· mpany doesn’t have unified view on the data that is available. Suspicions are raised about the reliability of data.
· Chaos because the numbers don’t match up. Chaos because the data in one desktop visualization or spreadsheet is different from another. Chaos because different formulas are being used and no one agrees on the definition for the same data element.
· This leads to data debates and finger pointing among the project teams. Business people don’t have confidence in their data or their colleagues’ data, so they spend valuable time debating the accuracy of information instead of making decisions.
· Having reliable data and deciding confidently based on that data help the company achieve its business goals.
· Not only does confidence in data enable you to work more efficiently, but it also leads to more time for innovation based on the insights gathered from the data. This can ultimately give the company a competitive advantage.
· Data’s source which is officially authorized must be used for all the visualizations and dashboards. Unclear or ambiguous definitions, inconsistent formulas, incomplete information, outdated data and ungoverned data analysis are some of the issues that need to be addressed.
· The data must be the most updated one which can be verified by having the complete access to the data source which can be done using a system software which gathers all the historical data of the company along with the external data sources.
· Another factor to consider is cleaning and cleansing of the data before developing dashboards and visualizations.
· Moreover, the data must be in a standardized format across all the company’s databases. For Example, currency and date format.
· Metadata must be updated regularly and the analysis system should have access controls in place that allow people to apply their various skillsets to the same problem while protecting data from unauthorized use.
· The future of the company depends on its ability to become a data-driven organization which in turn helps in better and easier decision making throughout the organization.
· Manager Finds downward trend in produced volumes at plant Y and reports it to his direct supervisor.
· Fall in production was caused by a previous decision in which the company chose to migrate the production of many products from Y to X due to tax benefits enjoyed by plant X.
· This gradually reduced the production and therefore the revenues of plant Y, consequently leading to the plant’s closure eventually.
· The problem was the vulnerability due to oscillations in volumes produced.
· Manager proposed alternative solutions to resolve the problem:
o Reduce the number of shifts worked as well as overtime.
o Change in product
· The alternative—change the product—was good to preserve the employment of all employees at the plant Y, since it could increase the profitability of the unit and would be an attempt to avoid the closure.
· This alternative would also have other consequences: there would be a reduction of the machine setup, cost reduction with internal transfer of byproducts and the maximization of financial return.
· The manager drew a spreadsheet with the products should be evaluated as to the ingredients, costs, technologies for collecting and analyzing data.
· In the period in which the analysis of the information to define the most appropriate product mix were made, different areas of the company were involved, including the regional area of marketing, the cost area, the area of research and development, the engineering area and plant X.
· The way the matter was discussed in the company allowed the units X and Y to cooperate in defining what products should be produced in each location, taking into account criteria such as cost, logistics and technology.
· The units were in a state of coopetition, i.e., cooperating and competing simultaneously. This situation of coopetition was interesting for both plants, since for some products unit X had lower manufacturing cost and for others the costs were higher.
· Due to company merger and acquisition, employees, managers and executives were unsure of the reorganization.
· Because of the reorganization, new strategy was implemented and had more aggressive goals.
· This lead to the fear among managers of not achieving the goals set by the organization.
· The manager thought of the execution of a Management Development Program involving the Directors.
· Through experience and expertise in the field of training, the manager believed that this program would create a sense of team among the Directors and CEO.
· This collaboration would strengthen them and leave them emotionally and technically prepared to address organizational changes and deliver the results expected by the new management.
· Further steps included analyzing the problem and propose solutions in organized manner to the directors.