>> Announcer: From around the globe, it's theCUBE with digital coverage of MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality symposium brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. >> Hi everybody. This is Dave Vellante and welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of the MIT CDOIQ 2020 event. Of course, it's gone virtual. We wish we were all together in Cambridge. They were going to move into a new building this year for years they've done this event at the Tang Center, moving into a new facility, but unfortunately going to have to wait at least a year, we'll see, But we've got a great guest. Nonetheless, Doug Laney is here. He's a Business Value Strategist, the bestselling author, an analyst, consultant then a long time CUBE friend. Doug, great to see you again. Thanks so much for coming on. >> Dave, great to be with you again as well. So can I ask you? You have been an advocate for obviously measuring the value of data, the CDO role. I don't take this the wrong way, but I feel like the last 150 days have done more to accelerate people's attention on the importance of data and the value of data than all the great work that you've done. What do you think? (laughing) >> It's always great when organizations, actually take advantage of some of these concepts of data value. You may be speaking specifically about the situation with United Airlines and American Airlines, where they have basically collateralized their customer loyalty data, their customer loyalty programs to the tunes of several billion dollars each. And one of the things that's very interesting about that is that the third party valuations of their customer loyalty data, resulted in numbers that were larger than the companies themselves. So basically the value of their data, which is as we've discussed previously off balance sheet is more valuable than the market cap of those companies themselves, which is just incredibly fascinating. >> Well, and of course, all you have to do is look to the Trillionaire's Club. And now of course, Apple pushing two trillion to really see the value that the market places on data. But the other thing is of course, COVID, everybody talks about the COVID acceleration. How have you seen it impact the awareness of the importance of data, whether it applies to business resiliency or even new monetization models? If you're not digital, you can't do business. And digital is all about data. >> I think the major challenge that most organizations are seeing from a data and analytics perspective due to COVID is that their traditional trend based forecast models are broken. If you're a company that's only forecasting based on your own historical data and not taking into consideration, or even identifying what are the leading indicators of your business, then COVID and the economic shutdown have entirely broken those models. So it's raised the awareness of companies to say, "Hey, how can we predict our business now? We can't do it based on our own historical data. We need to look externally at what are those external, maybe global indicators or other kinds of markets that proceed our own forecasts or our own activity." And so the conversion from trend based forecast models to what we call driver based forecast models, isn't easy for a lot of organizations to do. And one of the more difficult parts is identifying what are those external data factors from suppliers, from customers, from partners, from competitors, from complimentary products and services that are leading indicators of your business. And then recasting those models and executing on them. >> And that's a great point. If you think about COVID and how it's changed things, everything's changed, right? The ideal customer profile has changed, your value proposition to those customers has completely changed. You got to rethink that. And of course, it's very hard to predict even when this thing eventually comes back, some kind of hybrid mode, you used to be selling to people in an office environment. That's obviously changed. There's a lot that's permanent there. And data is potentially at least the forward indicator, the canary in the coal mine. >> Right. It also is the product and service. So not only can it help you and improve your forecasting models, but it can become a product or service that you're offering. Look at us right now, we would generally be face to face and person to person, but we're using video technology to transfer this content. And then one of the things that I... It took me awhile to realize, but a couple of months after the COVID shutdown, it occurred to me that even as a consulting organization, Caserta focuses on North America. But the reality is that every consultancy is now a global consultancy because we're all doing business remotely. There are no particular or real strong localization issues for doing consulting today. >> So we talked a lot over the years about the role of the CDO, how it's evolved, how it's changed the course of the early... The pre-title days it was coming out of a data quality world. And it's still vital. Of course, as we heard today from the Keynote, it's much more public, much more exposed, different public data sources, but the role has certainly evolved initially into regulated industries like financial, healthcare and government, but now, many, many more organizations have a CDO. My understanding is that you're giving a talk in the business case for the CDO. Help us understand that. >> Yeah. So one of the things that we've been doing here for the last couple of years is a running an ongoing study of how organizations are impacted by the role of the CDO. And really it's more of a correlation and looking at what are some of the qualities of organizations that have a CDO or don't have a CDO. So some of the things we found is that organizations with a CDO nearly twice as often, mention the importance of data and analytics in their annual report organizations with a C level CDO, meaning a true executive are four times more often likely to be using data, to transform the business. And when we're talking about using data and advanced analytics, we found that organizations with a CIO, not a CDO responsible for their data assets are only half as likely to be doing advanced analytics in any way. So there are a number of interesting things that we found about companies that have a CDO and how they operate a bit differently. >> I want to ask you about that. You mentioned the CIO and we're increasingly seeing lines of reporting and peer reporting alter shift. The sands are shifting a little bit. In the early days the CDO and still predominantly I think is an independent organization. We've seen a few cases and increasingly number where they're reporting into the CIO, we've seen the same thing by the way with the chief Information Security Officer, which used to be considered the fox watching the hen house. So we're seeing those shifts. We've also seen the CDO become more aligned with a technical role and sometimes even emerging out of that technical role. >> Yeah. I think the... I don't know, what I've seen more is that the CDOs are emerging from the business, companies are realizing that data is a business asset. It's not an IT asset. There was a time when data was tightly coupled with applications of technologies, but today data is very easily decoupled from those applications and usable in a wider variety of contexts. And for that reason, as data gets recognized as a business, not an IT asset, you want somebody from the business responsible for overseeing that asset. Yes, a lot of CDOs still report to the CIO, but increasingly more CDOs you're seeing and I think you'll see some other surveys from other organizations this week where the CDOs are more frequently reporting up to the CEO level, meaning they're true executives. Along I advocated for the bifurcation of the IT organization into separate I and T organizations. Again, there's no reason other than for historical purposes to keep the data and technology sides of the organizations so intertwined. >> Well, it makes sense that the Chief Data Officer would have an affinity with the lines of business. And you're seeing a lot of organizations, really trying to streamline their data pipeline, their data life cycles, bringing that together, infuse intelligence into that, but also take a systems view and really have the business be intimately involved, if not even owned into the data. You see a lot of emphasis on self-serve, what are you seeing in terms of that data pipeline or the data life cycle, if you will, that used to be wonky, hard core techies, but now it really involving a lot more constituent. >> Yeah. Well, the data life cycle used to be somewhat short. The data life cycles, they're longer and they're more a data networks than a life cycle and or a supply chain. And the reason is that companies are finding alternative uses for their data, not just using it for a single operational purpose or perhaps reporting purpose, but finding that there are new value streams that can be generated from data. There are value streams that can be generated internally. There are a variety of value streams that can be generated externally. So we work with companies to identify what are those variety of value streams? And then test their feasibility, are they ethically feasible? Are they legally feasible? Are they economically feasible? Can they scale? Do you have the technology capabilities? And so we'll run through a process of assessing the ideas that are generated. But the bottom line is that companies are realizing that data is an asset. It needs to be not just measured as one and managed as one, but also monetized as an asset. And as we've talked about previously, data has these unique qualities that it can be used over and over again, and it generate more data when you use it. And it can be used simultaneously for multiple purposes. So companies like, you mentioned, Apple and others have built business models, based on these unique qualities of data. But I think it's really incumbent upon any organization today to do so as well. >> But when you observed those companies that we talk about all the time, data is at the center of their organization. They maybe put people around that data. That's got to be one of the challenge for many of the incumbents is if we talked about the data silos, the different standards, different data quality, that's got to be fairly major blocker for people becoming a "Data-driven organization." >> It is because some organizations were developed as people driven product, driven brand driven, or other things to try to convert. To becoming data-driven, takes a high degree of data literacy or fluency. And I think there'll be a lot of talk about that this week. I'll certainly mention it as well. And so getting the organization to become data fluent and appreciate data as an asset and understand its possibilities and the art of the possible with data, it's a long road. So the culture change that goes along with it is really difficult. And so we're working with 150 year old consumer brand right now that wants to become more data-driven and they're very product driven. And we hear the CIO say, "We want people to understand that we're a data company that just happens to produce this product. We're not a product company that generates data." And once we realized that and started behaving in that fashion, then we'll be able to really win and thrive in our marketplace. >> So one of the key roles of a Chief Data Officers to understand how data affects the monetization of an organization. Obviously there are four profit companies of your healthcare organization saving lives, obviously being profitable as well, or at least staying within the budget, depending upon the structure of the organization. But a lot of people I think oftentimes misunderstand that it's like, "Okay, do I have to become a data broker? Am I selling data directly?" But I think, you pointed out many times and you just did that unlike oil, that's why we don't like that data as a new oil analogy, because it's so much more valuable and can be use, it doesn't fall because of its scarcity. But what are you finding just in terms of people's application of that notion of monetization? Cutting costs, increasing revenue, what are you seeing in the field? What's that spectrum look like? >> So one of the things I've done over the years is compile a library of hundreds and hundreds of examples of how organizations are using data and analytics in innovative ways. And I have a book in process that hopefully will be out this fall. I'm sharing a number of those inspirational examples. So that's the thing that organizations need to understand is that there are a variety of great examples out there, and they shouldn't just necessarily look to their own industry. There are inspirational examples from other industries as well, many clients come to me and they ask, "What are others in my industry doing?" And my flippant response to that is, "Why do you want to be in second place or third place? Why not take an idea from another industry, perhaps a digital product company and apply that to your own business." But like you mentioned, there are a variety of ways to monetize data. It doesn't involve necessarily selling it. You can deliver analytics, you can report on it, you can use it internally to generate improved business process performance. And as long as you're measuring how data's being applied and what its impact is, then you're in a position to claim that you're monetizing it. But if you're not measuring the impact of data on business processes or on customer relationships or partner supplier relationships or anything else, then it's difficult to claim that you're monetizing it. But one of the more interesting ways that we've been working with organizations to monetize their data, certainly in light of GDPR and the California consumer privacy act where I can't sell you my data anymore, but we've identified ways to monetize your customer data in a couple of ways. One is to synthesize the data, create synthetic data sets that retain the original statistical anomalies in the data or features of the data, but don't share actually any PII. But another interesting way that we've been working with organizations to monetize their data is what I call, Inverted data monetization, where again, I can't share my customer data with you, but I can share information about your products and services with my customers. And take a referral fee or a commission, based on that. So let's say I'm a hospital and I can't sell you my patient data, of course, due to variety of regulations, but I know who my diabetes patients are, and I can introduce them to your healthy meal plans, to your gym memberships, to your at home glucose monitoring kits. And again, take a referral fee or a cut of that action. So we're working with customers and the financial services firm industry and in the healthcare industry on just those kinds of examples. So we've identified hundreds of millions of dollars of incremental value for organizations that from their data that we're just sitting on. >> Interesting. Doug because you're a business value strategist at the top, where in the S curve do you see you're able to have the biggest impact. I doubt that you enter organizations where you say, "Oh, they've got it all figured out. They can't use my advice." But as well, sometimes in the early stages, you may not be able to have as big of an impact because there's not top down support or whatever, there's too much technical data, et cetera, where are you finding you can have the biggest impact, Doug? >> Generally we don't come in and run those kinds of data monetization or information innovation exercises, unless there's some degree of executive support. I've never done that at a lower level, but certainly there are lower level more immediate and vocational opportunities for data to deliver value through, to simply analytics. One of the simple examples I give is, I sold a home recently and when you put your house on the market, everybody comes out of the woodwork, the fly by night, mortgage companies, the moving companies, the box companies, the painters, the landscapers, all know you're moving because your data is in the U.S. and the MLS directory. And it was interesting. The only company that didn't reach out to me was my own bank, and so they lost the opportunity to introduce me to a Mortgage they'd retain me as a client, introduce me to my new branch, print me new checks, move the stuff in my safe deposit box, all of that. They missed a simple opportunity. And I'm thinking, this doesn't require rocket science to figure out which of your customers are moving, the MLS database or you can harvest it from Zillow or other sites is basically public domain data. And I was just thinking, how stupid simple would it have been for them to hire a high school programmer, give him a can of red bull and say, "Listen match our customer database to the MLS database to let us know who's moving on a daily or weekly basis." Some of these solutions are pretty simple. >> So is that part of what you do, come in with just hardcore tactical ideas like that? Are you also doing strategy? Tell me more about how you're spending your time. >> I trying to think more of a broader approach where we look at the data itself and again, people have said, "If you tortured enough, what would you tell us? We're just take that angle." We look at examples of how other organizations have monetized data and think about how to apply those and adapt those ideas to the company's own business. We look at key business drivers, internally and externally. We look at edge cases for their customers' businesses. We run through hypothesis generating activities. There are a variety of different kinds of activities that we do to generate ideas. And most of the time when we run these workshops, which last a week or two, we'll end up generating anywhere from 35 to 50 pretty solid ideas for generating new value streams from data. So when we talk about monetizing data, that's what we mean, generating new value streams. But like I said, then the next step is to go through that feasibility assessment and determining which of these ideas you actually want to pursue. >> So you're of course the longtime industry watcher as well, as a former Gartner Analyst, you have to be. My question is, if I think back... I've been around a while. If I think back at the peak of Microsoft's prominence in the PC era, it was like windows 95 and you felt like, "Wow, Microsoft is just so strong." And then of course the Linux comes along and a lot of open source changes and low and behold, a whole new set of leaders emerges. And you see the same thing today with the Trillionaire's Club and you feel like, "Wow, even COVID has been a tailwind for them." But you think about, "Okay, where could the disruption come to these large players that own huge clouds, they have all the data." Is data potentially a disruptor for what appear to be insurmountable odds against the newbies" >> There's always people coming up with new ways to leverage data or new sources of data to capture. So yeah, there's certainly not going to be around for forever, but it's been really fascinating to see the transformation of some companies I think nobody really exemplifies it more than IBM where they emerged from originally selling meat slicers. The Dayton Meat Slicer was their original product. And then they evolved into Manual Business Machines and then Electronic Business Machines. And then they dominated that. Then they dominated the mainframe software industry. Then they dominated the PC industry. Then they dominated the services industry to some degree. And so they're starting to get into data. And I think following that trajectory is something that really any organization should be looking at. When do you actually become a data company? Not just a product company or a service company or top. >> We have Inderpal Bhandari is one of our huge guests here. He's a Chief-- >> Sure. >> Data Officer of IBM, you know him well. And he talks about the journey that he's undertaken to transform the company into a data company. I think a lot of people don't really realize what's actually going on behind the scenes, whether it's financially oriented or revenue opportunities. But one of the things he stressed to me in our interview was that they're on average, they're reducing the end to end cycle time from raw data to insights by 70%, that's on average. And that's just an enormous, for a company that size, it's just enormous cost savings or revenue generating opportunity. >> There's no doubt that the technology behind data pipelines is improving and the process from moving data from those pipelines directly into predictive or diagnostic or prescriptive output is a lot more accelerated than the early days of data warehousing. >> Is the skills barrier is acute? It seems like it's lessened somewhat, the early Hadoop days you needed... Even data scientist... Is it still just a massive skill shortage, or we're starting to attack that. >> Well, I think companies are figuring out a way around the skill shortage by doing things like self service analytics and focusing on more easy to use mainstream type AI or advanced analytics technologies. But there's still very much a need for data scientists and organizations and the difficulty in finding people that are true data scientists. There's no real certification. And so really anybody can call themselves a data scientist but I think companies are getting good at interviewing and determining whether somebody's got the goods or not. But there are other types of skills that we don't really focus on, like the data engineering skills, there's still a huge need for data engineering. Data doesn't self-organize. There are some augmented analytics technologies that will automatically generate analytic output, but there really aren't technologies that automatically self-organize data. And so there's a huge need for data engineers. And then as we talked about, there's a large interest in external data and harvesting that and then ingesting it and even identifying what external data is out there. So one of the emerging roles that we're seeing, if not the sexiest role of the 21st century is the role of the Data Curator, somebody who acts as a librarian, identifying external data assets that are potentially valuable, testing them, evaluating them, negotiating and then figuring out how to ingest that data. So I think that's a really important role for an organization to have. Most companies have an entire department that procures office supplies, but they don't have anybody who's procuring data supplies. And when you think about which is more valuable to an organization? How do you not have somebody who's dedicated to identifying the world of external data assets that are out there? There are 10 million data sets published by government, organizations and NGOs. There are thousands and thousands of data brokers aggregating and sharing data. There's a web content that can be harvested, there's data from your partners and suppliers, there's data from social media. So to not have somebody who's on top of all that it demonstrates gross negligence by the organization. >> That is such an enlightening point, Doug. My last question is, I wonder how... If you can share with us how the pandemic has effected your business personally. As a consultant, you're on the road a lot, obviously not on the road so much, you're doing a lot of chalk talks, et cetera. How have you managed through this and how have you been able to maintain your efficacy with your clients? >> Most of our clients, given that they're in the digital world a bit already, made the switch pretty quick. Some of them took a month or two, some things went on hold but we're still seeing the same level of enthusiasm for data and doing things with data. In fact some companies have taken our (mumbles) that data to be their best defense in a crisis like this. It's affected our business and it's enabled us to do much more international work more easily than we used to. And I probably spend a lot less time on planes. So it gives me more time for writing and speaking and actually doing consulting. So that's been nice as well. >> Yeah, there's that bonus. Obviously theCUBE yes, we're not doing physical events anymore, but hey, we've got two studios operating. And Doug Laney, really appreciate you coming on. (Dough mumbles) Always a great guest and sharing your insights and have a great MIT CDOIQ. >> Thanks, you too, Dave, take care. (mumbles) >> Thanks Doug. All right. And thank you everybody for watching. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE, our continuous coverage of the MIT Chief Data Officer conference, MIT CDOIQ, will be right back, right after this short break. (bright music)

(upbeat music) >> Announcer: From the cube Studios in Palo Alto and Boston, it's the cube! Covering IBM Think. Brought to you by IBM. >> Hi everybody, this is Dave Vellante of theCUBE, and you're watching our coverage of the IBM digital event experience. A multi-day program, tons of content, and it's our pleasure to be able to bring in experts, practitioners, customers, and partners. Sriram Raghavan is here. He's the Vice President of IBM Research in AI. Sriram, thanks so much for coming on thecUBE. >> Thank you, pleasure to be here. >> I love this title, I love the role. It's great work if you're qualified for it.(laughs) So, tell us a little bit about your role and your background. You came out of Stanford, you had the pleasure, I'm sure, of hanging out in South San Jose at the Almaden labs. Beautiful place to create. But give us a little background. >> Absolutely, yeah. So, let me start, maybe go backwards in time. What do I do now? My role's responsible for AI strategy, planning, and execution in IBM Research across our global footprint, all our labs worldwide and their working area. I also work closely with the commercial parts. The parts of IBM, our Software and Services business that take the innovation, AI innovation, from IBM Research to market. That's the second part of what I do. And where did I begin life in IBM? As you said, I began life at our Almaden Research Center up in San Jose, up in the hills. Beautiful, I had in a view. I still think it's the best view I had. I spent many years there doing work at the intersection of AI and large-scale data management, NLP. Went back to India, I was running the India lab there for a few years, and now I'm back here in New York running AI strategy. >> That's awesome. Let's talk a little bit about AI, the landscape of AI. IBM has always made it clear that you're not doing consumer AI. You're really tying to help businesses. But how do you look at the landscape? >> So, it's a great question. It's one of those things that, you know, we constantly measure ourselves and our partners tell us. I think we, you've probably heard us talk about the cloud journey . But look barely 20% of the workloads are in the cloud, 80% still waiting. AI, at that number is even less. But, of course, it varies. Depending on who you ask, you would say AI adoption is anywhere from 4% to 30% depending on who you ask in this case. But I think it's more important to look at where is this, directionally? And it's very, very clear. Adoption is rising. The value is more, it's getting better appreciated. But I think more important, I think is, there is broader recognition, awareness and investment, knowing that to get value out of AI, you start with where AI begins, which is data. So, the story around having a solid enterprise information architecture as the base on which to drive AI, is starting to happen. So, as the investments in data platform, becoming making your data ready for AI, starts to come through. We're definitely seeing that adoption. And I think, you know, the second imperative that businesses look for obviously is the skills. The tools and the skills to scale AI. It can't take me months and months and hours to go build an AI model, I got to accelerate it, and then comes operationalizing. But this is happening, and the upward trajectory is very, very clear. >> We've been talking a lot on theCUBE over the last couple of years, it's not the innovation engine of our industry is no longer Moore's Law, it's a combination of data. You just talked about data. Applying machine technology to that data, being able to scale it, across clouds, on-prem, wherever the data lives. So. >> Right. >> Having said that, you know, you've had a journey. You know, you started out kind of playing "Jeopardy!", if you will. It was a very narrow use case, and you're expanding that use case. I wonder if you could talk about that journey, specifically in the context of your vision. >> Yeah. So, let me step back and say for IBM Research AI, when I think about how we, what's our strategy and vision, we think of it as in two parts. One part is the evolution of the science and techniques behind AI. And you said it, right? From narrow, bespoke AI that all it can do is this one thing that it's really trained for, it takes a large amount of data, a lot of computing power. Two, how do you have the techniques and the innovation for AI to learn from one use case to the other? Be less data hungry, less resource hungry. Be more trustworthy and explainable. So, we call that the journey from narrow to broad AI. And one part of our strategy, as scientists and technologists, is the innovation to make that happen. So that's sort of one part. But, as you said, as people involved in making AI work in the enterprise, and IBM Research AI vision would be incomplete without the second part, which is, what are the challenges in scaling and operationalizing AI? It isn't sufficient that I can tell you AI can do this, how do I make AI do this so that you get the right ROI, the investment relative to the return makes sense and you can scale and operationalize. So, we took both of these imperatives. The AI narrow-to-broad journey, and the need to scale and operationalize. And what of the things that are making it hard? The things that make scaling and operationalizing harder: data challenges, we talked about that, skills challenges, and the fact that in enterprises, you have to govern and manage AI. And we took that together and we think of our AI agenda in three pieces: Advancing, trusting, and scaling AI. Advancing is the piece of pushing the boundary, making AI narrow to broad. Trusting is building AI which is trustworthy, is explainable, you can control and understand its behavior, make sense of it and all of the technology that goes with it. And scaling AI is when we address the problem of, how do I, you know, reduce the time and cost for data prep? How do I reduce the time for model tweaking and engineering? How do I make sure that a model that you build today, when something changes in the data, I can quickly allow for you to close the loop and improve the model? All of the things, think of day-two operations of AI. All of that is part of our scaling AI strategy. So advancing, trusting, scaling is sort of the three big mantras around which the way we think about our AI. >> Yeah, so I've been doing a little work in this around this notion of DataOps. Essentially, you know, DevOps applied to the data and the data pipeline, and I had a great conversation recently with Inderpal Bhandari, IBM's Global Chief Data Officer, and he explained to me how, first of all, customers will tell you, it's very hard to operationalize AIs. He and his team took that challenge on themselves and have had some great success. And, you know, we all know the problem. It's that, you know AI has to wait for the data. It has to wait for the data to be cleansed and wrangled. Can AI actually help with that part of the problem, compressing that? >> 100%. In fact, the way we think of the automation and scaling story is what we call the "AI For AI" story. So, AI in service of helping you build the AI that helps you make this with speed, right? So, and I think of it really in three parts. It's AI for data automation, our DataOps. AI used in better discovery, better cleansing, better configuration, faster linking, quality assessment, all of that. Using AI to do all of those data problems that you had to do. And I called it AI for data automation. The second part is using AI to automatically figure out the best model. And that's AI for data science automation, which is, feature engineering, hyperparameter optimization, having them all do work, why should a data scientist take weeks and months experimenting? If the AI can accelerate that from weeks to a matter of hours? That's data science automation. And then comes the important part, also, which is operations automation. Okay, I've put a data model into an application. How do I monitor its behavior? If the data that it's seeing is different from the data it was trained on, how do I quickly detect it? And a lot of the work from Research that was part of that Watson OpenScale offering is really addressing the operational side. So AI for data, AI for data science automation, and AI to help automate production of AI, is the way we break that problem up. >> So, I always like to ask folks that are deep into R&D, how they are ultimately are translating into commercial products and offerings? Because ultimately, you got to make money to fund more R&D. So, can you talk a little bit about how you do that, what your focus is there? >> Yeah, so that's a great question, and I'm going to use a few examples as well. But let me say at the outset, this is a very, very closed partnership. So when we, the Research part of AI and our portfolio, it's a closed partnership where we're constantly both drawing problem as well as building technology that goes into the offering. So, a lot of our work, much of our work in AI automation that we were talking about, is part of our Watson Studio, Watson Machine Learning, Watson OpenScale. In fact, OpenScale came out of Research working Trusted AI, and is now a centerpiece of our Watson project. Let me give a very different example. We have a very, very strong portfolio and focus in NLP, Natural Language Processing. And this directly goes into capabilities out of Watson Assistant, which is our system for conversational support and customer support, and Watson Discovery, which is about making enterprise understand unstructurally. And a great example of that is the Working Project Debater that you might have heard, which is a grand challenge in Research about building a machine that can do debate. Now, look, we weren't looking to go sell you a debating machine. But what did we build as part of doing that, is advances in NLP that are all making their way into assistant and discovery. And we actually just talked about earlier this year, announced a set of capabilities around better clustering, advanced summarization, deeper sentiment analysis. These made their way into Assistant and Discovery but are born out of research innovation and solving a grand problem like building a debating machine. That's just an example of how that journey from research to product happens. >> Yeah, the Debater documentary, I've seen some of that. It's actually quite astounding. I don't know what you're doing there. It sounds like you're taking natural language and turning it into complex queries with data science and AI, but it's quite amazing. >> Yes, and I would encourage you, you will see that documentary, by the way, on Channel 7, in the Think Event. And I would encourage you, actually the documentary around how Debater happened, sort of featuring back of the you know, backdoor interviews with the scientist who created it was actually featured last minute at Copenhagen International Documentary Festival. I'll invite viewers to go to Channel 7 and Data and AI Tech On-Demand to go take a look at that documentary. >> Yeah, you should take a look at it. It's actually quite astounding and amazing. Sriram, what are you working on these days? What kind of exciting projects or what's your focus area today? >> Look, I think there are three imperatives that we're really focused on, and one is very, you know, just really the project you're talking about, NLP. NLP in the enterprise, look, text is a language of business, right? Text is the way business is communicated. Within each other, with their partners, with the entire world. So, helping machines understand language, but in an enterprise context, recognizing that data and the enterprises live in complex documents, unstructured documents, in e-mail, they live in conversations with the customers. So, really pushing the boundary on how all our customers and clients can make sense of this vast volume of unstructured data by pushing the advances of NLP, that's one focus area. Second focus area, we talked about trust and how important that is. And we've done amazing work in monitoring and explainability. And we're really focused now on this emerging area of causality. Using causality to explain, right? The model makes this because the model believes this is what it wants, it's a beautiful way. And the third big focus continues to be on automation. So, NLP, trust, automation. Those are, like, three big focus areas for us. >> sriram, how far do you think we can take AI? I know it's a topic of conversation, but from your perspective, deep into the research, how far can it go? And maybe how far should it go? >> Look, I think we are, let me answer it this way. I think the arc of the possible is enormous. But I think we are at this inflection point in which I think the next wave of AI, the AI that's going to help us this narrow-to-broad journey we talked about, look, the narrow-to-broad journey's not like a one-week, one-year. We're talking about a decade of innovation. But I think we are at a point where we're going to see a wave of AI that we like to call "neuro-symbolic AI," which is AI that brings together two sort of fundamentally different approaches to building intelligence systems. One approach of building intelligence system is what we call "knowledge driven." Understand data, understand concept, logically, reasonable. We human beings do that. That was really the way AI was born. The more recent last couple of decades of AI was data driven, Machine learning. Give me vast volumes of data, I'll use neural techniques, deep learning, to to get value. We're at a point where we're going to bring both of them together. Cause you can't build trustworthy, explainable systems using only one, you can't get away from not using all of the data that you have to make them. So, neuro-symbolic AI is, I think, going to be the linchpin of how we advance AI and make it more powerful and trustworthy. >> So, are you, like, living your childhood dream here or what? >> Look, for me I'm fascinated. I've always been fascinated. And any time you can't find a technology person who hasn't dreamt of building an intelligent machine. To have a job where I can work across our worldwide set of 3,000 plus researchers and think and brainstorm on strategy with AI. And then, most importantly, not to forget, right? That you talked about being able to move it into our portfolios so it actually makes a difference for our clients. I think it's a dream job and a whole lot of fun. >> Well, Sriram, it was great having you on theCUBE. A lot of fun, interviewing folks like you. I feel a little bit smarter just talking to you. So thanks so much for coming on. >> Fantastic. It's been a pleasure to be here. >> And thank you for watching, everybody. You're watching theCUBE's coverage of IBM Think 2020. This is Dave Vellante. We'll be right back right after this short break. (upbeat 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 theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. I'm Dave Vellante with my co-host, Paul Gillan. Chris Lynch, good friend is here CEO, newly minted CEO and AtScale and legend. Good to see you. >> In my own mind. >> In mine too. >> It's great to be here. >> It's awesome, thank you for taking time. I know how busy you are, you're running around like crazy your next big thing. I was excited to hear that you got back into it. I predicted it a while ago you were a very successful venture capitalists but at heart, you're startup guy, aren't ya? >> Yeah 100%, 100%. I couldn't be more thrilled, I feel invigorated. I think I've told you many times, when you've interviewed me and asked me about the transition from being an entrepreneur to being a VC and since it's a PG show, I've got a different analog than the one I usually give you. I used to be a movie star and now I'm an executive producer of movies. Now am back to being a movie star, hopefully. >> yeah well, so you told me when you first became a VC you said, I look for startups that have a 10X impact either 10X value, 10X cost reduction. What was it that attracted you to AtScale? What's the 10X? >> AtScale, addresses $150 billion market problem which is basically bringing traditional BI to the cloud. >> That's the other thing you told me, big markets. >> Yeah, so that's the first thing massive market opportunity. The second is, the innovation component and where the 10X comes we're uniquely qualified to virtualize data into the pipeline and out. So I like to say that we're the bridge between BI and AI and back. We make every BI user, a citizen data scientist and that's a game changer. And that's sort of the new futuristic component of what we do. So one part is steeped in, that $150 billion BI marketplace in a traditional analytics platforms and then the second piece is into you delivering the data, into these BI excuse me, these AI machine learning platforms. >> Do you see that ultimately getting integrated into some kind of larger, data pipeline framework. I mean, maybe it lives in the cloud or maybe on prem, how do you see that evolving over time? >> So I believe that, with AtScale as one single pane of glass, we basically are providing an API, to the data and to the user, one single API. The reason that today we haven't seen the delivery of the promise of big data is because we don't have big data. Fortunate 2000 companies don't have big data. They have lots of data but to me big data means you can have one logical view of that data and get the best data pumped into these models in these tools, and today that's not the case. They're constricted by location they're constricted by vendor they're constricted by whether it's in the cloud or on prem. We eliminate those restrictions. >> The single API, I think is important actually. Because when you look at some of these guys what they're doing with their data pipeline they might have 10 or 15 unique API's that they're trying to manage. So there's a simplification aspect to, I suppose. >> One of the knocks on traditional BI has always been the need for extract databases and all the ETL that goes that's involved in that. Do you guys avoid that stage? You go to the production data directly or what's the-- >> It's a great question. The way I put it is, we bring Moses to the mountain the mountain being the data, Moses being the user. Traditionally, what people have been trying to do is bring the mountain to Moses, doesn't scale. At AtScale, we provide an abstraction a logical distraction between the data and the BI user. >> You don't touch, you don't move the data. >> We don't move the data. Which is what's unique and that's what's delivering I think, way more than a 10X delivery in value. >> Because you leave the data in place you bring that value to wherever the data is. Which is the original concept of Hadoop, by the way. That was what was profound about Hadoop everybody craps on it now, but that was the game changer and if you could take advantage of that that's how you tap your 10X. >> To the difference is, we're not, to your point we're not moving the data. Hadoop, in my humble opinion why it plateaued is because to get the value, you had to ask the user to bring and put data in yet another platform. And the reason that we're not delivering on big data as an industry, I believe is because we've too many data sources, too many platforms too many consumers of data and too many producers. As we build all these islands of data, with no connectivity. The idea is, we'll create this big data lake and we're going to physically put everything in there. Guess what? Someday turned out to be never. Because people aren't going to deal with the business disruption. We move thousands of users from a platform like Teradata to a platform like Snowflake or Google BigQuery, we don't care. We're a multi-cloud and we're a hybrid cloud. But we do it without any disruption. You're using Excel, you just continue and use it. You just see the results are faster. You use Tableau, same difference. >> So we had all the vertical rock stars in here. So we had Colin in yesterday, we had Stonebraker around earlier. Andy Palmer just came on and Chris here with the CEO who ultimately sold the company to HP. That really didn't do anything with it and then spun it off and now it's back. Aaron was, he had a spring in his step yesterday. So when you think about, Vertica. The technology behind Vertica go back 10 years and where we come now give us a little journey of, your data journey. >> So I think it plays into the, the original assertion is that, vertical is a best-in-class platform for analytics but it was yet another platform. The analog I give now, is now we have Snowflake and six months, 12 months from now we're going to have another one. And that creates a set of problems if you have to live in the physical world. Because you've all these islands of data and I believe, it's about the data not about the models, it's about the data. You can't get optimal results if you don't have an optimal access to the pertinent data. I believe that having that Universal API is going to make the next platform that more valuable. You're not going to be making the trade-off is, okay we have this platform that has some neat capability but the trade-off is from an enterprise architecture perspective we're never going to be able to connect all this stuff. That's how all of these things proliferated. My view is, in a world where you have that single pane of glass, that abstraction layer between the user and the data. Then innovation can be spawned quicker and you can use these tools effectively 'cause you're not compromising being able to get a logical view of the data and get access to it as a user. >> What's your issue with Snowflake you mentioned them, Mugli's company-- >> No issue, they're a great partner of ours. We eliminate the friction between the user going from an on-prem solution to the cloud. >> Slootman just took over there. So you know where that's going. >> Yep (laughing) >> Frank's got the magic touch. Okay good, you say they're a partner yours how are you guys partnering? >> They refer us into customers that, if you want to buy Snowflake now the next issue is, how do i migrate? You don't. You put our virtualization layer in and then we allow you access to Snowflake in a non-disruptive way, versus having to move data into their system or into a particular cloud which creates sales friction. >> Moving data is just, you want to avoid it at all cost. >> I do want to ask you because I met with your predecessors, Dave Mariani last year and I know he was kind of a reluctant CEO he didn't really want to be CEO but wanted to be CTO, which is what he is now. How did that come about, that they found you that you connected with them and decided this was the right opportunity. >> That's a great question. I actually looked at the company at the seed stage when I was in venture, but I had this thing as you know that, I wanted to move companies to Boston and they're about my vintage age-wise and he's married with four kids so that wasn't in the cards. I said look, it doesn't make sense for me to seed this company 'cause I can't give you the time you're out in California everything I'm instrumenting is around Boston. We parted friends. And I was skeptical whether he could build this 'cause people have been talking about building a heterogeneous universal semantic layer, for years and it's never come to fruition. And then he read in Fortune or Forbes that I was leaving Accomplice and that I was looking for one more company to operate. He reached out and he told me what they were doing that hey, we really built it but we need help and I don't want to run this. It's not right for the company and the opportunity So he said, "I'll come and I'll consult to you." I put together a plan and I had my Vertica and data robot. NekTony guys do the technical diligence to make sure that the architecture wasn't wedded to the dupe, like all the other ones were and when I saw it wasn't then I knew the market opportunity was to take that, rifle and point it at that legacy $150 billion BI market not at the billion dollar market of Hadoop. And when we did that, we've been growing at 162% quarter-over-quarter. We've built development centers in Bulgaria. We've moved all operations, non-technical to Boston here down in our South Station. We've been on fire and we are the partner of choice of every cloud manner, because we eliminate the sales friction, for customers being able to take advantage of movement to the cloud and we're able through our intelligent pipeline and capability. We're able to reduce the cost significantly of queries because we understand and we were able to intelligently cash those queries. >> Sales ops is here, all-- >> Sales marketing, customer support, customer success and we're building a machine learning team here at Dev team here. >> Where are you in that sort of Boston build-out? >> We have an office on 711 Atlantic that we opened in the fall. We're actually moving from 4,000 square feet to 10,000 this month. In less than six months and we'll house by the first year, 100 employees in Boston 100 in Bulgaria and about that same hundred in San Mateo. >> Are you going after net new business mainly? Or there's a lot of legacy BI out there are you more displacing those products? >> A couple of things. What we find is that, customers want to evolve into the cloud, they don't want a revolution they want a evolution. So we allow them, because we support hybrid cloud to keep some data behind the firewall and then experiment with moving other data to the cloud platform of choice but we're still providing that one logical view. I would say most of our customers are looking to reap platform, off of Teradata or something onto a, another platform like Snowflake. And then we have a set of customers that see that as part of the solution but not the whole solution. They're more true hybrids but I would say that 80% of our customers are traditional BI customers that are trying to contemporize their environments and be able to take advantage of tabular support and multidimensional, the things that we do in addition to the cube world. >> They can keep whatever they're using. >> Correct, that's the key. >> Did you do the series D, you did, right? >> Yes, Morgan Stanely led. >> So you're not actively but you're good for now, It was like $50 million >> Yeah we raised $50 million. >> You're good for a bit. Who's in the Chris Lynch target? (laughs) Who's the enemy? Vertica, I could say it was the traditional database guys. Who's the? >> We're in a unique position, we're almost Switzerland so we could be friend to foe, of anybody in that ecosystem because we can, non-disruptively re-platform customers between legacy platforms or from legacy platforms to the cloud. We're an interesting position. >> So similar to the file sharing. File virtualization company >> The Copier. >> Copier yeah. >> It puts us in an interesting position. They need to be friends with us and at the same time I'm sure that they're concerned about the capabilities we have but we have a number of retail customers for instance that have asked us to move down from Amazon to Google BigQuery, which we accommodate and because we can do that non-disruptively. The cost and the ability to move is eliminated. It gives customers true freedom of choice. >> How worried are you, that AWS tries to replicate what you guys do. You're in their sights. >> I think there are technical, legal and structural barriers to them doing that. The technical is, this team has been at it for six and a half years. So to do what we do, they'll have to do what we've done. Structurally from a business perspective if they could, I'm not sure they want to. The way to think about Amazon is, they're no different than Teradata, except for they want the same vendor lock-in except they want it to be the Amazon Cloud when Teradata wanted it to be, their data warehouse. >> They don't promote multi-cloud versus-- >> Yeah, they don't want multi-cloud they don't want >> On Prem >> Customers to have a freedom of choice. Would they really enable a heterogeneous abstraction layer, I don't think they would nor do I think any of the big guys would. They all claim to have this capability for their system. It's like the old IBM adage I'm in prison but the food's going to get three squares a day, I get cable TV but I'm in prison. (laughing) >> Awesome, all right, parting thoughts. >> Parting thoughts, oh geez you got to give me a question I'm not that creative. >> What's next, for you guys? What should we be paying attention to? >> I think you're going to see some significant announcements in September regarding the company and relationships that I think will validate the impact we're having in the market. >> Give you some leverage >> Yeah, will give us, better channel leverage. We have a major technical announcement that I think will be significant to the marketplace and what will be highly disruptive to some of the people you just mentioned. In terms of really raising the bar for customers to be able to have the freedom of choice without any sort of vendor lock-in. And I think that that will create some counter strike which we'll be ready for. (laughing) >> If you've never heard of AtScale before trust me you're going to in the next 18 months. Chris Lynch, thanks so much for coming on theCUBE. >> It's my pleasure. >> Great to see you. All right, keep it right there everybody we're back with our next guest, right after this short break you're watching theCUBE from MIT, right back. (upbeat 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 theCUBE, covering MIT Chief Data Officer and Information Quality Symposium 2019. Brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. >> Hi, everybody, welcome back to Cambridge, Massachusetts. This is theCUBE, the leader in tech coverage. I'm Dave Vellante with my cohost, Paul Gillin, and we're here covering the MIT Chief Data Officer Information Quality Conference, #MITCDOIQ. Lisa Ehrlinger is here, she's the Senior Researcher at the Johannes Kepler University in Linz, Austria, and the Software Competence Center in Hagenberg. Lisa, thanks for coming in theCUBE, great to see you. >> Thanks for having me, it's great to be here. >> You're welcome. So Friday you're going to lay out the results of the study, and it's a study of Data Quality Tools. Kind of the long tail of tools, some of those ones that may not have made the Gartner Magic Quadrant and maybe other studies, but talk about the study and why it was initiated. >> Okay, so the main motivation for this study was actually a very practical one, because we have many company projects with companies from different domains, like steel industry, financial sector, and also focus on automotive industry at our department at Johannes Kepler University in Linz. We have experience with these companies for more than 20 years, actually, in this department, and what reoccurred was the fact that we spent the majority of time in such big data projects on data quality measurement and improvement tasks. So at some point we thought, okay, what possibilities are there to automate these tasks and what tools are out there on the market to automate these data quality tasks. So this was actually the motivation why we thought, okay, we'll look at those tools. Also, companies ask us, "Do you have any suggestions? "Which tool performs best in this-and-this domain?" And I think this study answers some questions that have not been answered so far in this particular detail, in these details. For example, Gartner Magic Quadrant of Data Quality Tools, it's pretty interesting but it's very high-level and focusing on some global windows, but it does not look on the specific measurement functionalities. >> Yeah, you have to have some certain number of whatever, customers or revenue to get into the Magic Quadrant. So there's a long tail that they don't cover. But talk a little bit more about the methodology, was it sort of you got hands-on or was it more just kind of investigating what the capabilities of the tools were, talking to customers? How did you come to the conclusions? >> We actually approached this from a very scientific side. We conducted a systematic search, which tools are out there on the market, not only industrial tools, but also open-sourced tools were included. And I think this gives a really nice digest of the market from different perspectives, because we also include some tools that have not been investigated by Gartner, for example, like more BTQ, Data Quality, or Apache Griffin, which has really nice monitoring capabilities, but lacks some other features from these comprehensive tools, of course. >> So was the goal of the methodology largely to capture a feature function analysis of being able to compare that in terms of binary, did it have it or not, how robust is it? And try to develop a common taxonomy across all these tools, is that what you did? >> So we came up with a very detailed requirements catalog, which is divided into three fields, like the focuses on data profiling to get a first insight into data quality. The second is data quality management in terms of dimensions, metrics, and rules. And the third part is dedicated to data quality monitoring over time, and for all those three categories, we came up with different case studies on a database, on a test database. And so we conducted, we looked, okay, does this tool, yes, support this feature, no, or partially? And when partially, to which extent? So I think, especially on the partial assessment, we got a lot into detail in our survey, which is available on Archive online already. So the preliminary results are already online. >> How do you find it? Where is it available? >> On Archive. >> Archive? >> Yes. >> What's the URL, sorry. Archive.com, or .org, or-- >> Archive.org, yeah. >> Archive.org. >> But actually there is a ID I have not with me currently, but I can send you afterwards, yeah. >> Yeah, maybe you can post that with the show notes. >> We can post it afterwards. >> I was amazed, you tested 667 tools. Now, I would've expected that there would be 30 or 40. Where are all of these, what do all of these long tail tools do? Are they specialized by industry or by function? >> Oh, sorry, I think we got some confusion here, because we identified 667 tools out there on the market, but we narrowed this down. Because, as you said, it's quite impossible to observe all those tools. >> But the question still stands, what is the difference, what are these very small, niche tools? What do they do? >> So most of them are domain-specific, and I think this really highlights also these very basic early definition about data quality, of like data qualities defined as fitness for use, and we can pretty much see it here that we excluded the majority of these tools just because they assess some specific kind of data, and we just really wanted to find tools that are generally applicable for different kinds of data, for structured data, unstructured data, and so on. And most of these tools, okay, someone came up with, we want to assess the quality of our, I don't know, like geological data or something like that, yeah. >> To what extent did you consider other sort of non-technical factors? Did you do that at all? I mean, was there pricing or complexity of downloading or, you know, is there a free version available? Did you ignore those and just focus on the feature function, or did those play a role? >> So basically the focus was on the feature function, but of course we had to contact the customer support. Especially with the commercial tools, we had to ask them to provide us with some trial licenses, and there we perceived different feedback from those companies, and I think the best comprehensive study here is definitely Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Quality Tools, because they give a broad assessment here, but what we also highlight in our study are companies that have a very open support and they are very willing to support you. For example, Informatica Data Quality, we perceived a really close interaction with them in terms of support, trial licenses, and also like specific functionality. Also Experian, our contact from Experian from France was really helpful here. And other companies, like IBM, they focus on big vendors, and here, it was not able to assess these tools, for example, yeah. >> Okay, but the other differences of the Magic Quadrant is you guys actually used the tools, played with them, experienced firsthand the customer experience. >> Exactly, yeah. >> Did you talk to customers as well, or, because you were the customer, you had that experience. >> Yes, I were the customer, but I was also happy to attend some data quality event in Vienna, and there I met some other customers who had experience with single tools. Not of course this wide range we observed, but it was interesting to get feedback on single tools and verify our results, and it matched pretty good. >> How large was the team that ran the study? >> Five people. >> Five people, and how long did it take you from start to finish? >> Actually, we performed it for one year, roughly. The assessment. And I think it's a pretty long time, especially when you see how quick the market responds, especially in the open source field. But nevertheless, you need to make some cut, and I think it's a very recent study now, and there is also the idea to publish it now, the preliminary results, and we are happy with that. >> Were there any surprises in the results? >> I think the main results, or one of the surprises was that we think that there is definitely more potential for automation, but not only for automation. I really enjoyed the keynote this morning that we need more automation, but at the same time, we think that there is also the demand for more declaration. We observed some tools that say, yeah, we apply machine learning, and then you look into their documentation and find no information, which algorithm, which parameters, which thresholds. So I think this is definitely, especially if you want to assess the data quality, you really need to know what algorithm and how it's attuned and give the user, which in most case will be a technical person with technical background, like some chief data officer. And he or she really needs to have the possibility to tune these algorithms to get reliable results and to know what's going on and why, which records are selected, for example. >> So now what? You're presenting the results, right? You're obviously here at this conference and other conferences, and so it's been what, a year, right? >> Yes. >> And so what's the next wave? What's next for you? >> The next wave, we're currently working on a project which is called some Knowledge Graph for Data Quality Assessment, which should tackle two problems in ones. The first is to come up with a semantic representation of your data landscape in your company, but not only the data landscape itself in terms of gathering meta data, but also to automatically improve or annotate this data schema with data profiles. And I think what we've seen in the tools, we have a lot of capabilities for data profiling, but this is usually left to the user ad hoc, and here, we store it centrally and allow the user to continuously verify newly incoming data if this adheres to this standard data profile. And I think this is definitely one step into the way into more automation, and also I think it's the most... The best thing here with this approach would be to overcome this very arduous way of coming up with all the single rules within a team, but present the data profile to a group of data, within your data quality project to those peoples involved in the projects, and then they can verify the project and only update it and refine it, but they have some automated basis that is presented to them. >> Oh, great, same team or new team? >> Same team, yeah. >> Oh, great. >> We're continuing with it. >> Well, Lisa, thanks so much for coming to theCUBE and sharing the results of your study. Good luck with your talk on Friday. >> Thank you very much, thank you. >> All right, and thank you for watching. Keep it right there, everybody. We'll be back with our next guest right after this short break. From MIT CDOIQ, you're watching theCUBE. (upbeat 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 San Francisco, California, it's theCUBE covering the IBM Chief Data Officers Summit, brought to you by IBM. >> Welcome back to San Francisco everybody. I'm Dave Vellante and you're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. This is the end of the day panel at the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit. This is the 10th CDO event that IBM has held and we love to to gather these panels. This is a data all-star panel and I've recruited Seth Dobrin who is the CDO of the analytics group at IBM. Seth, thank you for agreeing to chip in and be my co-host in this segment. >> Yeah, thanks Dave. Like I said before we started, I don't know if this is a promotion or a demotion. (Dave laughing) >> We'll let you know after the segment. So, the data all-star panel and the data all-star awards that you guys are giving out a little later in the event here, what's that all about? >> Yeah so this is our 10th CDU Summit. So two a year, so we've been doing this for 5 years. The data all-stars are those people that have been to four at least of the ten. And so these are five of the 16 people that got the award. And so thank you all for participating and I attended these like I said earlier, before I joined IBM they were immensely valuable to me and I was glad to see 16 other people that think it's valuable too. >> That is awesome. Thank you guys for coming on. So, here's the format. I'm going to introduce each of you individually and then ask you to talk about your role in your organization. What role you play, how you're using data, however you want to frame that. And the first question I want to ask is, what's a good day in the life of a data person? Or if you want to answer what's a bad day, that's fine too, you choose. So let's start with Lucia Mendoza-Ronquillo. Welcome, she's the Senior Vice President and the Head of BI and Data Governance at Wells Fargo. You told us that you work within the line of business group, right? So introduce your role and what's a good day for a data person? >> Okay, so my role basically is again business intelligence so I support what's called cards and retail services within Wells Fargo. And I also am responsible for data governance within the business. We roll up into what's called a data governance enterprise. So we comply with all the enterprise policies and my role is to make sure our line of business complies with data governance policies for enterprise. >> Okay, good day? What's a good day for you? >> A good day for me is really when I don't get a call that the regulators are knocking on our doors. (group laughs) Asking for additional reports or have questions on the data and so that would be a good day. >> Yeah, especially in your business. Okay, great. Parag Shrivastava is the Director of Data Architecture at McKesson, welcome. Thanks so much for coming on. So we got a healthcare, couple of healthcare examples here. But, Parag, introduce yourself, your role, and then what's a good day or if you want to choose a bad day, be fun the mix that up. >> Yeah, sounds good. Yeah, so mainly I'm responsible for the leader strategy and architecture at McKesson. What that means is McKesson has a lot of data around the pharmaceutical supply chain, around one-third of the world's pharmaceutical supply chain, clinical data, also around pharmacy automation data, and we want to leverage it for the better engagement of the patients and better engagement of our customers. And my team, which includes the data product owners, and data architects, we are all responsible for looking at the data holistically and creating the data foundation layer. So I lead the team across North America. So that's my current role. And going back to the question around what's a good day, I think I would say the good day, I'll start at the good day. Is really looking at when the data improves the business. And the first thing that comes to my mind is sort of like an example, of McKesson did an acquisition of an eight billion dollar pharmaceutical company in Europe and we were creating the synergy solution which was based around the analytics and data. And actually IBM was one of the partners in implementing that solution. When the solution got really implemented, I mean that was a big deal for me to see that all the effort that we did in plumbing the data, making sure doing some analytics, is really helping improve the business. I think that is really a good day I would say. I mean I wouldn't say a bad day is such, there are challenges, constant challenges, but I think one of the top priorities that we are having right now is to deal with the demand. As we look at the demand around the data, the role of data has got multiple facets to it now. For example, some of the very foundational, evidentiary, and compliance type of needs as you just talked about and then also profitability and the cost avoidance and those kind of aspects. So how to balance between that demand is the other aspect. >> All right good. And we'll get into a lot of that. So Carl Gold is the Chief Data Scientist at Zuora. Carl, tell us a little bit about Zuora. People might not be as familiar with how you guys do software for billing et cetera. Tell us about your role and what's a good day for a data scientist? >> Okay, sure, I'll start by a little bit about Zuora. Zuora is a subscription management platform. So any company who wants to offer a product or service as subscription and you don't want to build your billing and subscription management, revenue recognition, from scratch, you can use a product like ours. I say it lets anyone build a telco with a complicated plan, with tiers and stuff like that. I don't know if that's a good thing or not. You guys'll have to make up your own mind. My role is an interesting one. It's split, so I said I'm a chief data scientist and we work about 50% on product features based on data science. Things like churn prediction, or predictive payment retries are product areas where we offer AI-based solutions. And then but because Zuora is a subscription platform, we have an amazing set of data on the actual performance of companies using our product. So a really interesting part of my role has been leading what we call the subscription economy index and subscription economy benchmarks which are reports around best practices for subscription companies. And it's all based off this amazing dataset created from an anonymized data of our customers. So that's a really exciting part of my role. And for me, maybe this speaks to our level of data governance, I might be able to get some tips from some of my co-panelists, but for me a good day is when all the data for me and everyone on my team is where we left it the night before. And no schema changes, no data, you know records that you were depending on finding removed >> Pipeline failures. >> Yeah pipeline failures. And on a bad day is a schema change, some crucial data just went missing and someone on my team is like, "The code's broken." >> And everybody's stressed >> Yeah, so those are bad days. But, data governance issues maybe. >> Great, okay thank you. Jung Park is the COO of Latitude Food Allergy Care. Jung welcome. >> Yeah hi, thanks for having me and the rest of us here. So, I guess my role I like to put it as I'm really the support team. I'm part of the support team really for the medical practice so, Latitude Food Allergy Care is a specialty practice that treats patients with food allergies. So, I don't know if any of you guys have food allergies or maybe have friends, kids, who have food allergies, but, food allergies unfortunately have become a lot more prevalent. And what we've been able to do is take research and data really from clinical trials and other research institutions and really use that from the clinical trial setting, back to the clinical care model so that we can now treat patients who have food allergies by using a process called oral immunotherapy. It's fascinating and this is really personal to me because my son as food allergies and he's been to the ER four times. >> Wow. >> And one of the scariest events was when he went to an ER out of the country and as a parent, you know you prepare your child right? With the food, he takes the food. He was 13 years old and you had the chaperones, everyone all set up, but you get this call because accidentally he ate some peanut, right. And so I saw this unfold and it scared me so much that this is something I believe we just have to get people treated. So this process allows people to really eat a little bit of the food at a time and then you eat the food at the clinic and then you go home and eat it. Then you come back two weeks later and then you eat a little bit more until your body desensitizes. >> So you build up that immunity >> Exactly. >> and then you watch the data obviously. >> Yeah. So what's a good day for me? When our patients are done for the day and they have a smile on their face because they were able to progress to that next level. >> Now do you have a chief data officer or are you the de facto CFO? >> I'm the de facto. So, my career has been pretty varied. So I've been essentially chief data officer, CIO, at companies small and big. And what's unique about I guess in this role is that I'm able to really think about the data holistically through every component of the practice. So I like to think of it as a patient journey and I'm sure you guys all think of it similarly when you talk about your customers, but from a patient's perspective, before they even come in, you have to make sure the data behind the science of whatever you're treating is proper, right? Once that's there, then you have to have the acquisition part. How do you actually work with the community to make sure people are aware of really the services that you're providing? And when they're with you, how do you engage them? How do you make sure that they are compliant with the process? So in healthcare especially, oftentimes patients don't actually succeed all the way through because they don't continue all the way through. So it's that compliance. And then finally, it's really long-term care. And when you get the long-term care, you know that the patient that you've treated is able to really continue on six months, a year from now, and be able to eat the food. >> Great, thank you for that description. Awesome mission. Rolland Ho is the Vice President of Data and Analytics at Clover Health. Tell us a little bit about Clover Health and then your role. >> Yeah, sure. So Clover is a startup Medicare Advantage plan. So we provide Medicare, private Medicare to seniors. And what we do is we're because of the way we run our health plan, we're able to really lower a lot of the copay costs and protect seniors against out of pocket. If you're on regular Medicare, you get cancer, you have some horrible accident, your out of pocket is infinite potentially. Whereas with Medicare Advantage Plan it's limited to like five, $6,000 and you're always protected. One of the things I'm excited about being at Clover is our ability to really look at how can we bring the value of data analytics to healthcare? Something I've been in this industry for close to 20 years at this point and there's a lot of waste in healthcare. And there's also a lot of very poor application of preventive measures to the right populations. So one of the things that I'm excited about is that with today's models, if you're able to better identify with precision, the right patients to intervene with, then you fundamentally transform the economics of what can be done. Like if you had to pa $1,000 to intervene, but you were only 20% of the chance right, that's very expensive for each success. But, now if your model is 60, 70% right, then now it opens up a whole new world of what you can do. And that's what excites me. In terms of my best day? I'll give you two different angles. One as an MBA, one of my best days was, client calls me up, says, "Hey Rolland, you know, "your analytics brought us over $100 million "in new revenue last year." and I was like, cha-ching! Excellent! >> Which is my half? >> Yeah right. And then on the data geek side the best day was really, run a model, you train a model, you get ridiculous AUC score, so area under the curve, and then you expect that to just disintegrate as you go into validation testing and actual live production. But the 98 AUC score held up through production. And it's like holy cow, the model actually works! And literally we could cut out half of the workload because of how good that model was. >> Great, excellent, thank you. Seth, anything you'd add to the good day, bad day, as a CDO? >> So for me, well as a CDO or as CDO at IBM? 'Cause at IBM I spend most of my time traveling. So a good day is a day I'm home. >> Yeah, when you're not in an (group laughing) aluminum tube. >> Yeah. Hurdling through space (laughs). No, but a good day is when a GDPR compliance just happened, a good day for me was May 20th of last year when IBM was done and we were, or as done as we needed to be for GDPR so that was a good day for me last year. This year is really a good day is when we start implementing some new models to help IBM become a more effective company and increase our bottom line or increase our margins. >> Great, all right so I got a lot of questions as you know and so I want to give you a chance to jump in. >> All right. >> But, I can get it started or have you got something? >> I'll go ahead and get started. So this is a the 10th CDO Summit. So five years. I know personally I've had three jobs at two different companies. So over the course of the last five years, how many jobs, how many companies? Lucia? >> One job with one company. >> Oh my gosh you're boring. (group laughing) >> No, but actually, because I support basically the head of the business, we go into various areas. So, we're not just from an analytics perspective and business intelligence perspective and of course data governance, right? It's been a real journey. I mean there's a lot of work to be done. A lot of work has been accomplished and constantly improving the business, which is the first goal, right? Increasing market share through insights and business intelligence, tracking product performance to really helping us respond to regulators (laughs). So it's a variety of areas I've had to be involved in. >> So one company, 50 jobs. >> Exactly. So right now I wear different hats depending on the day. So that's really what's happening. >> So it's a good question, have you guys been jumping around? Sure, I mean I think of same company, one company, but two jobs. And I think those two jobs have two different layers. When I started at McKesson I was a solution leader or solution director for business intelligence and I think that's how I started. And over the five years I've seen the complete shift towards machine learning and my new role is actually focused around machine learning and AI. That's why we created this layer, so our own data product owners who understand the data science side of things and the ongoing and business architecture. So, same company but has seen a very different shift of data over the last five years. >> Anybody else? >> Sure, I'll say two companies. I'm going on four years at Zuora. I was at a different company for a year before that, although it was kind of the same job, first at the first company, and then at Zuora I was really focused on subscriber analytics and churn for my first couple a years. And then actually I kind of got a new job at Zuora by becoming the subscription economy expert. I become like an economist, even though I don't honestly have a background. My PhD's in biology, but now I'm a subscription economy guru. And a book author, I'm writing a book about my experiences in the area. >> Awesome. That's great. >> All right, I'll give a bit of a riddle. Four, how do you have four jobs, five companies? >> In five years. >> In five years. (group laughing) >> Through a series of acquisition, acquisition, acquisition, acquisition. Exactly, so yeah, I have to really, really count on that one (laughs). >> I've been with three companies over the past five years and I would say I've had seven jobs. But what's interesting is I think it kind of mirrors and kind of mimics what's been going on in the data world. So I started my career in data analytics and business intelligence. But then along with that I had the fortune to work with the IT team. So the IT came under me. And then after that, the opportunity came about in which I was presented to work with compliance. So I became a compliance officer. So in healthcare, it's very interesting because these things are tied together. When you look about the data, and then the IT, and then the regulations as it relates to healthcare, you have to have the proper compliance, both internal compliance, as well as external regulatory compliance. And then from there I became CIO and then ultimately the chief operating officer. But what's interesting is as I go through this it's all still the same common themes. It's how do you use the data? And if anything it just gets to a level in which you become closer with the business and that is the most important part. If you stand alone as a data scientist, or a data analyst, or the data officer, and you don't incorporate the business, you alienate the folks. There's a math I like to do. It's different from your basic math, right? I believe one plus one is equal to three because when you get the data and the business together, you create that synergy and then that's where the value is created. >> Yeah, I mean if you think about it, data's the only commodity that increases value when you use it correctly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah so then that kind of leads to a question that I had. There's this mantra, the more data the better. Or is it more of an Einstein derivative? Collect as much data as possible but not too much. What are your thoughts? Is more data better? >> I'll take it. So, I would say the curve has shifted over the years. Before it used to be data was the bottleneck. But now especially over the last five to 10 years, I feel like data is no longer oftentimes the bottleneck as much as the use case. The definition of what exactly we're going to apply to, how we're going to apply it to. Oftentimes once you have that clear, you can go get the data. And then in the case where there is not data, like in Mechanical Turk, you can all set up experiments, gather data, the cost of that is now so cheap to experiment that I think the bottleneck's really around the business understanding the use case. >> Mm-hmm. >> Mm-hmm. >> And I think the wave that we are seeing, I'm seeing this as there are, in some cases, more data is good, in some cases more data is not good. And I think I'll start it where it is not good. I think where quality is more required is the area where more data is not good. For example like regulation and compliance. So for example in McKesson's case, we have to report on opioid compliance for different states. How much opioid drugs we are giving to states and making sure we have very, very tight reporting and compliance regulations. There, highest quality of data is important. In our data organization, we have very, very dedicated focus around maintaining that quality. So, quality is most important, quantity is not if you will, in that case. Having the right data. Now on the other side of things, where we are doing some kind of exploratory analysis. Like what could be a right category management for our stores? Or where the product pricing could be the right ones. Product has around 140 attributes. We would like to look at all of them and see what patterns are we finding in our models. So there you could say more data is good. >> Well you could definitely see a lot of cases. But certainly in financial services and a lot of healthcare, particularly in pharmaceutical where you don't want work in process hanging around. >> Yeah. >> Some lawyer could find a smoking gun and say, "Ooh see." And then if that data doesn't get deleted. So, let's see, I would imagine it's a challenge in your business, I've heard people say, "Oh keep all the, now we can keep all the data, "it's so inexpensive to store." But that's not necessarily such a good thing is it? >> Well, we're required to store data. >> For N number of years, right? >> Yeah, N number of years. But, sometimes they go beyond those number of years when there's a legal requirements to comply or to answer questions. So we do keep more than, >> Like a legal hold for example. >> Yeah. So we keep more than seven years for example and seven years is the regulatory requirement. But in the case of more data, I'm a data junkie, so I like more data (laughs). Whenever I'm asked, "Is the data available?" I always say, "Give me time I'll find it for you." so that's really how we operate because again, we're the go-to team, we need to be able to respond to regulators to the business and make sure we understand the data. So that's the other key. I mean more data, but make sure you understand what that means. >> But has that perspective changed? Maybe go back 10 years, maybe 15 years ago, when you didn't have the tooling to be able to say, "Give me more data." "I'll get you the answer." Maybe, "Give me more data." "I'll get you the answer in three years." Whereas today, you're able to, >> I'm going to go get it off the backup tapes (laughs). >> (laughs) Yeah, right, exactly. (group laughing) >> That's fortunately for us, Wells Fargo has implemented data warehouse for so many number of years, I think more than 10 years. So we do have that capability. There's certainly a lot of platforms you have to navigate through, but if you are able to navigate, you can get to the data >> Yeah. >> within the required timeline. So I have, astonished you have the technology, team behind you. Jung, you want to add something? >> Yeah, so that's an interesting question. So, clearly in healthcare, there is a lot of data and as I've kind of come closer to the business, I also realize that there's a fine line between collecting the data and actually asking our folks, our clinicians, to generate the data. Because if you are focused only on generating data, the electronic medical records systems for example. There's burnout, you don't want the clinicians to be working to make sure you capture every element because if you do so, yes on the back end you have all kinds of great data, but on the other side, on the business side, it may not be necessarily a productive thing. And so we have to make a fine line judgment as to the data that's generated and who's generating that data and then ultimately how you end up using it. >> And I think there's a bit of a paradox here too, right? The geneticist in me says, "Don't ever throw anything away." >> Right. >> Right? I want to keep everything. But, the most interesting insights often come from small data which are a subset of that larger, keep everything inclination that we as data geeks have. I think also, as we're moving in to kind of the next phase of AI when you can start doing really, really doing things like transfer learning. That small data becomes even more valuable because you can take a model trained on one thing or a different domain and move it over to yours to have a starting point where you don't need as much data to get the insight. So, I think in my perspective, the answer is yes. >> Yeah (laughs). >> Okay, go. >> I'll go with that just to run with that question. I think it's a little bit of both 'cause people touched on different definitions of more data. In general, more observations can never hurt you. But, more features, or more types of things associated with those observations actually can if you bring in irrelevant stuff. So going back to Rolland's answer, the first thing that's good is like a good mental model. My PhD is actually in physical science, so I think about physical science, where you actually have a theory of how the thing works and you collect data around that theory. I think the approach of just, oh let's put in 2,000 features and see what sticks, you know you're leaving yourself open to all kinds of problems. >> That's why data science is not democratized, >> Yeah (laughing). >> because (laughing). >> Right, but first Carl, in your world, you don't have to guess anymore right, 'cause you have real data. >> Well yeah, of course, we have real data, but the collection, I mean for example, I've worked on a lot of customer churn problems. It's very easy to predict customer churn if you capture data that pertains to the value customers are receiving. If you don't capture that data, then you'll never predict churn by counting how many times they login or more crude measures of engagement. >> Right. >> All right guys, we got to go. The keynotes are spilling out. Seth thank you so much. >> That's it? >> Folks, thank you. I know, I'd love to carry on, right? >> Yeah. >> It goes fast. >> Great. >> Yeah. >> Guys, great, great content. >> Yeah, thanks. And congratulations on participating and being data all-stars. >> We'd love to do this again sometime. All right and thank you for watching everybody, it's a wrap from IBM CDOs, Dave Vellante from theCUBE. We'll see you next time. (light music)

>> live from San Francisco, California. It's the Q covering the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit brought to you by IBM. >> Welcome back to Fisherman's Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. Everybody, my name is David wanted. You're watching the Cube, the leader in live tech coverage, you ought to events. We extract the signal from the noise. We're here. The IBM CDO event. This is the 10th anniversary of this event. Caitlin Hallford is here. She's the director of a I Accelerator and client success at IBM. Caitlin, great to see you again. Wow. 10 years. Amazing. They and Carlo Apple Apple Glace e is here. Who is the program director for data and a I at IBM. Because you again, my friend. Thanks for coming on to Cuba. Lums. Wow, this is 10 years, and I think the Cube is covered. Probably eight of these now. Yeah, kind of. We bounce between San Francisco and Boston to great places for CEOs. Good places to have intimate events, but and you're taking it global. I understand. Congratulations. Congratulations on the promotion. Thank you. Going. Thank you so much. >> So we, as you know well are well, no. We started our chief date officer summits in San Francisco here, and it's gone 2014. So this is our 10th 1 We do two a year. We found we really have a unique cohort of clients. The join us about 100 40 in San Francisco on the spring 140 in Boston in the fall, and we're here celebrating the 10th 10 Summit. >> So, Carlo, talk about your role and then let's get into how you guys, you know, work together. How you hand the baton way we'll get to the client piece. >> So I lead the Data Center League team, which is a group within our product development, working side by side with clients really to understand their needs as well developed, use cases on our platform and tools and make sure we are able to deliver on those. And then we work closely with the CDO team, the global CEO team on best practices, what patterns they're seeing from an architecture perspective. Make sure that our platforms really incorporating that stuff. >> And if I recall the data science that lead team is its presales correct and could >> be posted that it could, it really depends on the client, so it could be prior to them buying software or after they bought the software. If they need the help, we can also come in. >> Okay, so? So it can be a for pay service. Is that correct or Yeah, we can >> before pay. Or sometimes we do it based on just our relation with >> It's kind of a mixed then. Right? Okay, so you're learning the client's learning, so they're obviously good, good customers. And so you want to treat him right >> now? How do you guys work >> together? Maybe Caitlin, you can explain. The two organizations >> were often the early testers, early adopters of some of the capabilities. And so what we'll do is we'll test will literally will prove it out of skill internally using IBM itself as an example. And then, as we build out the capability, work with Carlo and his team to really drive that in a product and drive that into market, and we share a lot of client relationships where CEOs come to us, they're want advice and counsel on best practices across the organization. And they're looking for latest applications to deploy deploy known environments and so we can capture a lot of that feedback in some of the market user testing proved that out. Using IBM is an example and then work with you to really commercialized and bring it to market in the most efficient manner. >> You were talking this morning. You had a picture up of the first CDO event. No Internet, no wife in the basement. I love it. So how is this evolved from a theme standpoint? What do you What are the patterns? Sure. So when >> we started this, it was really a response. Thio primarily financial service is sector regulatory requirements, trying to get data right to meet those regulatory compliance initiatives. Defensive posture certainly weren't driving transformation within their enterprises. And what I've seen is a couple of those core elements are still key for us or data governance and data management. And some of those security access controls are always going to be important. But we're finding his videos more and more, have expanded scope of responsibilities with the enterprise they're looked at as a leader. They're no longer sitting within a c i o function there either appear or, you know, working in partnership with, and they're driving enterprise wide, you know, initiatives for the for their enterprises and organizations, which has been great to see. >> So we all remember when you know how very and declared data science was gonna be the number one job, and it actually kind of has become. I think I saw somewhere, maybe in Glass door was anointed that the top job, which is >> kind of cool to see. So what are you seeing >> with customers, Carlo? You guys, you have these these blueprints, you're now applying them, accelerating different industries. You mentioned health care this morning. >> What are some >> of those industry accelerators And how is that actually coming to fruition? Yes. >> So some of the things we're seeing is speaking of financial clients way go into a lot of them. We do these one on one engagements, we build them from custom. We co create these engineering solutions, our platform, and we're seeing patterns, patterns around different use cases that are coming up over and over again. And the one thing about data science Aye, aye. It's difficult to develop a solution because everybody's date is different. Everybody's business is different. So what we're trying to do is build these. We can't just build a widget that's going to solve the problem, because then you have to force your data into that, and we're seeing that that doesn't really work. So building a platform for these clients. But these accelerators, which are a set of core code source code notebooks, industry models in terms a CZ wells dashboards that allow them to quickly build out these use cases around a turn or segmentation on dhe. You know some other models we can grab the box provide the models, provide the know how with the source code, as well as a way for them to train them, deploy them and operationalize them in an organization. That's kind of what we're doing. >> You prime the pump >> prime minute pump, we call them there right now, we're doing client in eights for wealth management, and we're doing that, ref SS. And they come right on the box of our cloudpack for data platform. You could quickly click and install button, and in there you'll get the sample data files. You get no books. You get industry terms, your governance capability, as well as deployed dashboards and models. >> So talk more about >> cloudpack for data. What's inside of that brought back the >> data is a collection of micro Service's Andi. It includes a lot of things that we bring to market to help customers with their journey things from like data ingestion collection to all the way Thio, eh? I model development from building your models to deploying them to actually infusing them in your business process with bias detection or integration way have a lot of capability. Part >> of it's actually tooling. It's not just sort of so how to Pdf >> dualism entire platform eso. So the platform itself has everything you need an organization to kind of go from an idea to data ingestion and governance and management all the way to model training, development, deployment into integration into your business process. >> Now Caitlin, in the early days of the CDO, saw CDO emerging in healthcare, financialservices and government. And now it's kind of gone mainstream to the point where we had Mark Clare on who's the head of data neighborhood AstraZeneca. And he said, I'm not taking the CDO title, you know, because I'm all about data enablement and CDO. You know, title has sort of evolved. What have you seen? It's got clearly gone mainstream Yep. What are you seeing? In terms of adoption of that, that role and its impact on organizations, >> So couple of transit has been interesting both domestically and internationally as well. So we're seeing a lot of growth outside of the U. S. So we did our first inaugural summit in Tokyo. In Japan, there's a number of day leaders in Japan that are really eager to jump start their transformation initiatives. Also did our first Dubai summit. Middle East and Africa will be in South Africa next month at another studio summit. And what I'm seeing is outside of North America a lot of activity and interest in creating an enabling studio light capability. Data Leader, Like, um, and some of these guys, I think we're gonna leapfrog ahead. I think they're going to just absolutely jump jump ahead and in parallel, those traditional industries, you know, there's a new federal legislation coming down by year end for most federal agencies to appoint a chief data officer. So, you know, Washington, D. C. Is is hopping right now, we're getting a number of agencies requesting advice and counsel on how to set up the office how to be successful I think there's some great opportunity in those traditional industries and also seeing it, you know, outside the U. S. And cross nontraditional, >> you say >> Jump ahead. You mean jump ahead of where maybe some of the U. S. >> Absolute best? Absolutely. And I'm >> seeing a trend where you know, a lot of CEOs they're moving. They're really closer to the line of business, right? They're moving outside of technology, but they have to be technology savvy. They have a team of engineers and data scientists. So there is really an important role in every organization that I'm seeing for every client I go to. It's a little different, but you're right, it's it's definitely up and coming. Role is very important for especially for digital transformation. >> This is so good. I was gonna say one of the ways they are teens really, partner Well, together, I think is weaken source some of these in terms of enabling that you know, acceleration and leap frog. What are those pain points or use cases in traditional data management space? You know, the metadata. So I think you talk with Steven earlier about how we're doing some automated meditate a generation and really using a i t. O instead of manually having to label and tag that we're able to generate about 85% of our labels internally and drive that into existing product. Carlos using. And our clients are saying, Hey, we're spending, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars and we've got teams of massive teams of people manual work. And so we're able to recognize it, adopts something like that, press internally and then work with you guys >> actually think of every detail developer out there that has to go figure out what this date is. If you have a tool which we're trying to cooperate the platform based on the guidance from the CDO Global CEO team, we can automatically create that metadata are likely ingested and provide into platform so that data scientists can start to get value out >> of it quickly. So we heard Martin Schroeder talked about digital trade and public policy, and he said there were three things free flow of data. Unless it doesn't make sense like personal information prevent data localization mandates, yeah, and then protect algorithms and source code, which is an I P protection thing. So I'm interested in how your customers air Reacting to that framework, I presume the protect the algorithms and source code I p. That's near and dear right? They want to make sure that you're not taking models and then giving it to their competitors. >> Absolutely. And we talk about that every time we go in there and we work on projects. What's the I p? You know, how do we manage this? And you know, what we bring to the table with the accelerators is to help them jump start them right, even though that it's kind of our a p we created, but we give it to them and then what they derive from that when they incorporate their data, which is their i p, and create new models, that is then their i. P. So those air complicated questions and every company is a little different on what they're worried about with that, so but many banks, we give them all the I P to make sure that they're comfortable and especially in financial service is but some other spaces. It's very competitive. And then I was worried about it because it's, ah, known space. A lot of the algorithm for youse are all open source. They're known algorithms, so there's not a lot of problem there. >> It's how you apply them. That's >> exactly right how you apply them in that boundary of what >> is P, What's not. It's kind of >> fuzzy, >> and we encourage our clients a lot of times to drive that for >> the >> organisation, for us, internally, GDP, our readiness, it was occurring to the business unit level functional area. So it was, you know, we weren't where we needed to be in terms of achieving compliance. And we have the CEO office took ownership of that across the business and got it where we needed to be. And so we often encourage our clients to take ownership of something like that and use it as an opportunity to differentiate. >> And I talked about the whole time of clients. Their data is impor onto them. Them training models with that data for some new making new decisions is their unique value. Prop In there, I'd be so so we encourage them to make sure they're aware that don't just tore their data in any can, um, service out there model because they could be giving away their intellectual property, and it's important. Didn't understand that. >> So that's a complicated one. Write the piece and the other two seem to be even tougher. And some regards, like the free flow of data. I could see a lot of governments not wanting the free flow of data, but and the client is in the middle. OK, d'oh. Government is gonna adjudicate. What's that conversation like? The example that he gave was, maybe was interpolate. If it's if it's information about baggage claims, you can you can use the Blockchain and crypt it and then only see the data at the other end. So that was actually, I thought, a good example. Why do you want to restrict that flow of data? But if it's personal information, keep it in country. But how is that conversation going with clients? >> Leo. Those can involve depending on the country, right and where you're at in the industry. >> But some Western countries are strict about that. >> Absolutely. And this is why we've created a platform that allows for data virtualization. We use Cooper nannies and technologies under the covers so that you can manage that in different locations. You could manage it across. Ah, hybrid of data centers or hybrid of public cloud vendors. And it allows you to still have one business application, and you can kind of do some of the separation and even separation of data. So there's there's, there's, there's an approach there, you know. But you gotta do a balance. Balance it. You gotta balance between innovation, digital transformation and how much you wanna, you know, govern so governs important. And then, you know. But for some projects, we may want to just quickly prototype. So there's a balance there, too. >> Well, that data virtualization tech is interesting because it gets the other piece, which was prevent data localization mandates. But if there is a mandate and we know that some countries aren't going to relax that mandate, you have, ah, a technical solution for that >> architecture that will support that. And that's a big investment for us right now. And where we're doing a lot of work in that space. Obviously, with red hat, you saw partnership or acquisition. So that's been >> really Yeah, I heard something about that's important. That's that's that's a big part of Chapter two. Yeah, all right. We'll give you the final world Caitlyn on the spring. I guess it's not spring it. Secondly, this summer, right? CDO event? >> No, it's been agreed. First day. So we kicked off. Today. We've got a full set of client panel's tomorrow. We've got some announcements around our meta data that I mentioned. Risk insights is a really cool offering. We'll be talking more about. We also have cognitive support. This is another one. Our clients that I really wanted to help with some of their support back in systems. So a lot of exciting announcements, new thought leadership coming out. It's been a great event and looking forward to the next next day. >> Well, I love the fact >> that you guys have have tied data science into the sea. Sweet roll. You guys have done a great job, I think, better than anybody in terms of of, of really advocating for the chief data officer. And this is a great event because it's piers talking. Appears a lot of private conversations going on. So congratulations on all the success and continued success worldwide. >> Thank you so much. Thank you, Dave. >> You welcome. Keep it right there, everybody. We'll be back with our next guest. Ready for this short break. We have a panel coming up. This is David. Dante. You're >> watching the Cube from IBM CDO right back.

>> Live from San Francisco, California, it's theCUBE covering the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit. Brought to you by IBM. >> Hi everybody, welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of the IBM Chief Data Officer Event. We're here at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco at the Centric Hyatt Hotel. This is the 10th anniversary of IBM's Chief Data Officer Summits. In the recent years, anyway, they do one in San Francisco and one in Boston each year, and theCUBE has covered a number of them. I think this is our eighth CDO conference. I'm Dave Vellante, and theCUBE, we like to go out, especially to events like this that are intimate, there's about 140 chief data officers here. We've had the chief data officer from AstraZeneca on, even though he doesn't take that title. We've got a panel coming up later on in the day. And I want to talk about the evolution of that role. The chief data officer emerged out of kind of a wonky, back-office role. It was all about 10, 12 years ago, data quality, master data management, governance, compliance. And as the whole big data meme came into focus and people were realizing that data is the new source of competitive advantage, that data was going to be a source of innovation, what happened was that role emerged, that CDO, chief data officer role, emerged out of the back office and came right to the front and center. And the chief data officer really started to better understand and help companies understand how to monetize the data. Now monetization of data could mean more revenue. It could mean cutting costs. It could mean lowering risk. It could mean, in a hospital situation, saving lives, sort of broad definition of monetization. But it was really understanding how data contributed to value, and then finding ways to operationalize that to speed up time to value, to lower cost, to lower risk. And that required a lot of things. It required new skill sets, new training. It required a partnership with the lines of business. It required new technologies like artificial intelligence, which have just only recently come into a point where it's gone mainstream. Of course, when I started in the business several years ago, AI was the hot topic, but you didn't have the compute power. You didn't have the data, you didn't have the cloud. So we see the new innovation engine, not as Moore's Law, the doubling of transistors every 18 months, doubling of performance. Really no, we see the new innovation cocktail as data as the substrate, applying machine intelligence to that data, and then scaling it with the cloud. And through that cloud model, being able to attract startups and innovation. I come back to the chief data officer here, and IBM Chief Data Officer Summit, that's really where the chief data officer comes in. Now, the role in the organization is fuzzy. If you ask people what's a chief data officer, you'll get 20 different answers. Many answers are focused on compliance, particularly in what emerged, again, in those regulated industries: financial service, healthcare, and government. Those are the first to have chief data officers. But now CDOs have gone mainstream. So what we're seeing here from IBM is the broadening of that role and that definition and those responsibilities. Confusing things is the chief digital officer or the chief analytics officer. Those are roles that have also emerged, so there's a lot of overlap and a lot of fuzziness. To whom should the chief data officer report? Many say it should not be the CIO. Many say they should be peers. Many say the CIO's responsibility is similar to the chief data officer, getting value out of data, although I would argue that's never really been the case. The role of the CIO has largely been to make sure that the technology infrastructure works and that applications are delivered with high availability, with great performance, and are able to be developed in an agile manner. That's sort of a more recent sort of phenomenon that's come forth. And the chief digital officer is really around the company's face. What does that company's brand look like? What does that company's go-to-market look like? What does the customer see? Whereas the chief data officer's really been around the data strategy, what the sort of framework should be around compliance and governance, and, again, monetization. Not that they're responsible for the monetization, but they responsible for setting that framework and then communicating it across the company, accelerating the skill sets and the training of existing staff and complementing with new staff and really driving that framework throughout the organization in partnership with the chief digital officer, the chief analytics officer, and the chief information officer. That's how I see it anyway. Martin Schroeder, the senior vice president of IBM, came on today with Inderpal Bhandari, who is the chief data officer of IBM, the global chief data officer. Martin Schroeder used to be the CFO at IBM. He talked a lot, kind of borrowing from Ginni Rometty's themes in previous conferences, chapter one of digital which he called random acts of digital, and chapter two is how to take this mainstream. IBM makes a big deal out of the fact that it doesn't appropriate your data, particularly your personal data, to sell ads. IBM's obviously in the B2B business, so that's IBM's little back-ended shot at Google and Facebook and Amazon who obviously appropriate our data to sell ads or sell goods. IBM doesn't do that. I'm interested in IBM's opinion on big tech. There's a lot of conversations now. Elizabeth Warren wants to break up big tech. IBM was under the watchful eye of the DOJ 25 years ago, 30 years ago. IBM essentially had a monopoly in the business, and the DOJ wanted to make sure that IBM wasn't using that monopoly to hurt consumers and competitors. Now what IBM did, the DOJ ruled that IBM had to separate its applications business, actually couldn't be in the applications business. Another ruling was that they had to publish the interfaces to IBM mainframes so that competitors could actually build plug-compatible products. That was the world back then. It was all about peripherals plugging into mainframes and sort of applications being developed. So the DOJ took away IBM's power. Fast forward 30 years, now we're hearing Google, Amazon, and Facebook coming under fire from politicians. Should they break up those companies? Now those companies are probably the three leaders in AI. IBM might debate that. I think generally, at theCUBE and SiliconANGLE, we believe that those three companies are leading the charge in AI, along with China Inc: Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, et cetera, and the Chinese government. So here's the question. What would happen if you broke up big tech? I would surmise that if you break up big tech, those little techs that you break up, Amazon Web Services, WhatsApp, Instagram, those little techs would get bigger. Now, however, the government is implying that it wants to break those up because those entities have access to our data. Google's got access to all the search data. If you start splitting them up, that'll make it harder for them to leverage that data. I would argue those small techs would get bigger, number one. Number two, I would argue if you're worried about China, which clearly you're seeing President Trump is worried about China, placing tariffs on China, playing hardball with China, which is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a good thing because China has been accused, and we all know, of taking IP, stealing IP essentially, and really not putting in those IP protections. So, okay, playing hardball to try to get a quid pro quo on IP protections is a good thing. Not good for trade long term. I'd like to see those trade barriers go away, but if it's a negotiation tactic, okay. I can live with it. However, going after the three AI leaders, Amazon, Facebook, and Google, and trying to take them down or break them up, actually, if you're a nationalist, could be a bad thing. Why would you want to handcuff the AI leaders? Third point is unless they're breaking the law. So I think that should be the decision point. Are those three companies, and others, using monopoly power to thwart competition? I would argue that Microsoft actually did use its monopoly power back in the '80s and '90s, in particular in the '90s, when it put Netscape out of business, it put Lotus out of business, it put WordPerfect out of business, it put Novell out of the business. Now, maybe those are strong words, but in fact, Microsoft's bundling, its pricing practices, caught those companies off guard. Remember, Jim Barksdale, the CEO of Netscape, said we don't need the browser. He was wrong. Microsoft killed Netscape by bundling Internet Explorer into its operating system. So the DOJ stepped in, some would argue too late, and put handcuffs on Microsoft so they couldn't use that monopoly power. And I would argue that you saw from that two things. One, granted, Microsoft was overly focused on Windows. That was kind of their raison d'etre, and they missed a lot of other opportunities. But the DOJ definitely slowed them down, and I think appropriately. And if out of that myopic focus on Windows, and to a certain extent, the Department of Justice and the government, the FTC as well, you saw the emergence of internet companies. Now, Microsoft did a major pivot to the internet. They didn't do a major pivot to the cloud until Satya Nadella came in, and now Microsoft is one of those other big tech companies that is under the watchful eye. But I think Microsoft went through that and perhaps learned its lesson. We'll see what happens with Facebook, Google, and Amazon. Facebook, in particular, seems to be conflicted right now. Should we take down a video that has somewhat fake news implications or is a deep hack? Or should we just dial down? We saw this recently with Facebook. They dialed down the promotion. So you almost see Facebook trying to have its cake and eat it too, which personally, I don't think that's the right approach. I think Facebook either has to say damn the torpedoes. It's open content, we're going to promote it. Or do the right thing and take those videos down, those fake news videos. It can't have it both ways. So Facebook seems to be somewhat conflicted. They are probably under the most scrutiny now, as well as Google, who's being accused, anyway, certainly we've seen this in the EU, of promoting its own ads over its competitors' ads. So people are going to be watching that. And, of course, Amazon just having too much power. Having too much power is not necessarily an indication of abusing monopoly power, but you know the government is watching. So that bears watching. theCUBE is going to be covering that. We'll be here all day, covering the IBM CDO event. I'm Dave Vallente, you're watching theCUBE. #IBMCDO, DM us or Tweet us @theCUBE. I'm @Dvallente, keep it right there. We'll be right back right after this short break. (upbeat music)

(electronica) >> Live, from San Francisco, California it's theCube. Covering the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit. Brought to you by IBM. >> We're back at Fisherman's Wharf covering the IBM Chief Data Officer event, the 10th anniversary. You're watching theCube, the leader in live tech coverage. Just off the keynotes, Martin Schroeter is here as the Senior Vice President of IBM Global Markets responsible for revenue, profit, IBM's brand, just a few important things. Martin, welcome to theCube. >> They're important, they're important. >> Inderpal Bhandari, Cube alum, Global Chief Data Officer at IBM. Good to see you again. >> Good to see you Dave, >> So you guys, just off the keynotes, Martin, you talked a lot about disruption, things like digital trade that we're going to get into, digital transformation. What are you hearing when you talk to clients? You spent a lot of time as the CFO. >> I did. >> Now you're spending a lot of time with clients. What are they telling you about disruption and digital transformation? >> Yeah, you know the interesting thing Dave, is the first thing every CEO starts with now is that "I run a technology company." And it doesn't matter if they're writing code or manufacturing corrugated cardboard boxes, every CEO believes they are running a technology company. Now interestingly, maybe we could've predicted this already five or six years ago because we run a CEO survey, we run a CFO, we run surveys of the C-suite. And already about five years ago, technology was number one on the CEO's list of what's going to change their company in the next 3-5 years. It led. The CFO lagged, the CMO lagged, everyone else. Like, CEO saw it first. So CEOs now believe they are running technology businesses, and when you run a technology business, that means you have to fundamentally change the way you work, how you work, who does the work, and how you're finding and reaching and engaging with your clients. So when we talk, we shorthand of digitizing the enterprise. Or, what does it mean to become a digitally enable enterprise? It really is about how to use today's technology embedded into your workflows to make sure you don't get disintermediated from your clients? And you're bringing them value at every step, every touchpoint of their journey. >> So that brings up a point. Every CEO I talk to is trying to get "digital right." And that comes back to the data. Now you're of course, biased on that. But what are your thoughts on a digital business? Is digital businesses all about how they use data and leverage data? What does it mean to get "digital right" in your view? >> So data has to be the starting point. You actually do see examples of companies that'll start out on a digital transformation, or a technology transformation, and then eventually back into the data transformation. So in a sense, you've got to have the digital piece of it, which is really the experience that users have of the products of the company, as well as the technology, which is kind of the backend engines that are running. But also the workflow, and being able to infuse AI into workflows. And then data, because everything really rides on the data being in good enough shape to be able to pull all this off. So eventually people realize that really it's not just a digital transformation or technology transformation, but it is a data transformation to begin with. >> And you guys have talked a lot at this event, at least this pre-event, I've talked to people about operationalizing AI, that's a big part of your responsibilities. How do you feel about where you're at? I mean, it's a journey I know. You're never done. But feel like you're making some good progress there? Internally at IBM specifically. >> Yes, internally at IBM. Very good progress. Because our whole goal is to infuse AI into every major business process, and touch every IBM. So that's the whole goal of what we've been doing for the last few years. And we're already at the stage where our central AI and data platform for this year, over 100,000 active users will be making use of it on a regular basis. So we think we're pretty far along in terms of our transformation. And the whole goal behind this summit and the previous summits as you know, Dave, has been to use that as a showcase for our clients and customers so that they can replicate that journey as well. >> So we heard Ginni Rometty two IBM thinks ago talk about incumbent disruptors, which resonates, 'cause IBM's an incumbent disruptor. You talked about Chapter One being random acts of digital. and then Chapter Two is sort of how to take that mainstream. So what do you see as the next wave, Martin? >> Well as Inderpal said, and if I use us as an example. Now, we are using AI heavily. We have an advantage, right? We have this thing called IBM Research, one of the most prolific Inventors of Things still leads the world. You know we still lead the world in patents so have the benefit. For our our clients, however, we have to help them down that journey. And the clients today are on a journey of finding the right hybrid cloud solution that gives them bridges sort of "I have this data. "The incumbency advantage of having data," along with "Where are the tools and "where is the compute power that I need to take advantage of the data." So they're on that journey at the same time they're on the journey as Inderpal said, of embedding it into their workflows. So for IBM, the company that's always lived sort of at the intersection of technology and business, that's what we're helping our clients to do today. Helping them take their incumbent advantage of data, having data, helping them co-create. We're working with them to co-create solutions that they can deploy and then helping them to put that into work, into production, if you will, in their environments and in their workflows. >> So one of the things you stressed today, two of the things. You've talked about transparency, and open digital trade. I want to get into the latter, but talk about what's important in Chapter Two. Just, what are those ingredients of success? You've talked about things like free flow of data, prevent data localization, mandates, and protect algorithms and source codes. You also made another statement which is very powerful "IBM is never giving up its source code to our government, and we'd leave the country first." >> We wouldn't give up our source code. >> So what are some of those success factors that we need to be thinking about in that context? >> If we look at IBM. IBM today runs, you know 87% of the world's credit card transactions, right? IBM today runs the world's banking systems, we run the airline reservation systems, we run the supply chains of the world. Hearts and lungs, right? If I just shorthand all of that, hearts and lungs. The reason our clients allow us to do that is because they trust us at the very core. If they didn't trust us with our data they wouldn't give it to us. If they didn't trust us to run the process correctly, they wouldn't give it to us. So when we say trust, it happens at a very base level of "who do you really trust to run you're data?" And importantly, who is someone else going to trust with your data, with your systems? Any bank can maybe figure out, you know, how to run a little bit of a process. But you need scale, that's where we come in. So big banks need us. And secondly, you need someone you can trust that can get into the global banking system, because the system has to trust you as well. So they trust us at a very base level. That's why we still run the hearts and lungs of the enterprise world. >> Yeah, and you also made the point, you're not talking about necessarily personal data, that's not your business. But when you talked about the free flow of data, there are governments of many, western governments who are sort of putting in this mandate of not being able to persist data out of the country. But then you gave an example of "If you're trying to track a bag at baggage claim, you actually want that free flow of data." So what are those conversations like? >> So first I do think we have to distinguish between the kinds of data that should frow freely and the kinds of data that should absolutely, personal information is not what we're talking about, right? But the supply chains of the world work on data, the banking system works on data, right? So when we talk about the data that has to flow freely, it's all the data that doesn't have a good reason for it to stay local. Citizen's data, healthcare data, might have to stay, because they're protecting their citizen's privacy. That's the issue I think, that most governments are on. So we have disaggregate the data discussion, the free flow of data from the privacy issues, which are very important. >> Is there a gray area there between the personal information and the type of data that Martin's talking about? Or is it pretty clear cut in your view? >> No, I think this is obviously got to play itself out. But I'll give you one example. So, the whole use of a blockchain potentially helps you address and find the right balance between privacy of sensitive data, versus actually the free flow of data. >> Right. >> Right? So for instance, you could have an encryption or a hashtag. Or hash, sorry. Not a hashtag. A hash, say, off the person's name whose luggage is lost. And you could pass that information through, and then on the other side, it's decrypted, and then you're able to make sure that, you know, essentially you're able to satisfy the client, the customer. And so there's flow of data, there's no issue with regard to exposure. Because only the rightful parties are able to use it. So these things are, in a sense, the technologies that we're talking about, that Martin talked about with the blockchain, and so forth. They are in place to be able to really revolutionize and transform digital trade. But there are other factors as well. Martin touched on a bunch of those in the keynote with regard to, you know, the imbalances, some of the protectionism that comes in, and so on and so forth. Which all that stuff has to be played through. >> So much to talk about, so little time. So digital trade, let's get into that a little bit. What is that and why is it so important? >> So if you look at the economic throughput in the digital economy, the size of the GDP if you will, of what travels around the world in the way data flows, it's greater than the traded goods flow. So this is a very important discussion. Over the last 10 years, you know, out of the 100% of jobs that were created, 80% or so had a digital component to it. Which means that the next set of jobs that we're creating, they require digital skills. So we need a set of skills that will enable a workforce. And we need a regulatory environment that's cooperative, that's supportive. So in the regulatory environment, as we said before, we think data should flow freely unless there's a reason for it not to flow. And I think there will be some really good reasons why certain data should not flow.. But data should flow freely, except for certain reasons that are important. We need to make sure we don't create a series of mandates that force someone to store data here. If you want to be in business in a country, the country shouldn't say "Well if you want to business here "you have to store all your data here." It tends to be done on the auspice of a security concern, but we know enough about security that doesn't help. It's a false sense of security. So data has to flow freely. Don't make someone store it there just because it may be moving through or it's being processed in your country. And then thirdly, we have to protect the source code that companies are using. We cannot force, no country should force, a company to give up their source code. People will leave, they just won't do business there. >> That's just not about intellectual property issue there, right? >> It's huge intellectual property issue, that's exactly right. >> So the public policy framework then, is really free flow of data where it makes sense. No mandates unless it makes sense, and- >> And protection of IP. >> Protection of IP. >> That's right. >> Okay, good. >> It's a pretty simple structure. And based on my discussions I think most sort of aligned with that. And we're encouraged. I'm encouraged by what I see in TPP, it has that. What I see in Europe, it has that. What I see in USMCA it has that. So all three of those very good, but they're three separate things. We need to bring it all together to have one. >> So it was a good example. GDDPR maybe as a framework that seems to be seeping its way into other areas. >> So GDPR is an important discussion, but that's the privacy discussion wrapped around a broader trade issue. But privacy is important. GDPR does a good job on it, but we have a broader trade issue of data. >> Inderpal give me the final word, it's kind of your show. >> Well, you know. So I was just going to say Dave, I think one way to think about it is you have to have the free flow of data. And maybe the way to think about it is certain data you do need controls on. And it's more of the form in which the data flows that you restrict. As opposed to letting the data flow at all. >> What do you mean? >> So the hash example that I gave you. It's okay for the hash to go across, that way you're not exposing the data itself. So those technologies are all there. It's much more the regulatory frameworks that Martin's talking about, that they've got to be there in place so that we are not impeding the progress. That's going to be inevitable when you do have the free flow of data. >> So in that instance, the hash example that you gave. It's the parties that are adjudicating, the machines are adjudicating. Unless the parties want to expose that data it won't be exposed. >> It won't happen, they won't be exposed. >> All right. Inderpal, Martin, I know you got to run. Thanks so much for coming out. >> Thank you. Thanks for the talk. >> Thank you >> You're welcome. All right. Keep it right there everybody, we'll be back with our next guest from IBMCDO Summit in San Francisco. You're watching theCube. (electronica)

>> Live from San Francisco, California, it's the theCUBE, covering the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit, brought to you by IBM. >> Welcome back to San Francisco everybody. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. We go out to the events, we extract the signal from the noise and we're here at the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit, 10th anniversary. Seth Dobrin is here, he's the Vice President and Chief Data Officer of the IBM Analytics Group. Seth, always a pleasure to have you on. Good to see you again. >> Yeah, thanks for having me back Dave. >> You're very welcome. So I love these events you get a chance to interact with chief data officers, guys like yourself. We've been talking a lot today about IBM's internal transformation, how IBM itself is operationalizing AI and maybe we can talk about that, but I'm most interested in how you're pointing that at customers. What have you learned from your internal experiences and what are you bringing to customers? >> Yeah, so, you know, I was hired at IBM to lead part of our internal transformation, so I spent a lot of time doing that. >> Right. >> I've also, you know, when I came over to IBM I had just left Monsanto where I led part of their transformation. So I spent the better part of the first year or so at IBM not only focusing on our internal efforts, but helping our clients transform. And out of that I found that many of our clients needed help and guidance on how to do this. And so I started a team we call, The Data Science an AI Elite Team, and really what we do is we sit down with clients, we share not only our experience, but the methodology that we use internally at IBM so leveraging things like design thinking, DevOps, Agile, and how you implement that in the context of data science and AI. >> I've got a question, so Monsanto, obviously completely different business than IBM-- >> Yeah. >> But when we talk about digital transformation and then talk about the difference between a business and a digital business, it comes down to the data. And you've seen a lot of examples where you see companies traversing industries which never used to happen before. You know, Apple getting into music, there are many, many examples, and the theory is, well, it's 'cause it's data. So when you think about your experiences of a completely different industry bringing now the expertise to IBM, were there similarities that you're able to draw upon, or was it a completely different experience? >> No, I think there's tons of similarities which is, which is part of why I was excited about this and I think IBM was excited to have me. >> Because the chances for success were quite high in your mind? >> Yeah, yeah, because the chance for success were quite high, and also, you know, if you think about it there's on the, how you implement, how you execute, the differences are really cultural more than they're anything to do with the business, right? So it's, the whole role of a Chief Data Officer, or Chief Digital Officer, or a Chief Analytics Officer, is to drive fundamental change in the business, right? So it's how do you manage that cultural change, how do you build bridges, how do you make people, how do you make people a little uncomfortable, but at the same time get them excited about how to leverage things like data, and analytics, and AI, to change how they do business. And really this concept of a digital transformation is about moving away from traditional products and services, more towards outcome-based services and not selling things, but selling, as a Service, right? And it's the same whether it's IBM, you know, moving away from fully transactional to Cloud and subscription-based offerings. Or it's a bank reimagining how they interact with their customers, or it's oil and gas company, or it's a company like Monsanto really thinking about how do we provide outcomes. >> But how do you make sure that every, as a Service, is not a snowflake and it can scale so that you can actually, you know, make it a business? >> So underneath the, as a Service, is a few things. One is, data, one is, machine learning and AI, the other is really understanding your customer, right, because truly digital companies do everything through the eyes of their customer and so every company has many, many versions of their customer until they go through an exercise of creating a single version, right, a customer or a Client 360, if you will, and we went through that exercise at IBM. And those are all very consistent things, right? They're all pieces that kind of happen the same way in every company regardless of the industry and then you get into understanding what the desires of your customer are to do business with you differently. >> So you were talking before about the Chief Digital Officer, a Chief Data Officer, Chief Analytics Officer, as a change agent making people feel a little bit uncomfortable, explore that a little bit what's that, asking them questions that intuitively they, they know they need to have the answer to, but they don't through data? What did you mean by that? >> Yeah so here's the conversations that usually happen, right? You go and you talk to you peers in the organization and you start having conversations with them about what decisions are they trying to make, right? And you're the Chief Data Officer, you're responsible for that, and inevitably the conversation goes something like this, and I'm going to paraphrase. Give me the data I need to support my preconceived notions. >> (laughing) Yeah. >> Right? >> Right. >> And that's what they want to (voice covers voice). >> Here's the answer give me the data that-- >> That's right. So I want a Dashboard that helps me support this. And the uncomfortableness comes in a couple of things in that. It's getting them to let go of that and allow the data to provide some inkling of things that they didn't know were going on, that's one piece. The other is, then you start leveraging machine learning, or AI, to actually help start driving some decisions, so limiting the scope from infinity down to two or three things and surfacing those two or three things and telling people in your business your choices are one of these three things, right? That starts to make people feel uncomfortable and really is a challenge for that cultural change getting people used to trusting the machine, or in some instances even, trusting the machine to make the decision for you, or part of the decision for you. >> That's got to be one of the biggest cultural challenges because you've got somebody who's, let's say they run a big business, it's a profitable business, it's the engine of cashflow at the company, and you're saying, well, that's not what the data says. And you're, say okay, here's a future path-- >> Yeah. >> For success, but it's going to be disruptive, there's going to be a change and I can see people not wanting to go there. >> Yeah, and if you look at, to the point about, even businesses that are making the most money, or parts of a business that are making the most money, if you look at what the business journals say you start leveraging data and AI, you get double-digit increases in your productivity, in your, you know, in differentiation from your competitors. That happens inside of businesses too. So the conversation even with the most profitable parts of the business, or highly, contributing the most revenue is really what we could do better, right? You could get better margins on this revenue you're driving, you could, you know, that's the whole point is to get better leveraging data and AI to increase your margins, increase your revenue, all through data and AI. And then things like moving to, as a Service, from single point to transaction, that's a whole different business model and that leads from once every two or three or five years, getting revenue, to you get revenue every month, right? That's highly profitable for companies because you don't have to go in and send your sales force in every time to sell something, they buy something once, and they continue to pay as long as you keep 'em happy. >> But I can see that scaring people because if the incentives don't shift to go from a, you know, pay all up front, right, there's so many parts of the organization that have to align with that in order for that culture to actually occur. So can you give some examples of how you've, I mean obviously you ran through that at IBM, you saw-- >> Yeah. >> I'm sure a lot of that, got a lot of learnings and then took that to clients. Maybe some examples of client successes that you've had, or even not so successes that you've learned from. >> Yeah, so in terms of client success, I think many of our clients are just beginning this journey, certainly the ones I work with are beginning their journey so it's hard for me to say, client X has successfully done this. But I can certainly talk about how we've gone in, and some of the use cases we've done-- >> Great. >> With certain clients to think about how they transformed their business. So maybe the biggest bang for the buck one is in the oil and gas industry. So ExxonMobile was on stage with me at, Think, talking about-- >> Great. >> Some of the work that we've done with them in their upstream business, right? So every time they drop a well it costs them not thousands of dollars, but hundreds of millions of dollars. And in the oil and gas industry you're talking massive data, right, tens or hundreds of petabytes of data that constantly changes. And no one in that industry really had a data platform that could handle this dynamically. And it takes them months to get, to even start to be able to make a decision. So they really want us to help them figure out, well, how do we build a data platform on this massive scale that enables us to be able to make decisions more rapidly? And so the aim was really to cut this down from 90 days to less than a month. And through leveraging some of our tools, as well as some open-source technology, and teaching them new ways of working, we were able to lay down this foundation. Now this is before, we haven't even started thinking about helping them with AI, oil and gas industry has been doing this type of thing for decades, but they really were struggling with this platform. So that's a big success where, at least for the pilot, which was a small subset of their fields, we were able to help them reduce that timeframe by a lot to be able to start making a decision. >> So an example of a decision might be where to drill next? >> That's exactly the decision they're trying to make. >> Because for years, in that industry, it was boop, oh, no oil, boop, oh, no oil. >> Yeah, well. >> And they got more sophisticated, they started to use data, but I think what you're saying is, the time it took for that analysis was quite long. >> So the time it took to even overlay things like seismic data, topography data, what's happened in wells, and core as they've drilled around that, was really protracted just to pull the data together, right? And then once they got the data together there were some really, really smart people looking at it going, well, my experience says here, and it was driven by the data, but it was not driven by an algorithm. >> A little bit of art. >> True, a lot of art, right, and it still is. So now they want some AI, or some machine learning, to help guide those geophysicists to help determine where, based on the data, they should be dropping wells. And these are hundred million and billion dollar decisions they're making so it's really about how do we help them. >> And that's just one example, I mean-- >> Yeah. >> Every industry has it's own use cases, or-- >> Yeah, and so that's on the front end, right, about the data foundation, and then if you go to a company that was really advanced in leveraging analytics, or machine learning, JPMorgan Chase, in their, they have a division, and also they were on stage with me at, Think, that they had, basically everything is driven by a model, so they give traders a series of models and they make decisions. And now they need to monitor those models, those hundreds of models they have for misuse of those models, right? And so they needed to build a series of models to manage, to monitor their models. >> Right. >> And this was a tremendous deep-learning use case and they had just bought a power AI box from us so they wanted to start leveraging GPUs. And we really helped them figure out how do you navigate and what's the difference between building a model leveraging GPUs, compared to CPUs? How do you use it to accelerate the output, and again, this was really a cost-avoidance play because if people misuse these models they can get in a lot of trouble. But they also need to make these decisions very quickly because a trader goes to make a trade they need to make a decision, was this used properly or not before that trade is kicked off and milliseconds make a difference in the stock market so they needed a model. And one of the things about, you know, when you start leveraging GPUs and deep learning is sometimes you need these GPUs to do training and sometimes you need 'em to do training and scoring. And this was a case where you need to also build a pipeline that can leverage the GPUs for scoring as well which is actually quite complicated and not as straight forward as you might think. In near real time, in real time. >> Pretty close to real time. >> You can't get much more real time then those things, potentially to stop a trade before it occurs to protect the firm. >> Yeah. >> Right, or RELug it. >> Yeah, and don't quote, I think this is right, I think they actually don't do trades until it's confirmed and so-- >> Right. >> Or that's the desire as to not (voice covers voice). >> Well, and then now you're in a competitive situation where, you know. >> Yeah, I mean people put these trading floors as close to the stock exchange as they can-- >> Physically. >> Physically to (voice covers voice)-- >> To the speed of light right? >> Right, so every millisecond counts. >> Yeah, read Flash Boys-- >> Right, yeah. >> So, what's the biggest challenge you're finding, both at IBM and in your clients, in terms of operationalizing AI. Is it technology? Is it culture? Is it process? Is it-- >> Yeah, so culture is always hard, but I think as we start getting to really think about integrating AI and data into our operations, right? As you look at what software development did with this whole concept of DevOps, right, and really rapidly iterating, but getting things into a production-ready pipeline, looking at continuous integration, continuous development, what does that mean for data and AI? And these concept of DataOps and AIOps, right? And I think DataOps is very similar to DevOps in that things don't change that rapidly, right? You build your data pipeline, you build your data assets, you integrate them. They may change on the weeks, or months timeframe, but they're not changing on the hours, or days timeframe. As you get into some of these AI models some of them need to be retrained within a day, right, because the data changes, they fall out of parameters, or the parameters are very narrow and you need to keep 'em in there, what does that mean? How do you integrate this for your, into your CI/CD pipeline? How do you know when you need to do regression testing on the whole thing again? Does your data science and AI pipeline even allow for you to integrate into your current CI/CD pipeline? So this is actually an IBM-wide effort that my team is leading to start thinking about, how do we incorporate what we're doing into people's CI/CD pipeline so we can enable AIOps, if you will, or MLOps, and really, really IBM is the only company that's positioned to do that for so many reasons. One is, we're the only one with an end-to-end toolchain. So we do everything from data, feature development, feature engineering, generating models, whether selecting models, whether it's auto AI, or hand coding or visual modeling into things like trust and transparency. And so we're the only one with that entire toolchain. Secondly, we've got IBM research, we've got decades of industry experience, we've got our IBM Services Organization, all of us have been tackling with this with large enterprises so we're uniquely positioned to really be able to tackle this in a very enterprised-grade manner. >> Well, and the leverage that you can get within IBM and for your customers. >> And leveraging our clients, right? >> It's off the charts. >> We have six clients that are our most advanced clients that are working with us on this so it's not just us in a box, it's us with our clients working on this. >> So what are you hoping to have happen today? We're just about to get started with the keynotes. >> Yeah. >> We're going to take a break and then come back after the keynotes and we've got some great guests, but what are you hoping to get out of today? >> Yeah, so I've been with IBM for 2 1/2 years and I, and this is my eighth CEO Summit, so I've been to many more of these than I've been at IBM. And I went to these religiously before I joined IBM really for two reasons. One, there's no sales pitch, right, it's not a trade show. The second is it's the only place where I get the opportunity to listen to my peers and really have open and candid conversations about the challenges they're facing and how they're addressing them and really giving me insights into what other industries are doing and being able to benchmark me and my organization against the leading edge of what's going on in this space. >> I love it and that's why I love coming to these events. It's practitioners talking to practitioners. Seth Dobrin thanks so much for coming to theCUBE. >> Yeah, thanks always, Dave. >> Always a pleasure. All right, keep it right there everybody we'll be right back right after this short break. You're watching, theCUBE, live from San Francisco. Be right back.

>> live from San Francisco, California It's the Q covering the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit brought to you by IBM. >> We're back. You're watching the Cube, the leader in life Tech coverage. My name is Dave Volant Day, and we're covering the IBM Chief Data officer event hashtag IBM CDO is the 10th year that IBM has been running This event on the New Cube has been covering this for the last I'd say four or five years. Beth rottenness here. She's the distinguished engineer and principal data scientist. Cognitive within GTS Large Service's organization within IBM. Bet thanks so much for coming on the Cube. >> Absolutely. Thank you for having me. >> So you're very welcome. So really interesting sort of title. I'm inferring a lot. Um, and you're sexually transforming lives through data and analytics. Talk about your role a little bit. >> So my role is to infuse workforce transformation with cognitive. I typically we go from I think you've heard the ladder to a I. But as we move up that ladder and we can actually >> apply artificial intelligence and NLP, which is a lot of what I'm doing, >> it is it's instrumental in being able to see human beings in a lot more dimensions. So when we classify humans by a particular job role skill set, we often don't know that they have a passion for things like coding or anything else. And so we're really doing a lot more where we're getting deeper and being able to match your supply and demand in house as well as know when we have a demand for someone. And this person almost meets that demand. Based on all the different dimensionality that weaken dio, >> we can >> put them into this specific training class and then allow them to go through that training class so that we can upgrade the entire upscale and reschedule the entire work force. >> So one of the challenges you're working on is trying to operationalize machine intelligence and obviously starts with that training and skill level so well, it's not easy company the size of of I B M E. You're starting the GTS group, which probably has an affinity, at least conceptually, for transformation. That's what you guys do for your clients. So how's that going? You know, where are you in that journey? >> I think that we're in the journey and we're doing really well. I think that a lot of our people and the people who are actually working on the ground, we're talking to our clients every single day. So people on the helped us, they're talking to clients and customers. They understand what that client is doing. They understand the means, the troops, the mores, the language of the customer, of the organization of the customer, in the client, giving those people skills to understand what they can do better. To help solve our client's problems is really what it's all about. So understanding how we can take all of the unstructured data, all of like the opportunity for understanding what skills those people have on the ground and then being able to match that to the problems that our clients and customers are having. So it's a great opportunity. I think, that I've been in GTS my entire career and being an I t. I think that you understand this is where you store or create or, you know, manage all of the data in an entire enterprise organization, being able to enable and empower the people to be ableto upscale and Reese kill themselves so that they can get access to that so that we can do better for our clients and customers. >> So when you think about operations, folks, you got decades of skills that have built up you. D. B A is, you got network engineers, you got storage administrators. You know the VM add men's, you know, Unix. Add men's, I mean and a lot of those jobs. Air transforming clearly people don't want to invest is much in heavy lifting and infrastructure deployment, right? They want to go up the stack, if you will. So my question is, as you identify opportunities for transformation, I presume it's a lot of the existing workforce that you're transforming. You're not like saying, Okay, guys, you're out. What is gonna go retrain or bring in new people? Gonna retrain existing folks? How's that going? What's their appetite for that? Are they eagerly kind of lining up for this? You could describe that dynamic. >> I think the bits on the ground, they're very hungry. Everyone is so, so, so hungry because they understand what's coming on. They listen to the messages, they're ready. We were also in flexing. I'm sure you've heard of the new collar program were influencing a lot of youth as early professional hires. I have 2 16 year olds in the 17 year old on my team as interns from a P Tech program in Boulder, and getting that mix in that diversity is really all what it's about. We need that diversity of thought. We need that understanding of how we can start to do these things and how people can start to reach for new ways to work. >> All right, so I love this top of the cube we've we've covered, you know, diversity, women in tech. But so let's talk about that a little bit. You just made a statement that you need that diversity. Why is it so important other than it's the right thing to do? What's the what's the business effect of bringing diversity to the table? >> I think that would. We're searching for information truth if you want. If you want to go there, you need a wide variance of thought, the white of your variance, the more standard you're me, and it's actually a mathematical theory. Um, so this is This is something that is part of our truth. We know that diversity of thoughts we've been working. I run and sponsor the LGBT Q Plus group. I do women's groups in the B A R G's and then we also are looking at neuro diversity and really understanding what we can bring in as far as like, a highly diverse workforce. Put them all together, give them the skills to succeed. Make sure that they understand that the client is absolutely the first person that they're looking at in the first person that they're using Those skills on enable them to automate, enable them to stop doing those repeatable tasks. And there's so much application of a I that we can now make accessible so that people understand how to do this at every single level. >> So it's a much wider scope of an observation space. You're sort of purposefully organizing. So you eliminate some of that sampling bias and then getting to the truth. As you say, >> I think that in order to come up with ethical and explainable, aye, aye, there's definitely a way to do this. We know how to do it. It's just hard, and I think that a lot of people want to reach for machine learning or neural nets that spit out the feature without really understanding the context of the data. But a piece of data is an artifact of a human behavior, so you have to trace it all the way back. What process? What person who put it there? Why did they put it there? What was that? When we when we look at really simple things and say, Why are all these tickets classified in this one way? It's because when you observe the human operator, they're choosing the very first thing human behaviors put data in places or human behaviors create machines to put data in places. All of this can be understood if we look at it in a little bit of a different way. >> I thought I had was. So IBM is Business is not about selling ads, so there's no one sent to future appropriate our data to sell advertising. However, if we think about IBM as an internal organism, there's certain incentive structures. There's there's budgets, there's resource is, and so there's always incentives to game the system. And so it sounds like you're trying to identify ways in which you can do the right thing right thing for the business right for people and try to take some of those nuances out of the equation. Is that >> so? From an automation perspectively build digital management system. So all the executives can go in a room and not argue about whose numbers are correct, and they can actually get down to the business of doing business. From the bottoms up perspective, we're enabling the workforce to understand how to do that automation and how to have not only the basic tenets of data management but incorporate that into a digital management system with tertiary and secondary and triangulation and correlations so that we have the evidence and we can show data providence for everything that we're doing. And we have this capability today we're enabling it and operational izing. It really involves a cultural transformation, which is where people like me come in. >> So in terms of culture, so incentives drive behavior, how have you thought through and what are you doing in terms of applying new types of incentives? And how's that working? >> So when we start to measure skills were not just looking at hard skills. We're looking at soft skills, people who are good collaborators, people who have grit, people who are good leaders, people who understand how to do things over and over and over again in a successful manner. So when you start measuring your successful people, you start incentivizing the behaviors that you want to see. And when you start measuring people who can collaborate globally in global economies that that is our business as IBM, that is who we want to see. And that's how we're incentivizing the behaviors that we want to. D'oh. >> So when I look at your background here, obviously you're you're a natural fit for this kind of transformation. So you were You have an anthropology background language. Your data scientist, you do modeling. >> I always say I'm a squishy human data scientist, but I got to work with a huge group of people to create the data science profession with an IBM and get that accredited through open group. And that's something we're very passionate about is to give people a career past so that they know where their next step is. And it's all about moving to growth and sustainable growth by making sure that the workforce knows how value they are by IBM and how valuable they are by our clients. What does >> success look like to you? >> I think success is closer than we think. I think that success is when we have everybody understanding everybody, understanding what it's like to pick up the phone and answer a customer service call from our client and customer and be able to empathize and sympathize and fix the problem. We have 350,000 human beings. We know somebody in some circle that can help fix a client's problem. I think success looks like being able to get that information to the right people at the right time and give people a path so that they know that they're on the boat together, all rowing together in order to make our clients successful. >> That's great. I love the story. Thanks so much for coming on the hearing. You're very welcome. Keep it right there, but we'll be back with our next guest is a day. Violante. We're live from Fisherman's. More for the IBM CDO Chief Data officer event. Right back sticker The cube dot net is where the

>> Live from San Francisco, California. It's theCUBE, covering the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit. Brought to you by IBM. >> We're back at Fisherman's Wharf at the IBM CDO conference. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. My name is Dave Volante, Joe Selle is here. He's the Global Advanced Analytics and Cognitive Lead at IBM, Boston base. Joe, good to see you again. >> You to Dave. >> And Jerry Gupta, the Senior Vice President and Digital Catalyst at Swiss Re Institute at Swiss Re, great to see you. Thanks for coming on. >> Thank you for having me Dave. >> You're very welcome. So Jerry, you've been at this event now a couple of years, we've been here I think the last four or five years and in the early, now this goes back 10 years this event, now 10 years ago, it was kind of before the whole big data meme took off. It was a lot of focus I'm sure on data quality and data compliance and all of a sudden data became the new source of value. And then we rolled into digital transformation. But how from your perspective, how have things changed? Maybe the themes over the last couple of years, how have they changed? >> I think, from a theme perspective, I would frame the question a little bit differently, right? For me, this conference is a must have on my calendar, because it's very relevant. The topics are very current. So two years ago, when I first attended this conference, it was about cyber and when we went out in the market, they were not too many companies talking about cyber. And so you come to a place like this and you're not and you're sort of blown away by the depth of knowledge that IBM has, the statistics that you guys did a great job presenting. And that really helped us inform ourselves about the cyber risk that we're going on in cyber and so evolve a little bit the consistent theme is it's relevant, it's topical. The other thing that's very consistent is that you always learn something new. The struggle with large conferences like this is sometimes it becomes a lot of me too environment. But in conference that IBM organizes the CDO, in particular, I always learn something new because the practitioners, they do a really good job curating the practitioners. >> And Joe, this has always been an intimate event. You do 'em in San Francisco and Boston, it's, a couple hundred people, kind of belly to belly interactions. So that's kind of nice. But how do you scale this globally? >> Well, I would say that is the key question 'cause I think the AI algorithms and the machine learning has been proven to work. And we've infiltrated that into all of the business processes at IBM, and in many of our client companies. But we've been doing proof of concepts and small applications, and maybe there's a dozen or 50 people using it. But the the themes now are around scale AI at scale. How do you do that? Like we have a remit at IBM to get 100,000 IBMers that's the real number. On our Cognitive Enterprise Data Platform by the end of this calendar year, and we're making great progress there. But that's the key question, how do you do that? and it involves cultural issues of teams and business process owners being willing to share the data, which is really key. And it also involves technical issues around cloud computing models, hybrid public and private clouds, multi cloud environments where we know we're not the only game in town. So there's a Microsoft Cloud, there's an IBM Cloud, there's another cloud. And all of those clouds have to be woven together in some sort of a multi-cloud management model. So that's the techie geek part. But the cultural change part is equally as challenging and important and you need both to get to 100,000 users at IBM. >> You know guys what this conversation brings into focus for me is that for decades, we've marched to the cadence of Moore's laws, as the innovation engine for our industry, that feels like just so yesterday. Today, it's like you've got this data bedrock that we built up over the last decade. You've got machine intelligence or AI, that you now can apply to that data. And then for scale, you've got cloud. And there's all kinds of innovation coming in. Does that sort of innovation cocktail or sandwich makes sense in your business? >> So there's the innovation piece of it, which is new and exciting, the shiny, new toy. And that's definitely exciting and we definitely tried that. But from my perspective and the perspective of my company, it's not the shiny, new toy that's attractive, or that really moves the needle for us. It is the underlying risk. So if you have the shiny new toy of an autonomous vehicle, what mayhem is it going to cause?, right? What are the underlying risks that's what we are focused on. And Joe alluded to, to AI and algorithms and stuff. And it clearly is a very, it's starting to become a very big topic globally. Even people are starting to talk about the risks and dangers inherent in algorithms and AI. And for us, that's an opportunity that we need to study more, look into deeply to see if this is something that we can help address and solve. >> So you're looking for blind spots, essentially. And then and one of them is this sort of algorithmic risk. Is that the right way to look at it? I mean, how do you think about risk of algorithms? >> So yeah, so algorithmic risk would be I would call blind spot I think that's really good way of saying it. We look at not just blind spots, so risks that we don't even know about that we are facing. We also look at known risks, right? >> So we are one of the largest reinsurers in the world. And we insure just you name a risk, we reinsure it, right? so your auto risk, your catastrophe risk, you name it, we probably have some exposure to it. The blind spot as you call it are, anytime you create something new, there are pros and cons. The shiny, new toy is the pro. What risks, what damage, what liability can result there in that's the piece that we're starting to look at. >> So you got the potentially Joe these unintended consequences of algorithms. So how do you address that? Is there a way in which you've thought through, some kind of oversight of the algorithms? Maybe you could talk about IBM's point of view there. >> Well we have >> Yeah and that's a fantastic and interesting conversation that Jerry and I are having together on behalf of our organizations. IBM knowing in great detail about how these AI algorithms work and are built and are deployed, Jerry and his organization, knowing the bigger risk picture and how you understand, predict, remediate and protect against the risk so that companies can happily adopt these new technologies and put them everywhere in their business. So the name of the game is really understanding how as we all move towards a digital enterprise with big data streaming in, in every format, so we use AI to modify the data to a train the models and then we set some of the models up as self training. So they're learning on their own. They're enhancing data sets. And once we turn them on, we can go to sleep, so they do their own thing, then what? We need a way to understand how these models are producing results. Are they results that we agree with? Are these self training algorithms making these, like railroad trains going off the track? Or are they still on the track? So we want to monitor understand and remediate, but it's at scale again, my earlier comments. So you might be an organization, you might have 10,000 not models at work. You can't watch those. >> So you're looking at the intersection of risk and machine intelligence and then you're, if I understand it correctly applying AI, what I call machine intelligence to oversee the algorithms, is that correct? >> Well yes and you could think of it as an AI, watching over the other AI. That's really what we have 'cause we're using AI in as we envision what might or might not be the future. It's an AI and it's watching other AI. >> That's kind of mind blowing. Jerry, you mentioned autonomous vehicles before that's obviously a potential disruptor to your business. What can you share about how you guys are thinking about that? I mean, a lot of people are skeptical. Like there's not enough data, every time there's a another accident, they'll point to that. What's your point of view on that? From your corporation standpoint are you guys thinking is near term, mid term, very long term or it's sort of this journey, that there's quasi-autonomous that sort of gets us there. >> So on autonomous vehicles or algorithmic risk? >> On autonomous vehicles. >> So, the journey towards full automation is a series of continuous steps, right? So it's a continuum and to a certain extent, we are in a space now, where even though we may not have full autonomy while we're driving, there is significant feedback and signals that a car provides and acts or not in an automated manner that eventually move us towards full autonomy, right? So for example, the anti-lock braking system. That's a component of that, right? which is it prevents the car from skidding out of control. So if you're asking for a time horizon when it might have happened, yeah, at our previous firm, we had done some analysis and the horizons were as sort of aggressive as 15 years to as conservative as 50 years. But the component that we all agreed to where there was not such a wide range was that the cars are becoming more sophisticated because the cars are not just cars, any automobile or truck vehicles, they're becoming more automated. Where does risk lie at each piece? Or each piece of the value chain, right? And the answer is different. If you look at commercial versus personal. If you look at commercial space, autonomous fleets are already on the road. >> Right >> Right? And so the question then becomes where does liability lie? Owner, manufacturer, driver >> Shared model >> Shared, manual versus automated mode, conditions of driving, what decisions algorithm is making, which is when you know, the physics don't allow you to avoid an accident? Who do you end up hitting? (crosstalk) >> Again, not just the technology problem. Now, last thing is you guys are doing a panel, on wowing customers making customers the king, I think, is what the title of it is. What's that all about? And get into that a little bit? >> Sure. Well, we focus as IBM mostly on a B2B framework. So the example that I that I'll share to you is, somewhere between like making a customer or making a client the king, the example is that we're using some of our AI to create an alert system that we call Operations Risks Insights. And so the example that I wanted to share was that, we've been giving this away to nonprofit relief agencies who can deploy it around a geo-fenced area like say, North Carolina and South Carolina. And if you're a relief agency providing flood relief or services to people affected by floods, you can use our solution to understand the magnitude and the potential damage impact from a storm. We can layer up a map with not only normal geospatial information, but socio-economic data. So I can say find the relief agency and I've got a huge storm coming in and I can't cover the entire two-state area. I can say okay, well show me the area where there's greater population density than 1000 per square kilometer and the socio-economic level is, lower than a certain point and those are the people that don't have a lot of resources can't move, are going to shelter in place. So I want to know that because they need my help. >> That's where the risk is. Yeah, right they can't get out >> And we use AI to do to use that those are happy customers, and I've delivered wow to them. >> That's pretty wow, that's right. Jerry, anything you would add to that sort of wow customer experience? Yeah, absolutely, So we are a B2B company as well. >> Yeah. >> And so the span of interaction is dictated by that piece of our business. And so we tried to create wow, by either making our customers' life easier, providing tools and technologies that make them do their jobs better, cheaper, faster, more efficiently, or by helping create, goal create, modify products, such that, it accomplishes the former, right? So, Joe mentioned about the product that you launched. So we have what we call parametric insurance and we are one of the pioneers in the field. And so we've launched three products in that area. For earthquake, for hurricanes and for flight delay. And so, for example, our flight delay product is really unique in the market, where we are able to insure a traveler for flight delays. And then if there is a flight delay event that exceeds a pre established threshold, the customer gets paid without even having to file a claim. >> I love that product, I want to learn more about that. You can say (mumbles) but then it's like then it's not a wow experience for the customer, nobody's happy. So that's for Jerry. Guys, we're out of time. We're going to leave it there but Jerry, Joe, thanks so much for. >> We could go on Dave but thank you Let's do that down the road. Maybe have you guys in Boston in the fall? it'll be great. Thanks again for coming on. >> Thanks Dave. >> All right, keep it right there everybody. We'll back with our next guest. You're watching theCUBE live from IBM CDO in San Francisco. We'll be right back. (upbeat music)

>> Live from San Francisco, California, it's theCUBE, covering the IBM Chief Data Officer Summit. Brought to you by IBM. >> We're back at San Francisco. We're here at Fisherman's Wharf covering the IBM Chief Data Officer event #IBMCDO. This is the tenth year of this event. They tend to bookend them both in San Francisco and in Boston, and you're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. My name is Dave Valante. John Thomas is here, Cube alum and distinguished engineer, Director of Analytics at IBM, and somebody who provides technical direction to the data science elite team. John, good to see you again. Steve Aliouk is back. He is the Vice President of Deep Learning in the Global Chief Data Office, thanks for comin' on again. >> No problem. >> Let's get into it. So John, you and I have talked over the years at this event. What's new these days, what are you working on? >> So Dave, still working with clients on implementing data science and AI data use cases, mostly enterprise clients, and seeing a variety of different things developing in that space. Things have moved into broader discussions around AI and how to actually get value out of that. >> Okay, so I know one of the things that you've talked about is operationalizing machine intelligence and AI and cognitive and that's always a challenge, right. Sounds good, we see this potential but unless you change the operating model, you're not going to get the type of business value, so how do you operationalize AI? >> Yeah, this is a good question Dave. So, enterprises, many of them, are beginning to realize that it is not enough to focus on just the coding and development of the models, right. So they can hire super-talented Python TensorFlow programmers and get the model building done, but there's no value in it until these models actually are operationalized in the context of the business. So one aspect of this is, actually we know, we are thinking of this in a very systematic way and talking about this in a prescriptive way. So, you've got to scope your use cases out. You got to understand what is involved in implementing the use case. Then the steps are build, run, manage, and each of these have technical aspects and business aspects around, right. So most people jump right into the build aspect, which is writing the code. Yeah, that's great, but once you build the code, build the models by writing code, how do you actually deploy these models? Whether that is for online invocation or back storing or whatever, how do you manage the performance of these models over time, how do you retrain these models, and most importantly, when these models are in production, how do I actually understand the business metrics around them? 'Cause this goes back to that first step of scoping. What are the business KPI's that the line of business cares about? The data scientist talks about data science metrics, position and recall and Area Under the ROC Curve and accuracy and so on. But how do these relate to business KPI's. >> All right, so we're going to get into each of those steps in a moment, but Steve I want to ask you, so part of your charter, Inderpal, Global Chief Data Officer, you guys have to do this for IBM, right, drink your own champagne, dog footing, whatever you call it. But there's real business reasons for you to do that. So how is IBM operationalizing AI? What kind of learnings can you share? >> Well, the beauty is I got a wide portfolio of products that I can pull from, so that's nice. Like things like AI open to Watson, some of the hardware components, all that stuffs kind of being baked in. But part of the reason that John and I want to do this interview together, is because what he's producing, what his thoughts are kind of resonates very well for our own practices internally. We've got so many enterprise use cases, how are we deciding, you know, which ones to work on, which ones have the data, potentially which ones have the biggest business impact, all those KPI's etcetera, also, in addition to, for the practitioners, once we decide on a specific enterprise use case to work on, when have they reached the level where the enterprise is having a return on investment? They don't need to keep refining and refining and refining, or maybe they do, but they don't know these practitioners. So we have to clearly justify it, and scope it accordingly, or these practitioners are left in this kind of limbo, where they're producing things, but not able to iterate effectively for the business, right? So that process is a big problem I'm facing internally. We got hundreds of internal use cases, and we're trying to iterate through them. There's an immense amount of scoping, understanding, etcetera, but at the same time, we're building more and more technical debt, as the process evolves, being able to move from project to project, my team is ballooning, we can't do this, we can't keep growing, they're not going to give me another hundred head count, another hundred head count, so we're definitely need to manage it more appropriately. And that's where this mentality comes in there's-- >> All right, so I got a lot of questions. I want to start unpacking this stuff. So the scope piece, that's we're setting goals, identifying the metrics, success metrics, KPI's, and the like, okay, reasonable starting point. But then you go into this, I think you call it, the explore or understanding phase. What's that all about, is that where governance comes in? >> That's exactly where governance comes in. Right, so because it is, you know, we all know the expression, garbage in, garbage out, if you don't know what data you're working with for your machine learning and deep learning enterprise projects, you will not have the resource that you want. And you might think this is obvious, but in an enterprise setting, understanding where the data comes from, who owns the data, who work on the data, the lineage of that data, who is allowed access to the data, policies and rules around that, it's all important. Because without all of these things in place, the models will be questioned later on, and the value of the models will not realized, right? So that part of exploration or understanding, whatever you want to call it, is about understanding data that has to be used by the ML process, but then at a point in time, the models themselves need to be cataloged, need to be published, because the business as a whole needs to understand what models have been produced out of this data. So who built these models? Just as you have lineage of data, you need lineage of models. You need to understand what API's are associated with the models that are being produced. What are the business KPI's that are linked to model metrics? So all of that is part of this understand and explore path. >> Okay, and then you go to build. I think people understand that, everybody wants to start there, just start the dessert, and then you get into the sort of run and manage piece. Run, you want a time to value, and then when you get to the management phase, you really want to be efficient, cost-effective, and then iterative. Okay, so here's the hard question here is. What you just described, some of the folks, particularly the builders are going to say, "Aw, such a waterfall approach. Just start coding." Remember 15 years ago, it was like, "Okay, how do we "write better software, just start building! "Forget about the requirements, "Just start writing code." Okay, but then what happens, is you have to bolt on governance and security and everything else so, talk about how you are able to maintain agility in this model. >> Yeah, I was going to use the word agile, right? So even in each of these phases, it is an agile approach. So the mindset is about agile sprints and our two week long sprints, with very specific metrics at the end of each sprint that is validated against the line of business requirements. So although it might sound waterfall, you're actually taking an agile approach to each of these steps. And if you are going through this, you have also the option to course correct as it goes along, because think of this, the first step was scoping. The line of business gave you a bunch of business metrics or business KPI's they care about, but somewhere in the build phase, past sprint one or sprint 2, you realize, oh well, you know what, that business KPI is not directly achievable or it needs to be refined or tweaked. And there is that circle back with the line of business and a course correction as it was. So it's a very agile approach that you have to take. >> Are they, are they, That's I think right on, because again, if you go and bolt on compliance and governance and security after the fact, we know from years of experience, that it really doesn't work well. You build up technical debt faster. But are these quasi-parallel? I mean there's somethings that you can do in build as the scoping is going on. Is there collaboration so you can describe, can you describe that a little bit? >> Absolutely, so for example, if I know the domain of the problem, I can actually get started with templates that help me accelerate the build process. So I think in your group, for example, IBM internally, there are many, many templates these guys are using. Want to talk a little bit about that? >> Well, we can't just start building up every single time. You know, that's again, I'm going to use this word and really resonate it, you know it's not extensible. Each project, we have to get to the point of using templates, so we had to look at those initiatives and invest in those initiatives, 'cause initially it's harder. But at least once we have some of those cookie-cutter templates and some of them, they might have to have abstractions around certain parts of them, but that's the only way we're ever able to kind of tackle so many problems. So no, without a doubt, it's an important consideration, but at the same time, you have to appreciate there's a lot of projects that are fundamentally different. And that's when you have to have very senior people kind of looking at how to abstract those templates to make them reusable and consumable by others. >> But the team structure, it's not a single amoeba going through all these steps right? These are smaller teams that are, and then there's some threading between each step? >> This is important. >> Yeah, that's tough. We were just talking about that concept. >> Just talking about skills and >> The bind between those groups is something that we're trying to figure out how to break down. 'Cause that's something he recognizes, I recognize internally, but understanding that those peoples tasks, they're never going to be able to iterate through different enterprise problems, unless they break down those borders and really invest in the communication and building those tools. >> Exactly, you talk about full stack teams. So you, it is not enough to have coding skills obviously. >> Right. What is the skill needed to get this into a run environment, right? What is the skill needed to take metrics like not metrics, but explainability, fairness in the moderates, and map that to business metrics. That's a very different skill from Python coding skills. So full stack teams are important, and at the beginning of this process where someone, line of business throws 100 different ideas at you, and you have to go through the scoping exercise, that is a very specific skill that is needed, working together with your coders and runtime administrators. Because how do you define the business KPI's and how do you refine them later on in the life cycle? And how do you translate between line of business lingo and what the coders are going to call it? So it's a full stack team concept. It may not necessarily all be in one group, it may be, but they have to work together across these different side loads to make it successful. >> All right guys, we got to leave it there, the trains are backing up here at IBM CDO conference. Thanks so much for sharing the perspectives on this. All right, keep it right there everybody. You're watchin' "theCUBE" from San Francisco, we're here at Fisherman's Wharf. The IBM Chief Data Officer event. Right back. (bubbly electronic music)