This is the first in a series of mini-posts based on what I’ve
been hearing at IBM IOD. They are
mini-posts because there are too many thoughts here worth at least mentioning,
and hence no time to develop the thoughts fully.
One key difference with past vendor data-related
presentations is the prominence of the “data scientist.” I wish folks hadn’t chosen that term; I find
it confuses more than it enlightens, giving a flavor of scientific rigor, data
governance, and above all emphasis on unmassaged, unenlightening data. Rather, I see the “data scientist” more as an
analyst using Big Data to generate company-valuable informational insights
iteratively, building on the last insight – “information analyticist” for
short. Still, it appears we’re stuck
with “data scientist”.
The reason I think users ought to pay attention to the data
scientist is that in business terms, he or she is the equivalent of the agile
developer for information leveraging.
The typical data scientist, as presented in past studies, goes out and
whips up analysis after analysis to pursue cost-cutting or
customer-insight-using insights. This is
particularly useful to the CMO, who is now much more aware of the need to
understand the customer better and get the organization in sync with company
strategy – because they are often entirely unmotivated to do so now as a result
of cost-cutting focuses.
Effectively, a focus on the data scientist as the spearpoint
of a Big Data strategy ensures that such a strategy is far more likely to be
successful, because it will be based on the latest customer data rather than
senior executive opinion. If vendors
truly want Big Data to be successful, the data scientist role in an
organization is one that they and the firms themselves badly need to encourage.
1 comment:
Its Brilliant knowledge For Software & Economics.Software and Economics is so good.
Post a Comment