, it all helps us go faster and at a higher quality level and I think that's really exciting. >> So, final question I have for you, we've talked for years about digital transformation, we've really said that having that data strategy and that culture of leveraging data is one of the most critical pieces of having gone through that transformation. For people that are maybe early on their journey, any advice that you'd give them, having worked through a couple of years of this and the experience you've had with your peers. >> I think that the first thing is that you have to really start with a blank slate and really look at the art of the possible. Don't think about what you've always done, think about where you want to go because there are many different paths to get there. And if you look at what the target goal is, it's really about making sure that you do that backward tracking to get to that goal. And the other piece that I tell my colleagues is celebrate the wins. My team of airmen, they are amazing, it's an honor to serve them and the reality is that they are doing great things and sometimes you want more. And it's really important to celebrate the victories because it's a very long journey and we keep moving the goalposts because we're always striving for excellence. >> Absolutely, it is always a journey that we're on, it's not about the destination. Eileen, thank you so much for sharing all that you've learned and glad you could participate. >> Thank you, STU, I appreciate being included today. Have a great day. >> Thanks and thank you for watching theCube. I'm Stu Miniman stay tuned for more from the MIT, CDO IQ event. (lively upbeat music)

>> From Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE. Covering MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium 2019. Brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. (futuristic music) >> Welcome back to Cambridge, Massachusetts everybody. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. We go out to the events and we extract the signal from the noise. This is day two, we're sort of wrapping up the Chief Data Officer event. It's MIT CDOIQ, it started as an information quality event and with the ascendancy of big data the CDO emerged and really took center stage here. And it's interesting to know that it's kind of come full circle back to information quality. People are realizing all this data we have, you know the old saying, garbage in, garbage out. So the information quality worlds and this chief data officer world have really come colliding together. Robert Abate is here, he's the Vice President and CDO of Global IDS and also the co-chair of next year's, the 14th annual MIT CDOIQ. Robert, thanks for coming on. >> Oh, well thank you. >> Now you're a CDO by background, give us a little history of your career. >> Sure, sure. Well I started out with an Electrical Engineering degree and went into applications development. By 2000, I was leading the Ralph Lauren's IT, and I realized when Ralph Lauren hired me, he was getting ready to go public. And his problem was he had hired eight different accounting firms to do eight different divisions. And each of those eight divisions were reporting a number, but the big number didn't add up, so he couldn't go public. So he searched the industry to find somebody who could figure out the problem. Now I was, at the time, working in applications and had built this system called Service Oriented Architectures, a way of integrating applications. And I said, "Well I don't know if I could solve the problem, "but I'll give it a shot." And what I did was, just by taking each silo as it's own problem, which was what EID Accounting Firm had done, I was able to figure out that one of Ralph Lauren's policies was if you buy a garment, you can return it anytime, anywhere, forever, however long you own it. And he didn't think about that, but what that meant is somebody could go to a Bloomingdale's, buy a garment and then go to his outlet store and return it. Well, the cross channels were different systems. So the outlet stores were his own business, retail was a different business, there was a completely different, each one had their own AS/400, their own data. So what I quickly learned was, the problem wasn't the systems, the problem was the data. And it took me about two months to figure it out and he offered me a job, he said well, I was a consultant at the time, he says, "I'm offering you a job, you're going to run my IT." >> Great user experience but hard to count. >> (laughs) Hard to count. So that's when I, probably 1999 was when that happened. I went into data and started researching-- >> Sorry, so how long did it take you to figure that out? You said a couple of months? >> A couple of months, I think it was about two months. >> 'Cause jeez, it took Oracle what, 10 years to build Fusion with SOA? That's pretty good. (laughs) >> This was a little bit of luck. When we started integrating the applications we learned that the messages that we were sending back and forth didn't match, and we said, "Well that's impossible, it can't not match." But what didn't match was it was coming from one channel and being returned in another channel, and the returns showed here didn't balance with the returns on this side. So it was a data problem. >> So a forensics showdown. So what did you do after? >> After that I went into ICICI Bank which was a large bank in India who was trying to integrate their systems, and again, this was a data problem. But they heard me giving a talk at a conference on how SOA had solved the data challenge, and they said, "We're a bank with a wholesale, a retail, "and other divisions, "and we can't integrate the systems, can you?" I said, "Well yeah, I'd build a website "and make them web services and now what'll happen is "each of those'll kind of communicate." And I was at ICICI Bank for about six months in Mumbai, and finished that which was a success, came back and started consulting because now a lot of companies were really interested in this concept of Service Oriented Architectures. Back then when we first published on it, myself, Peter Aiken, and a gentleman named Joseph Burke published on it in 1996. The publisher didn't accept the book, it was a really interesting thing. We wrote the book called, "Services Based Architectures: A Way to Integrate Systems." And the way Wiley & Sons, or most publishers work is, they'll have three industry experts read your book and if they don't think what you're saying has any value, they, forget about it. So one guy said this is brilliant, one guy says, "These guys don't know what they're talking about," and the third guy says, "I don't even think what they're talking about is feasible." So they decided not to publish. Four years later it came back and said, "We want to publish the book," and Peter said, "You know what, they lost their chance." We were ahead of them by four years, they didn't understand the technology. So that was kind of cool. So from there I went into consulting, eventually took a position as the Head of Enterprise and Director of Enterprise Information Architecture with Walmart. And Walmart, as you know, is a huge entity, almost the size of the federal government. So to build an architecture that integrates Walmart would've been a challenge, a behemoth challenge, and I took it on with a phenomenal team. >> And when was this, like what timeframe? >> This was 2010, and by the end of 2010 we had presented an architecture to the CIO and the rest of the organization, and they came back to me about a week later and said, "Look, everybody agrees what you did was brilliant, "but nobody knows how to implement it. "So we're taking you away, "you're no longer Director of Information Architecture, "you're now Director of Enterprise Information Management. "Build it. "Prove that what you say you could do, you could do." So we built something called the Data CAFE, and CAFE was an acronym, it stood for: Collaborative Analytics Facility for the Enterprise. What we did was we took data from one of the divisions, because you didn't want to take on the whole beast, boil the ocean. We picked Sam's Club and we worked with their CFO, and because we had information about customers we were able to build a room with seven 80 inch monitors that surrounded anyone in the room. And in the center was the Cisco telecommunications so you could be a part of a meeting. >> The TelePresence. >> TelePresence. And we built one room in one facility, and one room in another facility, and we labeled the monitors, one red, one blue, one green, and we said, "There's got to be a way where we can build "data science so it's interactive, so somebody, "an executive could walk into the room, "touch the screen, and drill into features. "And in another room "the features would be changing simultaneously." And that's what we built. The room was brought up on Black Friday of 2013, and we were able to see the trends of sales on the East Coast that we quickly, the executives in the room, and these are the CEO of Walmart and the heads of Sam's Club and the like, they were able to change the distribution in the Mountain Time Zone and west time zones because of the sales on the East Coast gave them the idea, well these things are going to sell, and these things aren't. And they saw a tremendous increase in productivity. We received the 2014, my team received the 2014 Walmart Innovation Project of the Year. >> And that's no slouch. Walmart has always been heavily data-oriented. I don't know if it's urban legend or not, but the famous story in the '80s of the beer and the diapers, right? Walmart would position beer next to diapers, why would they do that? Well the father goes in to buy the diapers for the baby, picks up a six pack while he's on the way, so they just move those proximate to each other. (laughs) >> In terms of data, Walmart really learned that there's an advantage to understanding how to place items in places that, a path that you might take in a store, and knowing that path, they actually have a term for it, I believe it's called, I'm sorry, I forgot the name but it's-- >> Selling more stuff. (laughs) >> Yeah, it's selling more stuff. It's the way you position items on a shelf. And Walmart had the brilliance, or at least I thought it was brilliant, that they would make their vendors the data champion. So the vendor, let's say Procter & Gamble's a vendor, and they sell this one product the most. They would then be the champion for that aisle. Oh, it's called planogramming. So the planogramming, the way the shelves were organized, would be set up by Procter & Gamble for that entire area, working with all their other vendors. And so Walmart would give the data to them and say, "You do it." And what I was purporting was, well, we shouldn't just be giving the data away, we should be using that data. And that was the advent of that. From there I moved to Kimberly-Clark, I became Global Director of Enterprise Data Management and Analytics. Their challenge was they had different teams, there were four different instances of SAP around the globe. One for Latin America, one for North America called the Enterprise Edition, one for EMEA, Europe, Middle East, and Africa, and one for Asia-Pacific. Well when you have four different instances of SAP, that means your master data doesn't exist because the same thing that happens in this facility is different here. And every company faces this challenge. If they implement more than one of a system the specialty fields get used by different companies in different ways. >> The gold standard, the gold version. >> The golden version. So I built a team by bringing together all the different international teams, and created one team that was able to integrate best practices and standards around data governance, data quality. Built BI teams for each of the regions, and then a data science and advanced analytics team. >> Wow, so okay, so that makes you uniquely qualified to coach here at the conference. >> Oh, I don't know about that. (laughs) There are some real, there are some geniuses here. >> No but, I say that because these are your peeps. >> Yes, they are, they are. >> And so, you're a practitioner, this conference is all about practitioners talking to practitioners, it's content-heavy, There's not a lot of fluff. Lunches aren't sponsored, there's no lanyard sponsor and it's not like, you know, there's very subtle sponsor desks, you have to have sponsors 'cause otherwise the conference's not enabled, and you've got costs associated with it. But it's a very intimate event and I think you guys want to keep it that way. >> And I really believe you're dead-on. When you go to most industry conferences, the industry conferences, the sponsors, you know, change the format or are heavily into the format. Here you have industry thought leaders from all over the globe. CDOs of major Fortune 500 companies who are working with their peers and exchanging ideas. I've had conversations with a number of CDOs and the thought leadership at this conference, I've never seen this type of thought leadership in any conference. >> Yeah, I mean the percentage of presentations by practitioners, even when there's a vendor name, they have a practitioner, you know, internal practitioner presenting so it's 99.9% which is why people attend. We're moving venues next year, I understand. Just did a little tour of the new venue, so, going to be able to accommodate more attendees, so that's great. >> Yeah it is. >> So what are your objectives in thinking ahead a year from now? >> Well, you know, I'm taking over from my current peer, Dr. Arka Mukherjee, who just did a phenomenal job of finding speakers. People who are in the industry, who are presenting challenges, and allowing others to interact. So I hope could do a similar thing which is, find with my peers people who have real world challenges, bring them to the forum so they can be debated. On top of that, there are some amazing, you know, technology change is just so fast. One of the areas like big data I remember only five years ago the chart of big data vendors maybe had 50 people on it, now you would need the table to put all the vendors. >> Who's not a data vendor, you know? >> Who's not a data vendor? (laughs) So I would think the best thing we could do is, is find, just get all the CDOs and CDO-types into a room, and let us debate and talk about these points and issues. I've seen just some tremendous interactions, great questions, people giving advice to others. I've learned a lot here. >> And how about long term, where do you see this going? How many CDOs are there in the world, do you know? Is that a number that's known? >> That's a really interesting point because, you know, only five years ago there weren't that many CDOs to be called. And then Gartner four years ago or so put out an article saying, "Every company really should have a CDO." Not just for the purpose of advancing your data, and to Doug Laney's point that data is being monetized, there's a need to have someone responsible for information 'cause we're in the Information Age. And a CIO really is focused on infrastructure, making sure I've got my PCs, making sure I've got a LAN, I've got websites. The focus on data has really, because of the Information Age, has turned data into an asset. So organizations realize, if you utilize that asset, let me reverse this, if you don't use data as an asset, you will be out of business. I heard a quote, I don't know if it's true, "Only 10 years ago, 250 of the Fortune 10 no longer exists." >> Yeah, something like that, the turnover's amazing. >> Many of those companies were companies that decided not to make the change to be data-enabled, to make data decision processing. Companies still use data warehouses, they're always going to use them, and a warehouse is a rear-view mirror, it tells you what happened last week, last month, last year. But today's businesses work forward-looking. And just like driving a car, it'd be really hard to drive your car through a rear-view mirror. So what companies are doing today are saying, "Okay, let's start looking at this as forward-looking, "a prescriptive and predictive analytics, "rather than just what happened in the past." I'll give you an example. In a major company that is a supplier of consumer products, they were leading in the industry and their sales started to drop, and they didn't know why. Well, with a data science team, we were able to determine by pulling in data from the CDC, now these are sources that only 20 years ago nobody ever used to bring in data in the enterprise, now 60% of your data is external. So we brought in data from the CDC, we brought in data on maternal births from the national government, we brought in data from the Census Bureau, we brought in data from sources of advertising and targeted marketing towards mothers. Pulled all that data together and said, "Why are diaper sales down?" Well they were targeting the large regions of the country and putting ads in TV stations in New York and California, big population centers. Birth rates in population centers have declined. Birth rates in certain other regions, like the south, and the Bible Belt, if I can call it that, have increased. So by changing the marketing, their product sales went up. >> Advertising to Texas. >> Well, you know, and that brings to one of the points, I heard a lecture today about ethics. We made it a point at Walmart that if you ran a query that reduced a result to less than five people, we wouldn't allow you to see the result. Because, think about it, I could say, "What is my neighbor buying? "What are you buying?" So there's an ethical component to this as well. But that, you know, data is not political. Data is not chauvinistic. It doesn't discriminate, it just gives you facts. It's the interpretation of that that is hard CDOs, because we have to say to someone, "Look, this is the fact, and your 25 years "of experience in the business, "granted, is tremendous and it's needed, "but the facts are saying this, "and that would mean that the business "would have to change its direction." And it's hard for people to do, so it requires that. >> So whether it's called the chief data officer, whatever the data czar rubric is, the head of analytics, there's obviously the data quality component there whatever that is, this is the conference for, as I called them, your peeps, for that role in the organization. People often ask, "Will that role be around?" I think it's clear, it's solidifying. Yes, you see the chief digital officer emerging and there's a lot of tailwinds there, but the information quality component, the data architecture component, it's here to stay. And this is the premiere conference, the premiere event, that I know of anyway. There are a couple of others, perhaps, but it's great to see all the success. When I first came here in 2013 there were probably about 130 folks here. Today, I think there were 500 people registered almost. Next year, I think 600 is kind of the target, and I think it's very reasonable with the new space. So congratulations on all the success, and thank you for stepping up to the co-chair role, I really appreciate it. >> Well, let me tell you I thank you guys. You provide a voice at these IT conferences that we really need, and that is the ability to get the message out. That people do think and care, the industry is not thoughtless and heartless. With all the data breaches and everything going on there's a lot of fear, fear, loathing, and anticipation. But having your voice, kind of like ESPN and a sports show, gives the technology community, which is getting larger and larger by the day, a voice and we need that so, thank you. >> Well thank you, Robert. We appreciate that, it was great to have you on. Appreciate the time. >> Great to be here, thank you. >> All right, and thank you for watching. We'll be right back with out next guest as we wrap up day two of MIT CDOIQ. You're watching theCUBE. (futuristic music)

(techno music) >> From Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE. Covering MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium 2019, brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. >> Welcome back to MIT CDOIQ. The CDO Information Quality Conference. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. My name is Dave Vellante. I'm here with my co-host, Paul Gillin. This is our day two of our two day coverage. Jean Ross is here. She's the principle research scientist at MIT CISR, Jean good to see you again. >> Nice to be here! >> Welcome back. Okay, what do all these acronyms stand for, I forget. MIT CISR. >> CISR which we pronounce scissor, is the Center for Information Systems Research. It's a research center that's been at MIT since 1974, studying how big companies use technology effectively. >> So and, what's your role as a research scientist? >> As a research scientist, I work with both researchers and with company leaders to understand what's going on out there, and try to present some simple succinct ideas about how companies can generate greater value from information technology. >> Well, I guess not much has changed in information technology since 1974. (laughing) So let's fast forward to the big, hot trend, digital transformation, digital business. What's the difference between a business and a digital business? >> Right now, you're hoping there's no difference for you and your business. >> (chuckling) Yeah, for sure. >> The main thing about a digital business is it's being inspired by technology. So in the past, we would establish a strategy, and then we would check out technology and say, okay, how can technology make us more effective with that strategy? Today, and this has been driven a lot by start-ups, we have to stop and say, well wait a minute, what is technology making possible? Because if we're not thinking about it, there sure are a lot of students at MIT who are, and we're going to miss the boat. We're going to get Ubered if you will, somebody's going to think of a value proposition that we should be offering and aren't, and we'll be left in the dust. So, our digital businesses are those that are recognizing the opportunities that digital technologies make possible. >> Now, and what about data? In terms of the role of digital business, it seems like that's an underpinning of a digital business. Is it not? >> Yeah, the single biggest capability that digital technologies provide, is ubiquitous data that's readily accessible anytime. So when we think about being inspired by technology, we could reframe that as inspired by the availability of ubiquitous data that's readily accessible. >> Your premise about the difference between digitization and digital business is interesting. It's more than just a sematic debate. Do companies now, when companies talk about digital transformation these days, in fact, are most of them of thinking of digitization rather than really transformative business change? >> Yeah, this is so interesting to me. In 2006, we wrote a book that said, you need to become more agile, and you need to rely on information technology to get you there. And these are basic things like SAP and salesforce.com and things like that. Just making sure that your core processes are disciplined and reliable and predictable. We said this in 2006. What we didn't know is that we were explaining digitization, which is very effective use of technology in your underlying process. Today, when somebody says to me, we're going digital, I'm thinking about the new value propositions, the implications of the data, right? And they're often actually saying they're finally doing what we thought they should do in 2006. The problem is, in 2006, we said get going on this, it's a long journey. This could take you six, 10 years to accomplish. And then we gave examples of companies that took six to 10 years. LEGO, and USAA and really great companies. And now, companies are going, "Ah, you know, we really ought to do that". They don't have six to 10 years. They get this done now, or they're in trouble, and it's still a really big deal. >> So how realistic is it? I mean, you've got big established companies that have got all these information silos, as we've been hearing for the last two days, just pulling their information together, knowing what they've got is a huge challenge for them. Meanwhile, you're competing with born on the web, digitally native start-ups that don't have any of that legacy, is it really feasible for these companies to reinvent themselves in the way you're talking about? Or should they just be buying the companies that have already done it? >> Well good luck with buying, because what happens is that when a company starts up, they can do anything, but they can't do it to scale. So most of these start-ups are going to have to sell themselves because they don't know anything about scale. And the problem is, the companies that want to buy them up know about the scale of big global companies but they don't know how to do this seamlessly because they didn't do the basic digitization. They relied on basically, a lot of heroes in their company to pull of the scale. So now they have to rely more on technology than they did in the past, but they still have a leg up if you will, on the start-up that doesn't want to worry about the discipline of scaling up a good idea. They'd rather just go off and have another good idea, right? They're perpetual entrepreneurs if you will. So if we look at the start-ups, they're not really your concern. Your concern is the very well run company, that's been around, knows how to be inspired by technology and now says, "Oh I see what you're capable of doing, "or should be capable of doing. "I think I'll move into your space". So this, the Amazon's, and the USAA's and the LEGO's who say "We're good at what we do, "and we could be doing more". We're watching Schneider Electric, Phillips's, Ferovial. These are big ole companies who get digital, and they are going to start moving into a lot of people's territory. >> So let's take the example of those incumbents that you've used as examples of companies that are leaning into digital, and presumably doing a good job of it, they've got a lot of legacy debt, as you know people call it technical debt. The question I have is how they're using machine intelligence. So if you think about Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, they own horizontal technologies around machine intelligence. The incumbents that you mentioned, do not. Now do they close the gap? They're not going to build their own A.I. They're going to buy it, and then apply it. It's how they apply it that's going to be the difference. So do you agree with that premise, and where are they getting it, do they have the skill sets to do it, how are they closing that gap? >> They're definitely partnering. When you say they're not going to build any of it, that's actually not quite true. They're going to build a lot around the edges. They'll rely on partners like Microsoft and Google to provide some of the core, >> Yes, right. >> But they are bringing in their own experts to take it to the, basically to the customer level. How do I take, let me just take Schneider Electric for an example. They have gone from being an electrical equipment manufacturer, to a purveyor of energy management solutions. It's quite a different value proposition. To do that, they need a lot of intelligence. Some of it is data analytics of old, and some of it is just better representation on dashboards and things like that. But there is a layer of intelligence that is new, and it is absolutely essential to them by relying on partners and their own expertise in what they do for customers, and then co-creating a fair amount with customers, they can do things that other companies cannot. >> And they're developing a software presumably, a SAS revenue stream as part of that, right? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> How about the innovators dilemma though, the problem that these companies often have grown up, they're very big, they're very profitable, they see disruption coming, but they are unable to make the change, their shareholders won't let them make the change, they know what they have to do, but they're simply not able to do it, and then they become paralyzed. Is there a -- I mean, looking at some of the companies you just mentioned, how did they get over that mindset? >> This is real leadership from CEO's, who basically explain to their boards and to their investors, this is our future, we are... we're either going this direction or we're going down. And they sell it. It's brilliant salesmanship, and it's why when we go out to study great companies, we don't have that many to choose from. I mean, they are hard to find, right? So you are at such a competitive advantage right now. If you understand, if your own internal processes are cleaned up and you know how to rely on the E.R.P's and the C.R.M's, to get that done, and on the other hand, you're using the intelligence to provide value propositions, that new technologies and data make possible, that is an incredibly powerful combination, but you have to invest. You have to convince your boards and your investors that it's a good idea, you have to change your talent internally, and the biggest surprise is, you have to convince your customers that they want something from you that they never wanted before. So you got a lot of work to do to pull this off. >> Right now, in today's economy, the economy is sort of lifting all boats. But as we saw when the .com implosion happened in 2001, often these breakdown gives birth to great, new companies. Do you see that the next recession, which is inevitably coming, will be sort of the turning point for some of these companies that can't change? >> It's a really good question. I do expect that there are going to be companies that don't make it. And I think that they will fail at different rates based on their, not just the economy, but their industry, and what competitors do, and things like that. But I do think we're going to see some companies fail. We're going to see many other companies understand that they are too complex. They are simply too complex. They cannot do things end to end and seamlessly and present a great customer experience, because they're doing everything. So we're going to see some pretty dramatic changes, we're going to see failure, it's a fair assumption that when we see the economy crash, it's also going to contribute, but that's, it's not the whole story. >> But when the .com blew up, you had the internet guys that actually had a business model to make money, and the guys that didn't, the guys that didn't went away, and then you also had the incumbents that embrace the internet, so when we came out of that .com downturn, you had the survivors, who was Google and eBay, and obviously Amazon, and then you had incumbent companies who had online retailing, and e-tailing and e-commerce etc, who thrived. I would suspect you're going to see something similar, but I wonder what you guys think. The street today is rewarding growth. And we got another near record high today after the rate cut yesterday. And so, but companies that aren't making money are getting rewarded, 'cause they're growing. Well when the recession comes, those guys are going to get crushed. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> And you're going to have these other companies emerge, and you'll see the winners, are going to be those ones who have truly digitized, not just talking the talk, or transformed really, to use your definition. That's what I would expect. I don't know, what do you think about that? >> I totally agree. And, I mean, we look at industries like retail, and they have been fundamentally transformed. There's still lots of opportunities for innovation, and we're going to see some winners that have kind of struggled early but not given up, and they're kind of finding their footing. But we're losing some. We're losing a lot, right? I think the surprise is that we thought digital was going to replace what we did. We'd stop going to stores, we'd stop reading books, we wouldn't have newspapers anymore. And it hasn't done that. Its only added, it hasn't taken anything away. >> It could-- >> I don't think the newspaper industry has been unscathed by digital. >> No, nor has retail. >> Nor has retail, right. >> No, no no, not unscathed, but here's the big challenge. Is if I could substitute, If I could move from newspaper to online, I'm fine. You don't get to do that. You add online to what you've got, right? And I think this right now is the big challenge. Is that nothing's gone away, at least yet. So we have to sustain the business we are, so that it can feed the business we want to be. And we have to make that transition into new capabilities. I would argue that established companies need to become very binary, that there are people that do nothing but sustain and make better and better and better, who they are. While others, are creating the new reality. You see this in auto companies by the way. They're creating not just the autonomous automobiles, but the mobility services, the whole new value propositions, that will become a bigger and bigger part of their revenue stream, but right now are tiny. >> So, here's the scary thing to me. And again, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. And I've been an outspoken critic of Liz Warren's attack on big tech. >> Absolutely. >> I just think if they're breaking the law, and they're really acting like monopolies, the D.O.J and F.T.C should do something, but to me, you don't just break up big tech because they're good capitalists. Having said that, one of the things that scares me is, when you see Apple getting into payment systems, Amazon getting into grocery and logistics. Digital allows you to do something that's never happened before which is, you can traverse industries. >> Yep. >> Yeah, absolutely >> You used to have this stack of industries, and if you were in that industry, you're stuck in healthcare, you're stuck in financial services or whatever it was. And today, digital allows you to traverse those. >> It absolutely does. And so in theory, Amazon and Apple and Facebook and Google, they can attack virtually any industry and they kind of are. >> Yeah they kind are. I would certainly not break up anything. I would really look hard though at acquisitions, because I think that's where some of this is coming from. They can stop the overwhelming growth, but I do think you're right. That you get these opportunities from digital that are just so much easier because they're basically sharing information and technology, not building buildings and equipment and all that kind of thing. But I think there all limits to all this. I do not fear these companies. I think there, we need some law, we need some regulations, they're fine. They are adding a lot of value and the great companies, I mean, you look at the Schneider's and the Phillips, yeah they fear what some of them can do, but they're looking forward to what they provide underneath. >> Doesn't Cloud change the equation here? I mean, when you think of something like Amazon getting into the payments business, or Google in the payments business, you know it used to be that the creating of global payments processing network, just going global was a huge barrier to entry. Now, you don't have nearly that same level of impediment right? I mean the cloud eliminates much of the traditional barrier. >> Yeah, but I'll tell you what limits it, is complexity. Every company we've studied gets a little over anxious and becomes too complex, and they cannot run themselves effectively anymore. It happens to everyone. I mean, remember when we were terrified about what Microsoft was going to become? But then it got competition because it's trying to do so many things, and somebody else is offering, Sales Force and others, something simpler. And this will happen to every company that gets overly ambitious. Something simpler will come along, and everybody will go "Oh thank goodness". Something simpler. >> Well with Microsoft, I would argue two things. One is the D.O.J put some handcuffs on them , and two, with Steve Ballmer, I wouldn't get his nose out of Windows, and then finally stuck on a (mumbles) (laughter) >> Well it's they had a platform shift. >> Well this is exactly it. They will make those kind of calls . >> Sure, and I think that talks to their legacy, that they won't end up like Digital Equipment Corp or Wang and D.G, who just ignored the future and held onto the past. But I think, a colleague of ours, David Moschella wrote a book, it's called "Seeing Digital". And his premise was we're moving from a world of remote cloud services, to one where you have to, to use your word, ubiquitous digital services that you can access upon which you can build your business and new business models. I mean, the simplest example is Waves, you mentioned Uber. They're using Cloud, they're using OAuth.in with Google, Facebook or LinkedIn and they've got a security layer, there's an A.I layer, there's all your BlockChain, mobile, cognitive, it's all these sets of services that are now ubiquitous on which you're building, so you're leveraging, he calls it the matrix, to the extent that these companies that you're studying, these incumbents can leverage that matrix, they should be fine. >> Yes. >> The part of the problem is, they say "No, we're going to invent everything ourselves, we're going to build it all ourselves". To use Andy Jassy's term, it's non-differentiated heavy lifting, slows them down, but there's no reason why they can't tap that matrix, >> Absolutely >> And take advantage of it. Where I do get scared is, the Facebooks, Apples, Googles, Amazons, they're matrix companies, their data is at their core, and they get this. It's not like they're putting data around the core, data is the core. So your thoughts on that? I mean, it looks like your slide about disruption, it's coming. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. >> No industry is safe. >> Yeah, well I'll go back to the complexity argument. We studied complexity at length, and complexity is a killer. And as we get too ambitious, and we're constantly looking for growth, we start doing things that create more and more tensions in our various lines of business, causes to create silos, that then we have to coordinate. I just think every single company that, no cloud is going to save us from this. It, complexity will kill us. And we have to keep reminding ourselves to limit that complexity, and we've just not seen the example of the company that got that right. Sooner or later, they just kind of chop them, you know, create problems for themselves. >> Well isn't that inherent though in growth? >> Absolutely! >> It's just like, big companies slow down. >> That's right. >> They can't make decisions as quickly. >> That's right. >> I haven't seen a big company yet that moves nimbly. >> Exactly, and that's the complexity thing-- >> Well wait a minute, what about AWS? They're a 40 billion dollar company. >> Oh yeah, yeah, yeah >> They're like the agile gorilla. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> I mean, I think they're breaking the rule, and my argument would be, because they have data at their core, and they've got that, its a bromide, but that common data model, that they can apply now to virtually any business. You know, we're been expecting, a lot of people have been expecting that growth to attenuate. I mean it hasn't yet, we'll see. But they're like a 40 billion dollar firm-- >> No that's a good example yeah. >> So we'll see. And Microsoft, is the other one. Microsoft is demonstrating double digit growth. For such a large company, it's astounding. I wonder, if the law of large numbers is being challenged, so. >> Yeah, well it's interesting. I do think that what now constitutes "so big" that you're really going to struggle with the complexity. I think that has definitely been elevated a lot. But I still think there will be a point at which human beings can't handle-- >> They're getting away. >> Whatever level of complexity we reach, yeah. >> Well sure, right because even though this great new, it's your point. Cloud technology, you know, there's going to be something better that comes along. Even, I think Jassy might have said, If we had to do it all over again, we would have built the whole thing on lambda functions >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> Not on, you know so there you go. >> So maybe someone else does that-- >> Yeah, there you go. >> So now they've got their hybrid. >> Yeah, yeah. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> You know maybe it'll take another ten years, but well Jean, thanks so much for coming to theCUBE, >> it was great to have you. >> My pleasure! >> Appreciate you coming back. >> Really fun to talk. >> All right, keep right there everybody, Paul Gillin and Dave Villante, we'll be right back from MIT CDOIQ, you're watching theCUBE. (chuckles) (techno music)

>> From Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE, covering MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium 2019, brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. >> Welcome back to Cambridge, Massachusetts everybody, you're watching The Cube, the leader in tech coverage. My name is Dave Vellante here with my cohost Paul Gillin. This is day one of our two day coverage of the MIT CDOIQ conferences. CDO, Chief Data Officer, IQ, information quality. Colin Mahoney is here, he's a good friend and long time CUBE alum. I haven't seen you in awhile, >> I know >> But thank you so much for taking some time, you're like a special guest here >> Thank you, yeah it's great to be here, thank you. >> Yeah, so, this is not, you know, something that you would normally attend. I caught up with you, invited you in. This conference has started as, like back office governance, information quality, kind of wonky stuff, hidden. And then when the big data meme took off, kind of around the time we met. The Chief Data Officer role emerged, the whole Hadoop thing exploded, and then this conference kind of got bigger and bigger and bigger. Still intimate, but very high level, very senior. It's kind of come full circle as we've been saying, you know, information quality still matters. You have been in this data business forever, so I wanted to invite you in just to get your perspectives, we'll talk about what's new with what's going on in your company, but let's go back a little bit. When we first met and even before, you saw it coming, you kind of invested your whole career into data. So, take us back 10 years, I mean it was so different, remember it was Batch, it was Hadoop, but it was cool. There was a lot of cool >> It's still cool. (laughs) projects going on, and it's still cool. But, take a look back. >> Yeah, so it's changed a lot, look, I got into it a while ago, I've always loved data, I had no idea, the explosion and the three V's of data that we've seen over the last decade. But, data's really important, and it's just going to get more and more important. But as I look back I think what's really changed, and even if you just go back a decade I mean, there's an insatiable appetite for data. And that is not slowing down, it hasn't slowed down at all, and I think everybody wants that perfect solution that they can ask any question and get an immediate answers to. We went through the Hadoop boom, I'd argue that we're going through the Hadoop bust, but what people actually want is still the same. You know, they want real answers, accurate answers, they want them quickly, and they want it against all their information and all their data. And I think that Hadoop evolved a lot as well, you know, it started as one thing 10 years ago, with MapReduce and I think in the end what it's really been about is disrupting the storage market. But if you really look at what's disrupting storage right now, public clouds, S3, right? That's the new data league. So there's always a lot of hype cycles, everybody talks about you know, now it's Cloud, everything, for maybe the last 10 years it was a lot of Hadoop, but at the end of the day I think what people want to do with data is still very much the same. And a lot of companies are still struggling with it, hence the role for Chief Data Officers to really figure out how do I monetize data on the one hand and how to I protect that asset on the other hand. >> Well so, and the cool this is, so this conference is not a tech conference, really. And we love tech, we love talking about this, this is why I love having you on. We kind of have a little Vertica thread that I've created here, so Colin essentially, is the current CEO of Vertica, I know that's not your title, you're GM and Senior Vice President, but you're running Vertica. So, Michael Stonebreaker's coming on tomorrow, >> Yeah, excellent. >> Chris Lynch is coming on tomorrow, >> Oh, great, yeah. >> we've got Andy Palmer >> Awesome, yeah. >> coming up as well. >> Pretty cool. (laughs) >> So we have this connection, why is that important? It's because, you know, Vertica is a very cool company and is all about data, and it was all about disrupting, sort of the traditional relational database. It's kind of doing more with data, and if you go back to the roots of Vertica, it was like how do you do things faster? How do you really take advantage of data to really drive new business? And that's kind of what it's all about. And the tech behind it is really cool, we did your conference for many, many years. >> It's coming back by the way. >> Is it? >> Yeah, this March, so March 30th. >> Oh, wow, mark that down. >> At Boston, at the new Encore Hotel. >> Well we better have theCUBE there, bro. (laughs) >> Yeah, that's great. And yeah, you've done that conference >> Yep. >> haven't you before? So very cool customers, kind of leading edge, so I want to get to some of that, but let's talk the disruption for a minute. So you guys started with the whole architecture, MPP and so forth. And you talked about Cloud, Cloud really disrupted Hadoop. What are some of the other technology disruptions that you're seeing in the market space? >> I think, I mean, you know, it's hard not to talk about AI machine learning, and what one means versus the other, who knows right? But I think one thing that is definitely happening is people are leveraging the volumes of data and they're trying to use all the processing power and storage power that we have to do things that humans either are too expensive to do or simply can't do at the same speed and scale. And so, I think we're going through a renaissance where a lot more is being automated, certainly on the Vertica roadmap, and our path has always been initially to get the data in and then we want the platform to do a lot more for our customers, lots more analytics, lots more machine-learning in the platform. So that's definitely been a lot of the buzz around, but what's really funny is when you talk to a lot of customers they're still struggling with just some basic stuff. Forget about the predictive thing, first you've got to get to what happened in the past. Let's give accurate reporting on what's actually happening. The other big thing I think as a disruption is, I think IOT, for all the hype that it's getting it's very real. And every device is kicking off lots of information, the feedback loop of AB testing or quality testing for predictive maintenance, it's happening almost instantly. And so you're getting massive amounts of new data coming in, it's all this machine sensor type data, you got to figure out what it means really quick, and then you actually have to do something and act on it within seconds. And that's a whole new area for so many people. It's not their traditional enterprise data network warehouse and you know, back to you comment on Stonebreaker, he got a lot of this right from the beginning, you know, and I think he looked at the architectures, he took a lot of the best in class designs, we didn't necessarily invent everything, but we put a lot of that together. And then I think the other you've got to do is constantly re-invent your platform. We came out with our Eon Mode to run cloud native, we just got rated the best cloud data warehouse from a net promoter score rating perspective, so, but we got to keep going you know, we got to keep re-inventing ourselves, but leverage everything that we've done in the past as well. >> So one of the things that you said, which is kind of relevant for here, Paul, is you're still seeing a real data quality issue that customers are wrestling with, and that's a big theme here, isn't it? >> Absolutely, and the, what goes around comes around, as Dave said earlier, we're still talking about information quality 13 years after this conference began. Have the tools to improve quality improved all that much? >> I think the tools have improved, I think that's another area where machine learning, if you look at Tamr, and I know you're going to have Andy here tomorrow, they're leveraging a lot of the augmented things you can do with the processing to make it better. But I think one thing that makes the problem worse now, is it's gotten really easy to pour data in. It's gotten really easy to store data without having to have the right structure, the right quality, you know, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, everything was perfect before it got into the platform. Right, everything was, there was quality, everything was there. What's been happening over the last decade is you're pumping data into these systems, nobody knows if it's redundant data, nobody knows if the quality's any good, and the amount of data is massive. >> And it's cheap to store >> Very cheap to store. >> So people keep pumping it in. >> But I think that creates a lot of issues when it comes to data quality. So, I do think the technology's gotten better, I think there's a lot of companies that are doing a great job with it, but I think the challenge has definitely upped. >> So, go ahead. >> I'm sorry. You mentioned earlier that we're seeing the death of Hadoop, but I'd like you to elaborate on that becuase (Dave laughs) Hadoop actually came up this morning in the keynote, it's part of what GlaxoSmithKline did. Came up in a conversation I had with the CEO of Experian last week, I mean, it's still out there, why do you think it's in decline? >> I think, I mean first of all if you look at the Hadoop vendors that are out there, they've all been struggling. I mean some of them are shutting down, two of them have merged and they've got killed lately. I think there are some very successful implementations of Hadoop. I think Hadoop as a storage environment is wonderful, I think you can process a lot of data on Hadoop, but the problem with Hadoop is it became the panacea that was going to solve all things data. It was going to be the database, it was going to be the data warehouse, it was going to do everything. >> That's usually the kiss of death, isn't it? >> It's the kiss of death. And it, you know, the killer app on Hadoop, ironically, became SQL. I mean, SQL's the killer app on Hadoop. If you want to SQL engine, you don't need Hadoop. But what we did was, in the beginning Mike sort of made fun of it, Stonebreaker, and joked a lot about he's heard of MapReduce, it's called Group By, (Dave laughs) and that created a lot of tension between the early Vertica and Hadoop. I think, in the end, we embraced it. We sit next to Hadoop, we sit on top of Hadoop, we sit behind it, we sit in front of it, it's there. But I think what the reality check of the industry has been, certainly by the business folks in these companies is it has not fulfilled all the promises, it has not fulfilled a fraction on the promises that they bet on, and so they need to figure those things out. So I don't think it's going to go away completely, but I think its best success has been disrupting the storage market, and I think there's some much larger disruptions of technologies that frankly are better than HTFS to do that. >> And the Cloud was a gamechanger >> And a lot of them are in the cloud. >> Which is ironic, 'cause you know, cloud era, (Colin laughs) they didn't really have a cloud strategy, neither did Hortonworks, neither did MapR and, it just so happened Amazon had one, Google had one, and Microsoft has one, so, it's just convenient to-- >> Well, how is that affecting your business? We've seen this massive migration to the cloud (mumbles) >> It's actually been great for us, so one of the things about Vertica is we run everywhere, and we made a decision a while ago, we had our own data warehouse as a service offering. It might have been ahead of its time, never really took off, what we did instead is we pivoted and we say "you know what? "We're going to invest in that experience "so it's a SaaS-like experience, "but we're going to let our customers "have full control over the cloud. "And if they want to go to Amazon they can, "if they want to go to Google they can, "if they want to go to Azure they can." And we really invested in that and that experience. We're up on the Amazon marketplace, we have lots of customers running up on Amazon Cloud as well as Google and Azure now, and then about two years ago we went down and did this endeavor to completely re-architect our product so that we could separate compute and storage so that our customers could actually take advantage of the cloud economics as well. That's been huge for us, >> So you scale independent-- >> Scale independently, cloud native, add compute, take away compute, and for our existing customers, they're loving the hybrid aspect, they love that they can still run on Premise, they love that they can run up on a public cloud, they love that they can run in both places. So we will continue to invest a lot in that. And it is really, really important, and frankly, I think cloud has helped Vertica a lot, because being able to provision hardware quickly, being able to tie in to these public clouds, into our customers' accounts, give them control, has been great and we're going to continue on that path. >> Because Vertica's an ISV, I mean you're a software company. >> We're a software company. >> I know you were a part of HP for a while, and HP wanted to mash that in and run it on it's hardware, but software runs great in the cloud. And then to you it's another hardware platform. >> It's another hardware platform, exactly. >> So give us the update on Micro Focus, Micro Focus acquired Vertica as part of the HPE software business, how many years ago now? Two years ago? >> Less than two years ago. >> Okay, so how's that going, >> It's going great. >> Give us the update there. >> Yeah, so first of all it is great, HPE and HP were wonderful to Vertica, but it's great being part of a software company. Micro Focus is a software company. And more than just a software company it's a company that has a lot of experience bridging the old and the new. Leveraging all of the investments that you've made but also thinking about cloud and all these other things that are coming down the pike. I think for Vertica it's been really great because, as you've seen Vertica has gotten its identity back again. And that's something that Micro Focus is very good at. You can look at what Micro Focus did with SUSE, the Linux company, which actually you know, now just recently spun out of Micro Focus but, letting organizations like Vertica that have this culture, have this product, have this passion, really focus on our market and our customers and doing the right thing by them has been just really great for us and operating as a software company. The other nice thing is that we do integrate with a lot of other products, some of which came from the HPE side, some of which came from Micro Focus, security products is an example. The other really nice thing is we've been doing this insource thing at Micro Focus where we open up our source code to some of the other teams in Micro Focus and they've been contributing now in amazing ways to the product. In ways that we would just never be able to scale, but with 4,000 engineers strong in Micro Focus, we've got a much larger development organization that can actually contribute to the things that Vertica needs to do. And as we go into the cloud and as we do a lot more operational aspects, the experience that these teams have has been incredible, and security's another great example there. So overall it's been great, we've had four different owners of Vertica, our job is to continue what we do on the innovation side in the culture, but so far Micro Focus has been terrific. >> Well, I'd like to say, you're kind of getting that mojo back, because you guys as an independent company were doing your own thing, and then you did for a while inside of HP, >> We did. >> And that obviously changed, 'cause they wanted more integration, but, and Micro Focus, they know what they're doing, they know how to do acquisitions, they've been very successful. >> It's a very well run company, operationally. >> The SUSE piece was really interesting, spinning that out, because now RHEL is part of IBM, so now you've got SUSE as the lone independent. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But I want to ask you, go back to a technology question, is NoSQL the next Hadoop? Are these databases, it seems to be that the hot fad now is NoSQL, it can do anything. Is the promise overblown? >> I think, I mean NoSQL has been out almost as long as Hadoop, and I, we always say not only SQL, right? Mike's said this from day one, best tool for the job. Nothing is going to do every job well, so I think that there are, whether it's key value stores or other types of NoSQL engines, document DB's, now you have some of these DB's that are running on different chips, >> Graph, yeah. >> there's always, yeah, graph DBs, there's always going to be specialty things. I think one of the things about our analytic platform is we can do, time series is a great example. Vertica's a great time series database. We can compete with specialized time series databases. But we also offer a lot of, the other things that you can do with Vertica that you wouldn't be able to do on a database like that. So, I always think there's going to be specialty products, I also think some of these can do a lot more workloads than you might think, but I don't see as much around the NoSQL movement as say I did a few years ago. >> But so, and you mentioned the cloud before as kind of, your position on it I think is a tailwind, not to put words in your mouth, >> Yeah, yeah, it's a great tailwind. >> You're in the Amazon marketplace, I mean they have products that are competitive, right? >> They do, they do. >> But, so how are you differentiating there? >> I think the way we differentiate, whether it's Redshift from Amazon, or BigQuery from Google, or even what Azure DB does is, first of all, Vertica, I think from, feature functionality and performance standpoint is ahead. Number one, I think the second thing, and we hear this from a lot of customers, especially at the C-level is they don't want to be locked into these full stacks of the clouds. Having the ability to take a product and run it across multiple clouds is a big thing, because the stack lock-in now, the full stack lock-in of these clouds is scary. It's really easy to develop in their ecosystems but you get very locked into them, and I think a lot of people are concerned about that. So that works really well for Vertica, but I think at the end of the day it's just, it's the robustness of the product, we continue to innovate, when you look at separating compute and storage, believe it or not, a lot of these cloud-native databases don't do that. And so we can actually leverage a lot of the cloud hardware better than the native cloud databases do themselves. So, like I said, we have to keep going, those guys aren't going to stop, and we actually have great relationships with those companies, we work really well with the clouds, they seem to care just as much about their cloud ecosystem as their own database products, and so I think that's going to continue as well. >> Well, Colin, congratulations on all the success >> Yeah, thank you, yeah. >> It's awesome to see you again and really appreciate you coming to >> Oh thank you, it's great, I appreciate the invite, >> MIT. >> it's great to be here. >> All right, keep it right there everybody, Paul and I will be back with our next guest from MIT, you're watching theCUBE. (electronic jingle)

>> From Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's The Cube, covering MIT Chief data Officer and Information Quality Symposium 2019. Brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. >> Welcome back to Cambridge, everybody. We're here at Tang building at MIT for the MIT CDOIQ Conference. This is the 13th annual MIT CDOIQ. It started as a information quality conference and grew through the big data era, the Chief Data Officer emerged and now it's sort of a combination of those roles. That governance role, the Chief Data Officer role. Critical for organizations for quality and data initiatives, leading digital transformations ans the like. I'm Dave Vallante with my cohost Paul Gillin, you're watching The Cube, the leader in tech coverage. Mark Chrisco is here, the deputy, sorry, Principle Deputy Director for Enterprise Information at the Department of Defense. Good to see you again, thanks for coming on. >> Oh, thank you for having me. >> So, Principle Deputy Director Enterprise Information, what do you do? >> I do data. I do acquisition data. I'm the person in charge of lining the acquisition data for the programs for the Under Secretary and the components so a strong partnership with the army, navy, and air force to enable the department and the services to execute their programs better, more efficiently, and be efficient in the data management. >> What is acquisition data? >> So acquisition data generally can be considered best in the shorthand of cost schedule performance data. When a program is born, you have to manage, you have to be sure it's resourced, you're reporting up to congress, you need to be sure you have insight into the programs. And finally, sometimes you have to make decisions on those programs. So, cost schedule performance is a good shorthand for it. >> So kind of the key metrics and performance metrics around those initiatives. And how much of that is how you present that data? The visualization of it. Is that part of your role or is that, sort of, another part of the organization you partner with, or? >> Well, if you think about it, the visualization can take many forms beyond that. So a good part of the role is finding the authoritative trusted source of that data, making sure it's accurate so we don't spend time disagreeing on different data sets on cost schedule performance. The major programs are tremendously complex and large and involve and awful lot of data in the a buildup to a point where you can look at that. It's just not about visualizing, it's about having governed authoritative data that is, frankly, trustworthy that you can can go operate in. >> What are some of the challenges of getting good quality data? >> Well, I think part of the challenge was having a common lexicon across the department and the services. And as I said, the partnership with the services had been key in helping define and creating a semantic data model for the department that we can use. So we can have agreement on what it would mean when we were using it and collecting it. The services have thrown all in and, in their perspective, have extended that data model down through their components to their programs so they can better manage the programs because the programs are executed at a service level, not at an OSD level. >> Can you make that real? I mean, is there an example you can give us of what you mean by a common semantic model? >> So for cost schedule, let's take a very simple one, program identification. Having a key number for that, having a long name, a short name, and having just the general description of that, were in various states amongst the systems. We've had decades where, however the system was configured, configured it the way they wanted to. It was largely not governed and then trying to bring those data sets together were just impossible to do. So even with just program identification. Since the majority of the programs and numbers are executed at a service level, we worked really hard to get the common words and meanings across all the programs. >> So it's a governance exercise the? >> Yeah. It is certainly a governance exercise. I think about it as not so much as, in the IT world or the data world will call it governance, it's leadership. Let's settle on some common semantics here that we can all live with and go forward and do that. Because clearly there's needs for other pieces of data that we may or may not have but establishing a core set of common meanings across the department has proven very valuable. >> What are some of the key data challenges that the DOD faces? And how is your role helping address them? >> Well in our case, and I'm certain there's a myriad of data choices across the department. In our place it was clarity in and the governance of this. Many of the pieces of data were required by statute, law, police, or regulation. We came out of eras where data was the piece of a report and not really considered data. And we had to lead our ways to beyond the report to saying, "No, we're really "talking about key data management." So we've been at this for a few years and working with the services, that has been a challenge. I think we're at the part where we've established the common semantics for the department to go forward with that. And one of the challenges that I think is the access and dissemination of knowing what you can share and when you can share it. Because Michael Candolim said earlier that the data in mosaic, sometimes you really need to worry about it from our perspective. Is too much publicly available or should we protect on behalf of the government? >> That's a challenge. Is the are challenge in terms of, I'm sure there is but I wonder if you can describe it or maybe talk about how you might have solved it, maybe it's not a big deal, but you got to serve the mission of the organization. >> Absolutely. >> That's, like, number one. But at the same time, you've got stakeholders and they're powerful politicians and they have needs and there's transparency requirements, there are laws. They're not always aligned, those two directives, are they? >> No, thank goodness I don't have to deal with misalignments of those. We try to speak in the truth of here's the data and the decisions across the organization of our reports still go to congress, they go to congress on an annual basis through the selected acquisition report. And, you know, we are better understanding what we need to protect and how to advice congress on what should be protected and why. I would not say that's an easy proposition. The demands for those data come from the GAO, come from congress, come from the Inspector General and having to navigate that requires good access and dissemination controls and knowing why. We've sponsored some research though the RAND organization to help us look and understand why you have got to protect it and what policies, rules, and regulations are. And all those reports have been public so we could be sure that people would understand what it is. We're coming out of an era where data was not considered as it is today where reports were easily stamped with a little rubber stamp but data now moves at the velocities of milliseconds not as the velocity of reports. So we really took a comprehensive look at that. How do you manage data in a world where it is data and it is on infrastructures like data models. >> So, the future of war. Everybody talks about cyber as the future of war. There's a lot of data associated with that. How does that change what you guys do? Or does it? >> Well, I think from an acquisition perspective, you would think, you know. In that discussion that you just presented us, we're micro in that. We're equipping and acquiring through acquisitions. What we've done is we make sure that our data is shareable, you know? Open I, API structures. Having our data models. Letting the war fighters have our data so they could better understand where information is here. Letting other communities to better help that. By us doing our jobs where we sit, we can contribute to their missions and we've aways been every sharing in that. >> Is technology evolving to the point where, let's assume you could dial back 10 or 15 years and you had the nirvana of data quality. We know how fast technology is changing but is it changing as an enabler to really leverage that quality of data in ways that you might not have even envision 10 or 15 years ago? >> I think technology is. I think a lot of this is not in tools, it's now in technique and management practices. I think many of us find ourselves rethinking of how to do this now that you have data, now that you have tools that you can get them. How can you adopt better and faster? That requires a cultural change to organization. In some cases it requires more advanced skills, in other cases it requires you to think differently about the problems. I always like to consider that we, at some point, thought about it as a process-driven organization. Step one to step two to step three. Now process is ubiquitous because data becomes ubiquitous and you could refactor your processes and decisions much more efficiently and effectively. >> What are some of the information quality problems you have to wrestle with? >> Well, in our case, by setting a definite semantic meaning, we kicked the quality problems to those who provide the authoritative data. And if they had a quality problem, we said, "Here's your data. "We're going to now use it." So it spurs, it changes the model of them ensuring the quality of those who own the data. And by working with the services, they've worked down through their data issues and have used us a bit as the foil for cleaning up their data errors that they have from different inputs. And I like to think about it as flipping the model of saying, "It's not my job to drive quality, "it's my job to drive clarity, "it's their job to drive the quality into the system." >> Let's talk about this event. So, you guys are long-time contributors to the event. Mark, have you been here since the beginning? Or close to it? >> Um... About halfway through I think. >> When the focus was primarily on information quality? >> Yes. >> Was it CDOIQ at the time or was it IQ? >> It was the very beginnings of CDOIQ. It was right before it became CDOIQ. >> Early part of this decade? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> It was Information Quality Symposium originally, is that was attracted you to it? >> Well, yes, I was interested in it because I think there were two things that drew my interest. One, a colleague had told me about it and we were just starting the data journey at that point. And it was talking about information quality and it was out of a business school in the MIT slenton side of the house. And coming from a business perspective, it was not just the providence of IT, I wanted to learn form others because I sit on the business side of the equation. Not a pure IT-ist or technology. And I came here to learn. I've never stopped learning through my entire journey here. >> What have you learned this week? >> Well, there's an awful lot I learned. I think it's been... This space is evolving so rapidly with the law, policy, and regulation. Establishing the CDOs, establishing the roles, getting hear from the CDOs, getting to hear from visions, hear from Michael Conlan and hear from others in the federal agencies. Having them up here and being able to collaborate and talk to them. Also hearing from the technology people, the people that're bringing solutions to the table. And then, I always say this is a bit like group therapy here because many of us have similar problems, we have different start and end points and learning from each other has proven to be very valuable. From the hallway conversations to hearing somebody and seeing how they thought about the products, seeing how commercial industry has implemented data management. And you have a lot of similarity of focus of people dealing with trying to bring data to bring value to the organizations and understanding their transformations, it's proven invaluable. >> Well, what did the appointment of the DOD's first CDO last year, what statement did that make to the organization? >> That data's important. Data are important. And having a CDO in that and, when Micheal came on board, we shared some lessons learned and we were thinking about how to do that, you know? As I said, I function in a, arguably a silo of the institution is the acquisition data. But we were copying CDO homework so it helped in my mind that we can go across to somebody else that would understand and could understand what we're trying to do and help us. And I think it becomes, the CDO community has always been very sharing and collaborative and I hold that true with Micheal today. >> It's kind of the ethos of this event. I mean, obviously you guys have been heavily involved. We've always been thrilled to cover this. I think we started in 2013 and we've seen it grow, it's kind of fire marshal full now. We got to get to a new facility, I understand. >> Fire marshal full. >> Next year. So that's congratulations to all the success. >> Yeah, I think it's important and we've now seen, you know, you hear it, you can read it in every newspaper, every channel out there, that data are important. And what's more important than the factor of governance and the factor of bringing safety and security to the nation? >> I do feel like a lot in, certainly in commercial world, I don't know if it applies in the government, but a lot of these AI projects are moving really fast. Especially in Silicon Valley, there's this move fast and break things mentality. And I think that's part of why you're seeing some of these big tech companies struggle right now because they're moving fast and they're breaking things without the governance injected and many CDOs are not heavily involved in some of these skunk works projects and it's almost like they're bolting on governance which has never been a great formula for success in areas like governance and compliance and security. You know, the philosophy of designing it in has tangible benefits. I wonder if you could comment on that? >> Yeah, I can talk about it as we think about it in our space and it may be limited. AI is a bit high on the hype curve as you might imagine right now, and the question would be is can it solve a problem that you have? Well, you just can't buy a piece of software or a methodology and have it solve a problem if you don't know what problem you're trying to solve and you wouldn't understand the answer when it gave it to you. And I think we have to raise our data intellectualism across the organization to better work with these products because they certainly represent utility but it's not like you give it with no fences on either side or you open up your aperture to find basic solution on this. How you move forward with it is your workforce has got to be in tune with that, you have to understand some of the data, at least the basics, and particularly with products when you get the machine learning AI deep learning, the models are going to be moving so fast that you have to intellectually understand them because you'll never be able to go all the way back and stubby pencil back to an answer. And if you don't have the skills and the math and the understanding of how these things are put together, it may not bring the value that they can bring to us. >> Mark, thanks very much for coming on The Cube. >> Thank you very much. >> Great to see you again and appreciate all the work you guys both do for the community. All right. And thank you for watching. We'll be right back with our next guest right after this short break. You're watching The Cube from MIT CDOIQ.

>> From Cambridge Massachusetts, it's the CUBE, covering MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium 2019. Brought to you by silicon angle media. >> Welcome back to Cambridge Massachusetts everybody you're watching the cube. The leader in live tech coverage. The cubes two day coverage of MIT's CDOIQ. The chief data officer information quality event. Thirteenth year we started here in 2013. I'm Dave Vallante with my co-host Paul Gillin. Veda Bawo. Bowo. Bawo. Sorry Veda Bawo is here. Did I get that right? >> That's close enough. >> The director of data governance at Raymond James and Althea Davis the former chief data officer of ING bank challengers and growth markets. Ladies welcome to the cube thanks so much for coming on. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hi Vita, talk about your role at Raymond James. Relatively new role for you? >> It is a relatively new role. So I recently left fifth third bank as their managing director of data governance and I've moved on to Raymond James in sunny Florida. And I am now the director of data governance for Raymond James. So it's a global financial services company they do asset wealth management, investment banking, retail banking. So I'm excited, I'm very excited about it. >> So we've been talking all day and actually several years about how the chief data officer role kind of emerged from the back office of the data governance. >> Mmm >> And the information quality and now its come you know front and center. And actually we've seen a full circle because now it's all about data quality again. So Althea as the former CDO right is that a fair assessment that it sort of came out of the ashes of the back room. >> Yeah, I mean its definitely a fair assessment. That's where we got started. That's how we got our budgets that's how we got our teams. However, now we have to serve many masters. We have to deal with all of the privacy, we have to deal with the multiple compliancies. We have to deal with the data operations and we have to deal with all of the new, sexy emerging technologies. So to do AI and data science you need a lot of data. You need data rich. You need it to be knowledge management, you need it to be information management. And it needs to be intelligent. So we need to actually raise the bar on what we do and at the same time get the credibility from our sea sweet peers. >> Well I think we no longer have the. We don't have the luxury of being just a cost center anymore . >> No. >> Right, we have to generate revenue. So it's about data monetization. It's about partnering with our businesses to make sure that we're helping to drive strategy and deliver results for the broader organization. >> So you got to hit the bottom line. >> Yeah. >> Either raise revenue or cut costs >> Yeah absolutely >> You know directly that can be tangibly monetized. >> Exactly keep them out of jail. Right. Save money >> That too. >> Save money, make money. (inaudible laughter) keep them out of jail. >> Like both CDO's you do not study for this career path because it didn't exist a few years ago. So talk about your backgrounds and how you came to come into this role Veda. >> Yeah absolutely so you know you talked about you know data kind of starting in the bowels of the back office. So I am that person right. So I am an accountant by training. So I am the person who is non legally entity controllership by book journal entries I've closed the books. I've done regulatory reporting so I know what it feels like to have to deal with dirty data every single month end, every single quarter end right. And I know the pain of having to cleanse it and having to deal with our business partners and having experienced that gave me the passion to want to do better. Right so I want to influence my partners upstream to do better as well as to take away some of the pain points that my teams experiencing over and over again it really was groundhog day. So that really made me feel passionate about going into the data discipline. Right and so you know the benefit is great it's not an easy journey but yeah out of accounting finance and that kind of back office operational support was boring right. A data evangelist and some passionate were about it. >> Which made sense because you have to have quality. >> Absolutely. >> Consistency. You have to have so called single version of the truth. >> Absolutely because you look regularly there's light for the financial reports to be accurate. All the time. (laughter) >> Exactly >> How about you? >> I came at it from a totally different angle. I was a marketeer so I was a business manager, a marketeer I was working with the big retail brands you know the Nikes and the Levi's strauss's of the world. So I came to it from a value chain perspective from marketing you know from rolling out retail chains across Europe. And I went from there as a line management position and all the pains of the different types of data we needed and then did quite a bit of consulting with some of the big consultancies accenture. And then rolled more into the data migration so dealing with those huge change projects and having teams from all of the world. And knowing the pains what all of the guys didn't want to work on. I got it all on my plate. But it put me in position to be a really solid chief data officer. >> Somebody it was called like data chicks or something like that (laughter) and I snuck in I was like the lone >> Data chicks >> I was like the lone data dude >> You can be a data chick. It's okay no judgement here. >> And so one of the things that one of the CDO's said there. She was a woman obviously. And she said you know I think that and the stat was there was a higher proportion of women as CDO's than there were across tech which is like I don't know fifty seventeen percent. And she's positive that the reason was because it's like a thankless job that nobody wants and so I just wonder as woman CDO your thoughts on that is that true. >> Well first of all we're the newest to the table right so you're the new kid on the block it doesn't matter if you're man or woman you're the new kid on the block so you know the CFO's got the four thousand year history behind him or her. The CIO or CTO they've got the fifty, sixty year up on us. So we're new. So you have to calve out your space and I do think that a lot of women by nature like to take on things big. To do things that other people don't want to do. So I can see how women kind of fell into that. But, at the same time you know data it's an asset and it is the newest asset. And it's definitely misunderstood. So I do think that you know women you know we kind of fell into it but it was actually something that happened good for women because there's a big future in data. >> Well let's just be realistic right. Woman have unique skillset. I may be a little bias but we have a unique skillset. We're able to solve problems creatively. Right there's no one size fits all solution for data. There's no accounting pronouncement that tells me how to handle and manage my data. Right I have to kind of figure it out as I go along and pivot when something doesn't work. I think that's something that is very natural to women. >> Yeah. >> I think that contributes to us kind of taking on these roles. >> Can I just do a little survey here (laughter) We hear that the chief data officer of function is defined differently at different organizations. Now you both are in financial services. You both have a chief data function. Are you doing the same thing? (laughter) >> Absolutely not! (laughter) >> You know this is data by design. I mean I'm getting lucky I've had teams that go the whole gammon right so. From the compliancy side through to the data operations through to all of the like I said the exotics, sexy you know emerging technologies stuff with the data scientists. So I've had the whole thing. I've also had my last position at ING bank I had to you know lead a team of chief data officers across three different continents Australia, Asia and also Eastern and Western Europe. So it's totally different than you know maybe another company that they've only got to chief data officer working on data quality and data governance. >> So again another challenge of being the new kid on the block right. Defining roles and responsibilities. There's no one globally, universally accepted definition of what a chief data officer should do. >> Right >> Right is data science in or out are analytics in or out. Right. >> Security sometimes. >> Security right sometimes privacy is it or out. Do you have operational responsibilities or are you truly just a second line governance function right? There's a mixed bag out there in the industry. I don't know that we have one answer that we know for sure is true. But I do know for sure is that data is not an IT function. >> Well okay. That's really important. >> It's not an IT asset. >> Yeah. >> I want to say that it's not an IT asset. It is an information asset or a data asset which is a different asset than an IT asset or a financial asset or a human asset. >> But and that's the other big change is that fifteen. Ten to fifteen years ago data was assumed to be a liability right. >> Mmm. >> Federal rules set up a civil procedure we got to get rid of the data or you know we're going to get sued. Number one and number two is that data because it's digital you know people say data is the new oil. I always say it's not. It's more important than oil. >> It's like blood. >> Oil you can only use in one use case. Data you can reuse over and over again. >> Reuse, reuse perpetual. It goes on and on and on. And every time you reuse it the value increases. So I would agree with you it is not the new oil. It is much bigger than that and it needs to I mean I know from some of my colleagues in the profession. We talk about borrowing from other more mature disciplines to make data management, information management and knowledge management much more robust and be much more professional. We also need to be more professional about it as the data leaders. >> So when you're a little panel today. One of the things that you guys addressed is what keeps the CDO up at night. >> Yes >> I presume it's data. (laughter) >> No, no, no. >> It's our payers that don't get it. (laughter) >> That's what keeps us up at night. >> Its the sponsors that keep us up at night. (laughter) So what was that discussion like? >> So yeah I mean it was a lively discussion. Um, great attendance at the panel so we appreciate everyone who came out and supported. >> Full house. >> Definitely a full house. Great reviews so far. >> Yep. >> Okay, so the thing that definitely keeps folks up at night and I'm going to start with my standard one which is quality. Right you can have all of the fancy tools, right you can have a million data scientists but if the quality is not good or sufficient. Then you're no where. So quality is fundamentally the thing that the CDO has to always pay attention to. And there's no magic you know pill or magic right potion that's going to make the quality right. It's something that the entire organization has a rally around. And it's not a one thing done right it has to be a sustainable approach to making sure the quality is good enough so that you can actually reap the benefits or derive the value right from your data. >> Absolutely and I would say you know following on from the quality and I consider that trustworthiness of the data. I would say as a chief data officer you're coming to the table. You're coming to the executive table you need to bring it all so you need to be impactful. You need to be absolutely relevant to your peers. You also need to be able to make their teams in a position to act. So it needs to be actionable. And if you don't have all of that combination with the trustworthiness you're dead in the water. So it is a hard act and that's why there is a high attrition for chief data officers. You know it's a hard job. But I think it's very much worthwhile because this particular asset this new asset we haven't been able to even scratch the surface of what it could mean for us a society and for commercial organizations or government organizations. >> To your point it's not a technology problem when Mark Ramsay who was surveying the audience this morning. He said you know why have we had so many failures and the first hand that went up said. It's because of relations with the database. >> And I wanted to say it's not a technology problem. >> It's a hearts, minds and haves >> Absolutely. Absolutely. You couldn't make an impact to your data landscape without changing your technology. >> You said at the outset how important it is for you to show a bottom line impact. >> Right >> What's one project you've worked on or that you've led in your tenure that did that. >> If we're talking about for example I can't say specifics but if we're looking at one of institutions I worked at in an insurance firm and we looked at the customer journey. So we worked with some of the different departments that traditionally did not get access to data for them to be able to be effective at their jobs. But they wanted to do in marketing was create actually new products to make you know increase the wallet from the existing customers other things they wanted to do was for example, when there were problems with the customers instead of customer you know leaving you know the journey they were able to bring them back in by getting access to the data. So we either gave them insight like you know looking back to make sure that things didn't happen wrong the next time or we helped them giving them information so they could develop new products so this is all about going to market. So that's absolutely bottom line. It's not just all cost efficiency and products to begin . >> Yeah pipeline. (laughter) >> And that's really valid but you know. >> Absolutely so I'll give you one example where the data organization partnered with our data scientists. To try to figure out the best location for various branches. For that particular institution. And it was taking right trillions of data points right about current footprint as well as other information about geographic information that was out there publicly available. Taking that and using the analytics to figure out okay where should we have our branches, our ATM's etc... and then conslidating the footprint or expanding where appropriate. So that is bottom line impact for sure. >> I remember in the early part of the two thousands I remember reading a Harvard business review article about gut feel trumps data every time. But that's an example where no way. >> Nope. >> You could never do better with the gut than that example that you just gave. >> Absolutely. >> Veda. I want to ask you a question. I don't know if you've heard Mark Ramsays talk this morning but he sort of. He sort of declared that data governance was over. >> Mmm. >> And as the director of data governance >> Never! >> I wondered if you would disagree with that. >> Never! >> Look. >> Were you surprised? >> It's just like saying that I should stop brushing my teeth. Right I always will have to maintain a certain level of data hygiene. And I don't think that employees and executives and organizations have reached a level of maturity where I can trust them to maintain that level of hygiene independently. And therefore I need a governance function. I need to check to make sure you brush your teeth in the morning and in the evening. Right and I need you to go for your annual exam to make sure you don't have any cavities that weren't detected. Right so I think that there's still a role for governance to play. It will evolve over time for sure. Right as you know the landscape changes but I think there's still a role right for like governance. >> And that wasn't my takeaway part. I think he said that basically enterprise data warehouse fail massive data management fail. The single data model failed so we punted to governance and that's not going to solve the enterprise data problem. >> I think it's a one leg in the stool. It's one leg in the stool. ` >> Yeah I think I would really sum it up as a monolithic data storage approach failed. Like that. And then our attention went to data governance but that's not going to solve it either. Look, data management is about twelve different data capabilties it's a discipline so we give the title data governance but it means multiple things. And I think that if we're more educated and we have more confidence on what we're doing on those different areas. Plus information and knowledge management then we're way ahead of the game. I mean knowledge graphs and semantics. That puts companies you know at the top of that you know corporate inequality gap that we're looking at right now. Where you know companies are you know five and thousand times more valuable then their competition and the gap is just going to get bigger considering if some of those companies at the bottom of the gap are you know just keep on doing the same thing. >> I agree I was just trying to get you worked up. (laughter) >> Well you did. >> It's going to be a different kind of show. >> But that point you're making. Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and Google, Facebook. Top five companies in terms of market cap. And they're all data companies. They surpass all the financial services, all the energy companies, all the manufacturers. >> And Alibaba same thing. >> Oh yeah. >> They're doing the same thing. >> They're coming right up there. With four or five hundred billion. >> They're all doing the knowledge approach. They're doing all of this stuff and that's a much more comprehensive approach to looking at it as a full spectrum and if we keep on in the financial industry or any industry keep on just kind of looking at little bits and pieces. It's not going to work. It's a lot of talk but there's no action. >> We are losing right. I know that Fintechs are right fringing upon are territory. Right if Amazon can provide a credit card or lend you money or extend you credit. They're now functioning as a traditional bank would. If we're not paying attention to them as real competitors. We've lost the battle. >> That's a really important point you're making because it's all digital now. >> Absolutely. >> You used to be you'd never see companies traverse industries and now you see it Apple pay and Amazon and healthcare. >> Yeah. >> And government organizations teaming up with corporations and individuals. Everything is free flowing so that means the knowledge and the data and the information also needs to flow freely but it needs to be managed. >> Now you're into a whole realm of privacy and security. >> And regulations right. Regulations for the non right traditional banks. So we're doing banking transactions. >> Do you think traditional banks will lose control over the payment systems? >> If they don't move with the time they will. If they don't. I mean it's not something that's going to happen tomorrow but you know there is a category of bank called Challenger banks so there's a reason. You know even within their own niche there's a group of banks. >> I mean not even just payments right. Think about cash transactions like if I do money transfer am I going to my traditional bank to do it or am I going to cashapp. >> I think it's interesting particularly in the retail banking business where you know one banking app looks pretty much like other and people don't go to branches anymore and so that brand affinity that used to exist is harder and harder to maintain and I wonder what role does data play in reestablishing that connection. >> Well for me right I get really excited and sometimes annoyed when I can open up my app for my bank and I can see the pie chart of my spending. They're using my data to inform me about my behaviors sometimes a good story, sometimes a bad story. But they're using it to inform me. That's making me more loyal to that particular institution right so I can also link all of my financial accounts in that one institutions app and I can see a full list of all of my credit cards, all of my loans, all of my investments in one stop shopping. That's making me go to their app more often versus the other options that are out there. So I think we can use the data in order to endear the customer source but we have to be smart about it. >> That's the accountant in you. I just refuse to not look. (laughter) >> You can afford to not look. I can't. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for riling us up. >> Alright thank you for watching everybody we'll be right back with our next guest right after this short break. You're watching the cube from MIT in Boston, Cambridge. Right back. (atmospheric music)

>> From Cambridge, Massachusetts. It's theCUBE, covering MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium 2019. Brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. >> Welcome back to Cambridge, Massachusetts, everybody. We're here at MIT, sweltering Cambridge, Massachusetts. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage, my name is Dave Vellante. I'm here with my co-host, Paul Gillin. Special coverage of the MITCDOIQ. The Chief Data Officer event, this is the 13th year of the event, we started seven years ago covering it, Mark Ramsey is here. He's the Chief Data and Analytics Officer Advisor at Ramsey International, LLC and former Chief Data Officer of GlaxoSmithKline. Big pharma, Mark, thanks for coming onto theCUBE. >> Thanks for having me. >> You're very welcome, fresh off the keynote. Fascinating keynote this evening, or this morning. Lot of interest here, tons of questions. And we have some as well, but let's start with your history in data. I sat down after 10 years, but I could have I could have stretched it to 20. I'll sit down with the young guns. But there was some folks in there with 30 plus year careers. How about you, what does your data journey look like? >> Well, my data journey, of course I was able to stand up for the whole time because I was in the front, but I actually started about 32, a little over 32 years ago and I was involved with building. What I always tell folks is that Data and Analytics has been a long journey, and the name has changed over the years, but we've been really trying to tackle the same problems of using data as a strategic asset. So when I started I was with an insurance and financial services company, building one of the first data warehouse environments in the insurance industry, and that was in the 87, 88 range, and then once I was able to deliver that, I ended up transitioning into being in consulting for IBM and basically spent 18 years with IBM in consulting and services. When I joined, the name had evolved from Data Warehousing to Business Intelligence and then over the years it was Master Data Management, Customer 360. Analytics and Optimization, Big Data. And then in 2013, I joined Samsung Mobile as their first Chief Data Officer. So, moving out of consulting, I really wanted to own the end-to-end delivery of advanced solutions in the Data Analytics space and so that made the transition to Samsung quite interesting, very much into consumer electronics, mobile phones, tablets and things of that nature, and then in 2015 I joined GSK as their first Chief Data Officer to deliver a Data Analytics solution. >> So you have long data history and Paul, Mark took us through. And you're right, Mark-o, it's a lot of the same narrative, same wine, new bottle but the technology's obviously changed. The opportunities are greater today. But you took us through Enterprise Data Warehouse which was ETL and then MAP and then Master Data Management which is kind of this mapping and abstraction layer, then an Enterprise Data Model, top-down. And then that all failed, so we turned to Governance which has been very very difficult and then you came up with another solution that we're going to dig into, but is it the same wine, new bottle from the industry? >> I think it has been over the last 20, 30 years, which is why I kind of did the experiment at the beginning of how long folks have been in the industry. I think that certainly, the technology has advanced, moving to reduction in the amount of schema that's required to move data so you can kind of move away from the map and move type of an approach of a data warehouse but it is tackling the same type of problems and like I said in the session it's a little bit like Einstein's phrase of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different answer is certainly the definition of insanity and what I really proposed at the session was let's come at this from a very different perspective. Let's actually use Data Analytics on the data to make it available for these purposes, and I do think I think it's a different wine now and so I think it's just now a matter of if folks can really take off and head that direction. >> What struck me about, you were ticking off some of the issues that have failed like Data Warehouses, I was surprised to hear you say Data Governance really hasn't worked because there's a lot of talk around that right now, but all of those are top-down initiatives, and what you did at GSK was really invert that model and go from the bottom up. What were some of the barriers that you had to face organizationally to get the cooperation of all these people in this different approach? >> Yeah, I think it's still key. It's not a complete bottoms up because then you do end up really just doing data for the sake of data, which is also something that's been tried and does not work. I think it has to be a balance and that's really striking that right balance of really tackling the data at full perspective but also making sure that you have very definitive use cases to deliver value for the organization and then striking the balance of how you do that and I think of the things that becomes a struggle is you're talking about very large breadth and any time you're covering multiple functions within a business it's getting the support of those different business functions and I think part of that is really around executive support and what that means, I did mention it in the session, that executive support to me is really stepping up and saying that the data across the organization is the organization's data. It isn't owned by a particular person or a particular scientist, and I think in a lot of organization, that gatekeeper mentality really does put barriers up to really tackling the full breadth of the data. >> So I had a question around digital initiatives. Everywhere you go, every C-level Executive is trying to get digital right, and a lot of this is top-down, a lot of it is big ideas and it's kind of the North Star. Do you think that that's the wrong approach? That maybe there should be a more tactical line of business alignment with that threaded leader as opposed to this big picture. We're going to change and transform our company, what are your thoughts? >> I think one of the struggles is just I'm not sure that organizations really have a good appreciation of what they mean when they talk about digital transformation. I think there's in most of the industries it is an initiative that's getting a lot of press within the organizations and folks want to go through digital transformation but in some cases that means having a more interactive experience with consumers and it's maybe through sensors or different ways to capture data but if they haven't solved the data problem it just becomes another source of data that we're going to mismanage and so I do think there's a risk that we're going to see the same outcome from digital that we have when folks have tried other approaches to integrate information, and if you don't solve the basic blocking and tackling having data that has higher velocity and more granularity, if you're not able to solve that because you haven't tackled the bigger problem, I'm not sure it's going to have the impact that folks really expect. >> You mentioned that at GSK you collected 15 petabytes of data of which only one petabyte was structured. So you had to make sense of all that unstructured data. What did you learn about that process? About how to unlock value from unstructured data as a result of that? >> Yeah, and I think this is something. I think it's extremely important in the unstructured data to apply advanced analytics against the data to go through a process of making sense of that information and a lot of folks talk about or have talked about historically around text mining of trying to extract an entity out of unstructured data and using that for the value. There's a few steps before you even get to that point, and first of all it's classifying the information to understand which documents do you care about and which documents do you not care about and I always use the story that in this vast amount of documents there's going to be, somebody has probably uploaded the cafeteria menu from 10 years ago. That has no scientific value, whereas a protocol document for a clinical trial has significant value, you don't want to look through manually a billion documents to separate those, so you have to apply the technology even in that first step of classification, and then there's a number of steps that ultimately lead you to understanding the relationship of the knowledge that's in the documents. >> Side question on that, so you had discussed okay, if it's a menu, get rid of it but there's certain restrictions where you got to keep data for decades. It struck me, what about work in process? Especially in the pharmaceutical industry. I mean, post Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was everybody looking for a smoking gun. So, how are organizations dealing with what to keep and what to get rid of? >> Yeah, and I think certainly the thinking has been to remove the excess and it's to your point, how do you draw the line as to what is excess, right, so you don't want to just keep every document because then if an organization is involved in any type of litigation and there's disclosure requirements, you don't want to have to have thousands of documents. At the same time, there are requirements and so it's like a lot of things. It's figuring out how do you abide by the requirements, but that is not an easy thing to do, and it really is another driver, certainly document retention has been a big thing over a number of years but I think people have not applied advanced analytics to the level that they can to really help support that. >> Another Einstein bro-mahd, you know. Keep everything you must but no more. So, you put forth a proposal where you basically had this sort of three approaches, well, combined three approaches. The crawlers to go, the spiders to go out and do the discovery and I presume that's where the classification is done? >> That's really the identification of all of the source information >> Okay, so find out what you got, okay. >> so that's kind of the start. Find out what you have. >> Step two is the data repository. Putting that in, I thought it was when I heard you I said okay it must be a logical data repository, but you said you basically told the CIO we're copying all the data and putting it into essentially one place. >> A physical location, yes. >> Okay, and then so I got another question about that and then use bots in the pipeline to move the data and then you sort of drew the diagram of the back end to all the databases. Unstructured, structured, and then all the fun stuff up front, visualization. >> Which people love to focus on the fun stuff, right? Especially, you can't tell how many articles are on you got to apply deep learning and machine learning and that's where the answers are, we have to have the data and that's the piece that people are missing. >> So, my question there is you had this tactical mindset, it seems like you picked a good workload, the clinical trials and you had at least conceptually a good chance of success. Is that a fair statement? >> Well, the clinical trials was one aspect. Again, we tackled the entire data landscape. So it was all of the data across all of R&D. It wasn't limited to just, that's that top down and bottom up, so the bottom up is tackle everything in the landscape. The top down is what's important to the organization for decision making. >> So, that's actually the entire R&D application portfolio. >> Both internal and external. >> So my follow up question there is so that largely was kind of an inside the four walls of GSK, workload or not necessarily. My question was what about, you hear about these emerging Edge applications, and that's got to be a nightmare for what you described. In other words, putting all the data into one physical place, so it must be like a snake swallowing a basketball. Thoughts on that? >> I think some of it really does depend on you're always going to have these, IOT is another example where it's a large amount of streaming information, and so I'm not proposing that all data in every format in every location needs to be centralized and homogenized, I think you have to add some intelligence on top of that but certainly from an edge perspective or an IOT perspective or sensors. The data that you want to then make decisions around, so you're probably going to have a filter level that will impact those things coming in, then you filter it down to where you're going to really want to make decisions on that and then that comes together with the other-- >> So it's a prioritization exercise, and that presumably can be automated. >> Right, but I think we always have these cases where we can say well what about this case, and you know I guess what I'm saying is I've not seen organizations tackle their own data landscape challenges and really do it in an aggressive way to get value out of the data that's within their four walls. It's always like I mentioned in the keynote. It's always let's do a very small proof of concept, let's take a very narrow chunk. And what ultimately ends up happening is that becomes the only solution they build and then they go to another area and they build another solution and that's why we end up with 15 or 25-- (all talk over each other) >> The conventional wisdom is you start small. >> And fail. >> And you go on from there, you fail and that's now how you get big things done. >> Well that's not how you support analytic algorithms like machine learning and deep learning. You can't feed those just fragmented data of one aspect of your business and expect it to learn intelligent things to then make recommendations, you've got to have a much broader perspective. >> I want to ask you about one statistic you shared. You found 26 thousand relational database schemas for capturing experimental data and you standardized those into one. How? >> Yeah, I mean we took advantage of the Tamr technology that Michael Stonebraker created here at MIT a number of years ago which is really, again, it's applying advanced analytics to the data and using the content of the data and the characteristics of the data to go from dispersed schemas into a unified schema. So if you look across 26 thousand schemas using machine learning, you then can understand what's the consolidated view that gives you one perspective across all of those different schemas, 'cause ultimately when you give people flexibility they love to take advantage of it but it doesn't mean that they're actually doing things in an extremely different way, 'cause ultimately they're capturing the same kind of data. They're just calling things different names and they might be using different formats but in that particular case we use Tamr very heavily, and that again is back to my example of using advanced analytics on the data to make it available to do the fun stuff. The visualization and the advanced analytics. >> So Mark, the last question is you well know that the CDO role emerged in these highly regulated industries and I guess in the case of pharma quasi-regulated industries but now it seems to be permeating all industries. We have Goka-lan from McDonald's and virtually every industry is at least thinking about this role or has some kind of de facto CDO, so if you were slotted in to a CDO role, let's make it generic. I know it depends on the industry but where do you start as a CDO for an organization large company that doesn't have a CDO. Even a mid-sized organization, where do you start? >> Yeah, I mean my approach is that a true CDO is maximizing the strategic value of data within the organization. It isn't a regulatory requirement. I know a lot of the banks started there 'cause they needed someone to be responsible for data quality and data privacy but for me the most critical thing is understanding the strategic objectives of the organization and how will data be used differently in the future to drive decisions and actions and the effectiveness of the business. In some cases, there was a lot of discussion around monetizing the value of data. People immediately took that to can we sell our data and make money as a different revenue stream, I'm not a proponent of that. It's internally monetizing your data. How do you triple the size of the business by using data as a strategic advantage and how do you change the executives so what is good enough today is not good enough tomorrow because they are really focused on using data as their decision making tool, and that to me is the difference that a CDO needs to make is really using data to drive those strategic decision points. >> And that nuance you mentioned I think is really important. Inderpal Bhandari, who is the Chief Data Officer of IBM often says how can you monetize the data and you're right, I don't think he means selling data, it's how does data contribute, if I could rephrase what you said, contribute to the value of the organization, that can be cutting costs, that can be driving new revenue streams, that could be saving lives if you're a hospital, improving productivity. >> Yeah, and I think what I've shared typically shared with executives when I've been in the CDO role is that they need to change their behavior, right? If a CDO comes in to an organization and a year later, the executives are still making decisions on the same data PowerPoints with spinning logos and they said ooh, we've got to have 'em. If they're still making decisions that way then the CDO has not been successful. The executives have to change what their level of expectation is in order to make a decision. >> Change agents, top down, bottom up, last question. >> Going back to GSK, now that they've completed this massive data consolidation project how are things different for that business? >> Yeah, I mean you look how Barron joined as the President of R&D about a year and a half ago and his primary focus is using data and analytics and machine learning to drive the decision making in the discovery of a new medicine and the environment that has been created is a key component to that strategic initiative and so they are actually completely changing the way they're selecting new targets for new medicines based on data and analytics. >> Mark, thanks so much for coming on theCUBE. >> Thanks for having me. >> Great keynote this morning, you're welcome. All right, keep it right there everybody. We'll be back with our next guest. This is theCUBE, Dave Vellante with Paul Gillin. Be right back from MIT. (upbeat music)

>> Live from the MIT campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE, covering the 12th Annual MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium. Brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. >> Welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of MIT CDOIQ here in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I'm your host Rebecca Knight along with my cohost Peter Burris. We have two guests on this segment. We have Cortnie Abercrombie, she is the founder of the nonprofit AI Truth, and Carl Gerber, who is the managing partner at Global Data Analytics Leaders. Thanks so much for coming on theCUBE Cortnie and Carl. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So I want to start by just having you introduce yourselves to our viewers, what you do. So tell us a little bit about AI Truth, Cortnie. >> So this was born out of a passion. As I, the last gig I had at IBM, everybody knows me for chief data officer and what I did with that, but the more recent role that I had was developing custom offerings for Fortune 500 in the AI solutions area, so as I would go meet and see different clients, and talk with them and start to look at different processes for how you implement AI solutions, it became very clear that not everybody is attuned, just because they're the ones funding the project or even initiating the purpose of the project, the business leaders don't necessarily know how these things work or run or what can go wrong with them. And on the flip side of that, we have very ambitious up-and-comer-type data scientists who are just trying to fulfill the mission, you know, the talent at hand, and they get really swept up in it. To the point where you can even see that data's getting bartered back and forth with any real governance over it or policies in place to say, "Hey, is that right? Should we have gotten that kind of information?" Which leads us into things like the creepy factor. Like, you know target (laughs) and some of these cases that are well-known. And so, as I saw some of these mistakes happening that were costing brand reputation, our return on investment, or possibly even creating opportunities for risk for the companies and for the business leaders, I felt like someone's got to take one for the team here and go out and start educating people on how this stuff actually works, what the issues can be and how to prevent those issues, and then also what do you do when things do go wrong, how do you fix it? So that's the mission of AI Truth and I have a book. Yes, power to the people, but you know really my main concern was concerned individuals, because I think we've all been affected when we've sent and email and all of a sudden we get a weird ad, and we're like, "Hey, what, they should not, is somebody reading my email?" You know, and we feel this, just, offense-- >> And the answer is yes. >> Yes, and they are, they are. So I mean, we, but we need to know because the only way we can empower ourselves to do something is to actually know how it works. So, that's what my missions is to try and do. So, for the concerned individuals out there, I am writing a book to kind of encapsulate all the experiences that I had so people know where to look and what they can actually do, because you'll be less fearful if you know, "Hey, I can download DuckDuckGo for my browser, or my search engine I mean, and Epic for my browser, and some private, you know, private offerings instead of the typical free offerings. There's not an answer for Facebook yet though. >> So, (laughs) we'll get there. Carl, tell us a little bit about Global Data Analytics Leaders. >> So, I launched Analytics Leaders and CDO Coach after a long career in corporate America. I started building an executive information system when I was in the military for a four-star commander, and I've really done a lot in data analytics throughout my career. Most recently, starting a CDO function at two large multinational companies in leading global transformation programs. And, what I've experienced is even though the industries may vary a little bit, the challenges are the same and the patterns of behavior are the same, both the good and bad behavior, bad habits around the data. And, through the course of my career, I've developed these frameworks and playbooks and just ways to get a repeatable outcome and bring these new technologies like machine learning to bear to really overcome the challenges that I've seen. And what I've seen is a lot of the current thinking is we're solving these data management problems manually. You know, we all hear the complaints about the people who are analysts and data scientists spending 70, 80% of their time being a data gatherer and not really generating insight from the data itself and making it actionable. Well, that's why we have computer systems, right? But that large-scale technology in automation hasn't really served us well, because we think in silos, right? We fund these projects based on departments and divisions. We acquire companies through mergers and acquisitions. And the CDO role has emerged because we need to think about this, all the data that an enterprise uses, horizontally. And with that, I bring a high degree of automation, things like machine learning, to solve those problems. So, I'm now bottling that and advising my clients. And at the same time, the CDO role is where the CIO role was 20 years ago. We're really in it's infancy, and so you see companies define it differently, have different expectations. People are filling the roles that may have not done this before, and so I provide the coaching services there. It's like a professional golfer who has a swing coach. So I come in and I help the data executives with upping their game. >> Well, it's interesting, I actually said the CIO role 40 years ago. But, here's why. If we look back in the 1970s, hardcore financial systems were made possible by the technology which allowed us to run businesses like a portfolio: Jack Welch, the GE model. That was not possible if you didn't have a common asset management system, if you didn't have a common cached management system, etc. And so, when we started creating those common systems, we needed someone that could describe how that shared asset was going to be used within the organization. And we went from the DP manager in HR, the DP manager within finance, to the CIO. And in many respects, we're doing the same thing, right? We're talking about data in a lot of different places and now the business is saying, "We can bring this data together in new and interesting ways into more a shared asset, and we need someone that can help administer that process, and you know, navigate between different groups and different needs and whatnot." Is that kind of what you guys are seeing? >> Oh yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well you know once I get to talking (laughs). For me, I can going right back to the newer technologies like AI and IOT that are coming from externally into your organization, and then also the fact that we're seeing bartering at an unprec... of data at an unprecedented level before. And yet, what the chief data officer role originally did was look at data internally, and structured data mostly. But now, we're asking them to step out of their comfort zone and start looking at all these unknown, niche data broker firms that may or may not be ethical in how they're... I mean, I... look I tell people, "If you hear the word scrape, you run." No scraping, we don't want scraped data, no, no, no (laugh). But I mean, but that's what we're talking about-- >> Well, what do you mean by scraped data, 'cause that's important? >> Well, this is a well-known data science practice. And it's not that... nobody's being malicious here, nobody's trying to have a malintent, but I think it's just data scientists are just scruffy, they roll up their sleeves and they get data however they can. And so, the practice emerged. Look, they're built off of open-source software and everything's free, right, for them, for the most part? So they just start reading in screens and things that are available that you could see, they can optical character read it in, or they can do it however without having to have a subscription to any of that data, without having to have permission to any of that data. It's, "I can see it, so it's mine." But you know, that doesn't work in candy stores. We can't just go, or jewelry stores in my case, I mean, you can't just say, "I like that diamond earring, or whatever, I'm just going to take it because I can see it." (laughs) So, I mean, yeah we got to... that's scraping though. >> And the implications of that are suddenly now you've got a great new business initiative and somebody finds out that you used their private data in that initiative, and now they've got a claim on that asset. >> Right. And this is where things start to get super hairy, and you just want to make sure that you're being on the up-and-up with your data practices and you data ethics, because, in my opinion, 90% of what's gone wrong in AI or the fear factor of AI is that your privacy's getting violated and then you're labeled with data that you may or may not know even exists half the time. I mean. >> So, what's the answer? I mean as you were talking about these data scientists are scrappy, scruffy, roll-up-your-sleeves kind of people, and they are coming up with new ideas, new innovations that sometimes are good-- >> Oh yes, they are. >> So what, so what is the answer? Is this this code of ethics? Is it a... sort of similar to a Hippocratic Oath? I mean how would you, what do you think? >> So, it's a multidimensional problem. Cortnie and I were talking earlier that you have to have more transparency into the models you're creating, and that means a significant validation process. And that's where the chief data officer partners with folks in risk and other areas and the data science team around getting more transparency and visibility into what's the data that's feeding into it? Is it really the authoritative data of the company? And as Cortnie points out, do we even have the rights to that data that's feeding our models? And so, by bringing that transparency and a little more validation before you actually start making key, bet-the-business decisions on the outcomes of these models, you need to look at how you're vetting them. >> And the vetting process is part technology, part culture, part process, it goes back to that people process technology trying. >> Yeah, absolutely, know where your data came from. Why are you doing this model? What are you doing to do with the outcomes? Are you actually going to do something with it or are you going to ignore it? Under what conditions will you empower a decision-maker to use the information that is the output of the model? A lot of these things, you have to think through when you want to operationalize it. It's not just, "I'm going to go get a bunch of data wherever I can, I put a model together. Here, don't you like the results?" >> But this is Silicon Valley way, right? An MVP for everything and you just let it run until... you can't. >> That's a great point Cortnie (laughs) I've always believed, and I want to test this with you, we talk about people process technology about information, we never talk about people process technology and information of information. There's a manner of respects what we're talking about is making explicit the information about... information, the metadata, and how we manage that and how we treat that, and how we defuse that, and how we turn that, the metadata itself, into models to try to govern and guide utilization of this. That's especially important in AI world, isn't it? >> I start with this. For me, it's simple, I mean, but everything he said was true. But, I try to keep it to this: it's about free will. If I said you can do that with my data, to me it's always my data. I don't care if it's on Facebook, I don't care where it is and I don't care if it's free or not, it's still my data. Even if it's X23andMe, or 23andMe, sorry, and they've taken the swab, or whether it's Facebook or I did a google search, I don't care, it's still my data. So if you ask me if it's okay to do a certain type of thing, then maybe I will consent to that. But I should at least be given an option. And no, be given the transparency. So it's all about free will. So in my mind, as long as you're always providing some sort of free will (laughs), the ability for me to having a decision to say, "Yes, I want to participate in that," or, "Yes, you can label me as whatever label I'm getting, Trump or a pro-Hillary or Obam-whatever, name whatever issue of the day is," then I'm okay with that as long as I get a choice. >> Let's go back to it, I want to build on that if I can, because, and then I want to ask you a question about it Carl, the issue of free will presupposes that both sides know exactly what's going into the data. So for example, if I have a medical procedure, I can sit down on that form and I can say, "Whatever happens is my responsibility." But if bad things happen because of malfeasance, guess what? That piece of paper's worthless and I can sue. Because the doctor and the medical provider is supposed to know more about what's going on than I do. >> Right. >> Does the same thing exist? You talked earlier about governance and some of the culture imperatives and transparency, doesn't that same thing exist? And I'm going to ask you a question: is that part of your nonprofit is to try to raise the bar for everybody? But doesn't that same notion exist, that at the end of the day, you don't... You do have information asymmetries, both sides don't know how the data's being used because of the nature of data? >> Right. That's why you're seeing the emergence of all these data privacy laws. And so what I'm advising executives and the board and my clients is we need to step back and think bigger about this. We need to think about as not just GDPR, the European scope, it's global data privacy. And if we look at the motivation, why are we doing this? Are we doing it just because we have to be regulatory-compliant 'cause there's a law in the books, or should we reframe it and say, "This is really about the user experience, the customer experience." This is a touchpoint that my customers have with my company. How transparent should I be with what data I have about you, how I'm using it, how I'm sharing it, and is there a way that I can turn this into a positive instead of it's just, "I'm doing this because I have to for regulatory-compliance." And so, I believe if you really examine the motivation and look at it from more of the carrot and less of the stick, you're going to find that you're more motivated to do it, you're going to be more transparent with your customers, and you're going to share, and you're ultimately going to protect that data more closely because you want to build that trust with your customers. And then lastly, let's face it, this is the data we want to analyze, right? This is the authenticated data we want to give to the data scientists, so I just flip that whole thing on its head. We do for these reasons and we increase the transparency and trust. >> So Cortnie, let me bring it back to you. >> Okay. >> That presupposes, again, an up-leveling of knowledge about data privacy not just for the executive but also for the consumer. How are you going to do that? >> Personally, I'm going to come back to free will again, and I'm also going to add: harm impacts. We need to start thinking impact assessments instead of governance, quite frankly. We need to start looking at if I, you know, start using a FICO score as a proxy for another piece of information, like a crime record in a certain district of whatever, as a way to understand how responsible you are and whether or not your car is going to get broken into, and now you have to pay more. Well, you're... if you always use a FICO score, for example, as a proxy for responsibility which, let's face it, once a data scientist latches onto something, they share it with everybody 'cause that's how they are, right? They love that and I love that about them, quite frankly. But, what I don't like is it propagates, and then before you know it, the people who are of lesser financial means, it's getting propagated because now they're going to be... Every AI pricing model is going to use FICO score as a-- >> And they're priced out of the market. >> And they're priced out of the market and how is that fair? And there's a whole group, I think you know about the Fairness Accountability Transparency group that, you know, kind of watch dogs this stuff. But I think business leaders as a whole don't really think through to that level like, "If I do this, then this this and this could incur--" >> So what would be the one thing you could say if, corporate America's listening. >> Let's do impact. Let's do impact assessments. If you're going to cost someone their livelihood, or you're going to cost them thousands of dollars, then let's put more scrutiny, let's put more government validation. To your point, let's put some... 'cause not everything needs the nth level. Like, if I present you with a blue sweater instead of a red sweater on google or whatever, (laughs) You know, that's not going to harm you. But it will harm you if I give you a teacher assessment that's based on something that you have no control over, and now you're fired because you've been laid off 'cause your rating was bad. >> This is a great conversation. Let me... Let me add something different, 'cause... Or say it a different way, and tell me if you agree. In many respects, it's: Does this practice increase inclusion or does this practice decrease inclusion? This is not some goofy, social thing, this is: Are you making your market bigger or are you making your market smaller? Because the last thing you want is that the participation by people ends with: You can't play because of some algorithmic response we had. So maybe the question of inclusion becomes a key issue. Would you agree with that? >> I do agree with it, and I still think there's levels even to inclusion. >> Of course. >> Like, you know, being a part of the blue sweater club versus the (laughs) versus, "I don't want to be a convict," you know, suddenly because of some record you found, or association with someone else. And let's just face it, a lot of these algorithmic models do do these kinds of things where they... They use n+1, you know, a lot... you know what I'm saying. And so you're associated naturally with the next person closest to you, and that's not always the right thing to do, right? So, in some ways, and so I'm positing just little bit of a new idea here, you're creating some policies, whether you're being, and we were just talking about this, but whether you're being implicit about them or explicit, more likely you're being implicit because you're just you're summarily deciding. Well, okay, I have just decided in the credit score example, that if you don't have a good credit threshold... But where in your policies and your corporate policy did it ever say that people of lesser financial means should be excluded from being able to have good car insurance for... 'cause now, the same goes with like Facebook. Some people feel like they're going to have to opt of of life, I mean, if they don't-- >> (laughs) Opt out of life. >> I mean like, seriously, when you think about grandparents who are excluded, you know, out in whatever Timbuktu place they live, and all their families are somewhere else, and the only way that they get to see is, you know, on Facebook. >> Go back to the issue you raised earlier about "Somebody read my email," I can tell you, as a person with a couple of more elderly grandparents, they inadvertently shared some information with me on Facebook about a health condition that they had. You know how grotesque the response of Facebook was to that? And, it affected me to because they had my name in it. They didn't know any better. >> Sometimes there's a stigma. Sometimes things become a stigma as well. There's an emotional response. When I put the article out about why I left IBM to start this new AI Truth nonprofit, the responses I got back that were so immediate were emotional responses about how this stuff affects people. That they're scared of what this means. Can people come after my kids or my grandkids? And if you think about how genetic information can get used, you're not just hosing yourself. I mean, breast cancer genes, I believe, aren't they, like... They run through families, so, I-- >> And they're pretty well-understood. >> If someone swabs my, and uses it and swaps it with other data, you know, people, all of a sudden, not just me is affected, but my whole entire lineage, I mean... It's hard to think of that, but... it's true (laughs). >> These are real life and death... these are-- >> Not just today, but for the future. And in many respects, it's that notion of inclusion... Going back to it, now I'm making something up, but not entirely, but going back to some of the stuff that you were talking about, Carl, the decisions we make about data today, we want to ensure that we know that there's value in the options for how we use that data in the future. So, the issue of inclusion is not just about people, but it's also about other activities, or other things that we might be able to do with data because of the nature of data. I think we always have to have an options approach to thinking about... as we make data decisions. Would you agree with that? Yes, because you know, data's not absolute. So, you can measure something and you can look at the data quality, you can look at the inputs to a model, whatever, but you still have to have that human element of, "Are you we doing the right thing?" You know, the data should guide us in our decisions, but I don't think it's ever an absolute. It's a range of options, and we chose this options for this reason. >> Right, so are we doing the right thing and do no harm too? Carl, Cortnie, we could talk all day, this has been a really fun conversation. >> Oh yeah, and we have. (laughter) >> But we're out of time. I'm Rebecca Knight for Peter Burris, we will have more from MIT CDOIQ in just a little bit. (upbeat music)

>> Live from the MIT Campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, it's theCUBE. Covering the 12th Annual MIT chief data officer and Information Quality Symposium. Brought to you by: SiliconANGLE Media. >> Welcome to theCUBE's coverage of MITCDOIQ here in Cambridge, Massachusetts on the MIT Campus. I'm your host, Rebecca Knight, along with my co-host, Peter Burris. Peter, it's a pleasure to be here with you. Thanks for joining me. >> Absolutely, good to see you again, Rebecca. >> These are my stomping grounds. >> Ha! >> So welcome to Massachusetts. >> It's an absolutely beautiful day in Cambridge. >> It is, it is, indeed. I'm so excited to be hosting this with you, what do you think, this is about chief data officer information quality. We're really going to get inside the heads of these chief data officers, find out what's on their minds, what's keeping them up at night, how are they thinking about data, how are they pricing it, how are they keeping it clean, how are they optimizing it, exploiting it, how are they hiring for it? What do you think is the top issue of the day, in your mind. There's a lot to talk about here, what's number one? >> Well, I think the first thing, Rebecca, is that if you're going to have a chief in front of your name then, at least in my mind, that means the Board has directed you to generate some return on the assets that you've been entrusted with. I think the first thing that the CDO, the chief data officer, has to do is start to do a better job of pricing out the value of data, demonstrating how they're turning it into assets that can be utilized and exploited in a number of different ways to generate returns that are actually superior to some of the other assets in the business because data is getting greater investment these days. So I think the first thing is, how are you turning your data into an asset, because if you're not, why are you achieve anything? >> (laughs) No, that's a very good point. The other thing we were talking about before the cameras were rolling, is the role of the CDO, chief data officer, and the role of the CIO, chief information officer, and how those roles differ. I mean is that something that we're going to get into today? What do you think? >> I think it's something certainly to ask a lot of the chief data officers that are coming on, there's some confusion in the industry about what the relationship should be and how the roles are different. The chief data officer as a concept, has been around for probably 10-12 years, something like that. I mean, the first time I heard it was probably 2007-2008. The CIO role has always been about information, but it ended up being more about the technology, and then the question was, what does a Chief Technology Officer does? Well it was a Chief Technology Officer could have had a different role, but they also seem to be increasing the responsible for the technology. So if you look at a lot organizations that have a CDO, the CIO looks more often to be the individual in charge of the IT assets, the technology officer tends to be in charge of the IT infrastructure, and the CDO tends to be more associated with, again, the role that the data plays, increasingly associated with analytics. But I think, over the next few years, that set of relationships is going to change, and new regimes will be put in place as businesses start to re-institutionalize their work around their data, and what it really means to have data as an asset. >> And the other role we've not mentioned is the CDO, Chief Digital Officer, which is the convergence of those two roles as well. How do you see, you started out by saying this is really about optimizing the data and finding a way to make money from it. >> Or generate a return. >> Generate a return, exactly! Find value in it, exactly. >> One of the things about data, and one of the things about IT, historically, is that it often doesn't generate money directly, but rather indirectly, and that's one of the reasons why it has been difficult to sustain investments in. The costs are almost always direct, so if I invest in an IT project, for example, the costs show up immediately but the benefits come through whatever function I just invested in the application to support. And the same thing exists with data. So if we take a look at the Chief Digital Officer, often that's a job that has been developed largely close or approximate to the COO to better understand how operations are going to change as a consequence of an increasing use of data. So, the Chief Digital Officer is often an individual whose entrusted to think about as we re-institutionalize work around data, what is that going to mean to our operations and our engagement models too? So, I think it's a combination of operations and engagement. So the Chief Digital Officer is often very proximate to the COO thinking about how data is going to change the way organization works, change the way the organization engages, from a strategic standpoint first, but we're starting to see that role move more directly into operations. I don't want to say compete with the COO, but work much more closely with them in an operational level. >> Right, and of course, depending organization to organization. >> It's always different, and to what degree are your assets historically data-oriented, like if you're a media company or if you're a financial services company, those are companies that are very strong lineages of data as an asset. If you're a manufacturing company, and you're building digital twins, like a GE or something along those lines, then you might be a little bit newer to the game, but still you have to catch up because data is going to mush a lot of industries together, and it's going to to be hard to parse some of these industries in five to ten years. >> Well, precisely, one of the things you said was that the CDO, as a role, is really only 11-12 years old. In fact that this conference is in its 12th year, so really it started at the very beginning of the CDO journey itself, and we're now amidst the CDO movement. I mean, what do you think, how is the CDO thinking about his or her role within the larger AI revolution? >> Well, that's a great question, and it's one of the primary reasons why it's picking up pace. We've had a number of different technology introductions over the past 15 - 20 years that have bought us here. The notion of virtualizing machines changed or broke that relationship between applications and hardware. The idea of very high speed, very flexible, very easy to manage data center networking broke the way that we thought about how resources could be bought together. Very importantly, in the last six or seven years, the historical norm for storage was disc, which was more emphasized how do I persist the data that results from a transaction, and now we're moving to flash, and flash-based systems, which is more about how can I deliver data to new types of applications. That combination of things makes it possible to utilize a lot of these AI algorithms and a lot of these approaches to AI, many of which the algorithms have been around for 40-50 years, so we're catalyzing a new era in which we can think about delivering data faster with higher fidelity, with lower administrative costs because we're not copying everything and putting it in a lot of different places. That is making it possible to do these AI things. That's precisely one of the factors that's really driving the need to look at data as an asset because we can do more with it than we ever have before. You know, it's interesting, I have a little bromide, when people ask me what's really going on in the industry, what I like to say is for the first 50 years of the industry, it was known process, unknown technology. We knew we were going to do accounting, we knew we were going to do HR, there was largely given to us legal or regulatory or other types of considerations, but the unknown was, do we put it on a mainframe? Do we put it on a (mumbles) Do we use a database manager? How distributed is this going to be? We're now moving into an era where it's unknown process because we're focused on engagement or the role that data can play in changing operations, but the technology is going to be relatively common. It's going to be Cloud or Cloud-like. So, we don't have quite as, it's not to say that technology questions go away entirely, they don't, but it's not as focused on the technology questions, we can focus more on the outcomes, but we have a hard time challenging those outcomes or deciding what those outcomes are going to be, and that's one of the interesting things here. We're not only using data to deliver the outcomes, we're also using data to choose what outcomes to pursue. So it's an interesting recursive set of activities where the CDO is responsible for helping the business decide what are we going to do and also, how are we going to do it? >> Well, exactly. That's an excellent point, because there are so many, one of the things that we've heard about on the main stage this morning is the difficulty a lot of CDOs get with just buy-in, and really understanding, this is important, and this is not as important or this is what we're going to do, this is what we're saying the data is telling us, and these are the actions we're going to take. How do you change a culture? How do you get people to embrace it? >> Well, this is an adoption challenge, and an adoption challenges are always met by showing returns quickly and sustainably. So one of the first things, which is why I said, one of the first things that a CDO has to do is show the organization how data can be thought of as an asset, because once you do that, now you can start to describe some concrete returns that you are able to help deliver as a consequence of your chief role. So that's probably the first thing. But, I think, one of the other things to do is to start doing things like demonstrating the role that information quality plays within an organization. Now, information quality is almost always measured in terms of the output or the outcomes that it supports, but there are questions of fidelity, there are questions of what data are we going to use, what data are we not going to use? How are we going to get rid of data? There's a lot of questions related to information quality that have process elements to them, and those processes are just now being introduced to the organization, and doing a good job of that, and acculturating people to understanding the role of equality plays, information quality plays, is another part of it. So I think you have to demonstrate that you have conceived and can execute on a regime of value, and at the same time you have to demonstrate that you have particular insight into some of those on-going processes that are capable of sustaining that value. It's a combination of those two things that, I think, the chief data officer's going to have to do to demonstrate that they belong at the table, on-going. >> Well, today we're going to be talking to an array of people, some from MIT who study this stuff >> I hear they're smart people. >> Yeah, maybe. A little bit. We'll see, we'll see. MIT, some people from the US Government, so CDOs from the US Army, the Air Force, we've got people from industry too, we've also got management consultants coming on to talk about some best practices, so it's going to be a great day. We're going to really dig in here. >> Looking forward to it. >> Yes. I'm Rebecca Knight, for Peter Burris, we will have more from MITCDOIQ in just a little bit. (techno music)