The EU meet* of the American Petroleum Institute’s Petroleum Industry Data Exchange was held earlier this year in Stavanger, Norway. Keynote speaker Jim Abery (CapGemini) explained that although the process of converting data to information looks simple, it is full of pitfalls—from incomplete data capture, poor data cleansing en route and a general acceptance of such limitations by stakeholders. Master data is no exception with multiple legacy systems, inconsistent schemas and poor governance. All of which results in duplicates and inaccuracies and a ‘vicious circle’ of corrupt data with major costs, downtime, and unnecessary inventory. Abery recommends a two stage fix combining a ‘retrospective’ intervention on legacy data and processes and a forward planning of future IM requirements and prioritization. This includes design and implementation of a master data governance model, training and data cleansing. According to Abery, studies suggest that 80% of IT investment fails to meet expectations. Poor data rather than IT is increasingly seen as the root cause of such failure.
Bjorn Tesdal related StatoilHydro’s experience of synchronizing materials master data. This two-stage process involved legacy data clean-up and the implementation of SAP Master Data Management. The process produced some quick wins for StatoilHydro. Some 30% of 247,000 material masters were identified as obsolete in the clean-up process resulting in estimated savings of NOK 185 Million. Abery warned, ‘MDM is not magic. It requires hard work and cooperation between the central team and end users.’
* www.oilit.com/links/0906_11.
© Oil IT Journal - all rights reserved.