Organisational Data Maturity
Prepared for the DELVE Initiative by
Advances in machine learning over the last 5-10 years have generated interest across the private, public and third sector in the potential of advanced data analytics to enhance productivity and improve decision-making. Many organisations aspire to be data driven in their decision making, but are held back from achieving this goal by issues arising from the accessibility and availability of data between teams or collaborators. Data maturity frameworks can provide practical guidance for organisations seeking to improve their data management practices and create value from the data they hold. This document proposes a data maturity model with five levels, (i) reactive, (ii) repeatable, (iii) managed/integrated, (iv) optimized, and (v) transparent, alongside a set of indicators for organisations to analyse their current maturity level and ways of improving this.
https://rs-delve.github.io/addenda/2020/11/24/organizational-data-maturity.html.(2020), Organisational Data Maturity. DELVE Addendum DATA-TD1. Published 24 November 2020. Available from
Table of Contents
- The Interface with Science
- Case study: Met Office Informatics Lab COVID-19 Pangeo Environment
- Characterising Data Maturity
- Footnotes and References
One challenge that the DELVE group experienced was understanding how much resource was necessary to bring a particular data set up to the sufficient level of data readiness for use. This resource depends a great deal on what the data is, what its provenance is and who is managing it. Organizational Data Maturity is about the third of these three factors: who is managing the data.
Advances in machine learning over the last 5-10 years have generated interest across sectors in the potential of advanced data analytics to enhance productivity and improve decision-making within organisations. Many companies aspire to be data driven in their decision making. But even within these organizations, the accessibility and availability of data may be limited. Similar challenges apply to a range of organizations, including government departments, the health service, local authorities and even academic fields.1
In support of these aspirations, a variety of approaches to assessing data maturity have emerged in recent years. These seek to help organisations understand how their current data management practices help - or hinder - the use of data in decision-making, and the interventions that can contribute to more effective deployment of organisational data resources.2 Such interventions include technical measures (for example, adhering to data quality standards), organisational processes (for example, to share data across teams), or cultural change (for example, around how an organisation values or invests in managing its data).
The Interface with Science
This report discusses the actions needed to create data resources that can be readily deployed in data-enabled policy analysis. The cultural factors and operational processes that help create datasets that are ready for such deployment also contribute to an organisation’s data maturity and its ability to generate inter-organisational business insights through use of data, and vice versa - data readiness and data maturity are interlinked. One consequence of organizational data maturity is therefore the potential to contribute evidence to scientific analysis that can contribute to policymaking. Such analysis requires resources at the “Band A” level of data readiness,3 and happens through data as an Application Programming Interface (API).4
Different types of API have been developed to facilitate the use of data to tackle COVID-19. These have varied from simply updating and republishing publically accessible CSV files, to adding documentation and code, to that data processing functionality being shared between projects that use the data data, to controlling access in dedicated cloud compute environments. As one specific interface with the scientific community, the case study box below examines the Met Office Informatics Lab’s API.
Case study: Met Office Informatics Lab COVID-19 Pangeo Environment
There is still uncertainty about the role of weather as a direct factor in COVID-19 transmission rates, or as an indirect factor via the ways it affects people’s behaviour. As a result, there is a thin line between hypotheses becoming policy.1 To share weather data for understanding the interplay between COVID-19 and environmental factors, the Met Office instantiated a cloud API for research collaboration.
The Met Office has world-leading weather forecasts, and as an organization ingests millions of data observations from around the world every day. To be useful for COVID-19 research, it was published as part of an API that also contained ancillary information that allowed weather data to be joined with other data sources. Such information included so-called shape files of different geographic regions, which were helpful to align atmospheric data to the granularity of COVID-19 reporting.
To implement the API, the Met Office Informatics Lab made hourly and daily global gridded weather data, including air temperature, precipitation, shortwave radiation (sunshine) and humidity available2 through Microsoft Azure Blob Storage. Specific aggregations of this data for administrative regions in the UK, Italy and USA were included. The data interface with the broader scientific community was through a custom3 Pangeo4 environment, which included custom tools in Python and R, along with access to a Jupyter Lab Integrated Development Environment from which the data could be queried.
Data and compute access to the Pangeo environment was by request, followed by authentication through a data scientist’s Github account. It meant that researchers never had to copy terabytes of data to their own machines, but run processing scripts “where the data lived”. As one example, the DELVE Global COVID-19 Dataset5 includes population-weighted weather data for every day for every country where COVID-19 statistics are reported by the ECDC.6
Misconceptions about weather and seasonality must not misguide COVID-19 response, by Colin J. Carlson et al, in Nature Communications 11:4312 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18150-z ↩
Met Office and partners offer data and compute platform for COVID-19 researchers https://medium.com/informatics-lab/met-office-and-partners-offer-data-and-compute-platform-for-covid-19-researchers-83848ac55f5f, accessed 23 October 2020 ↩
Met Office Informatics Lab: Our new Pangeo architecture https://medium.com/informatics-lab/our-new-pangeo-architecture-bfc1b2b23658, accessed 11 November 2020 ↩
A community platform for Big Data geoscience https://pangeo.io/ ↩
DELVE Global COVID-19 Dataset https://rs-delve.github.io/data_software/global-dataset.html ↩
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control: COVID-19 pandemic https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19-pandemic ↩
Data Maturity Assessments
Whether “Band A” data is public, or in a controlled environment like the case study above, or completely private within an organization, it is the result of healthy data management. Different organizations have different levels of data maturity, reflecting their capability in implementing such management systems. Even within organizations, maturity will differ between different teams and groups.
In order for data readiness to improve, it is important to assess what a particular organization’s level is, and the action needed to improve current practices. The table below suggests a loose framework through which organizations could gauge their data maturity, consider how their ways of working contribute to the ‘readiness’ of their data resources, and better connect their aspirations for data sharing to the action required to enable this.
To reflect the fact that a number of specific skill-sets, as well as cultural approaches to data are required, we suggest the term data maturity to reflect the ability of organizations, teams and individuals to efficiently process data. We have created a provisional data maturity model with five levels of increasing maturity (i) reactive, (ii) repeatable, (iii) managed/integrated, (iv) optimized, and (v) transparent. In the table below we summarize these different levels of Data Maturity as five levels. Although many similar models exist,5 the intent of these levels is to be a starting point that should be adapted according to the specific context that it is applied in.
|Maturity Level||Data Sharing|
|1 Reactive||Data sharing is not possible or ad-hoc at best.|
|2 Repeatable||Some limited data service provision is possible and expected, in particular between neighboring teams. Some limited data provision to distinct teams may also be possible|
|3 Managed and Integrated||Data is available through published APIs; corrections to requested data are monitored and API service quality is discussed within the team. Data security protocols are partially automated ensuring electronic access for the data is possible.|
|4 Optimized||Teams provide reliable data services to other teams. The security and privacy implications of data sharing are automatically handled through privacy and security aware ecosystems.|
|5 Transparent||Internal organizational data is available to external organizations with appropriate privacy and security policies. Decision making across the organisation is data-enabled, with transparent metrics that could be audited through organisational data logs. If appropriate governance frameworks are agreed, data dependent services (including AI systems) could be rapidly and securely redeployed on company data in the service of national emergencies.|
For data quality to improve, we must first empower organizations to assess the levels of data maturity across their teams and departments. Below we provide a set of indicators that can be used for assessing Data Maturity. It is inspired by the “Joel test”6 for software development.7
Characterising Data Maturity
In this section we consider how organisations can assess their data maturity, by reviewing the ways in which best practice in data management and use is embedded in teams, departments, and business processes. These indicators are loosely themed according to the maturity level above. In practice, these characteristics would be reviewed in aggregate to give a holistic picture of data management across an organisation.8
Data sharing is not possible or ad-hoc at best.
a. It is difficult to identify relevant data sets and their owners.
b. It is possible to access data, but this may take significant time, energy and personal connections.
c. Data is most commonly shared via ad hoc means, like attaching it to an email.
d. The quality of data available means that it is often incorrect or incomplete.
Some limited data service provision is possible and expected, in particular between neighboring teams. Some limited data provision to distinct teams may also be possible.
a. Data analysis and documentation is of sufficient quality to enable its replication one year later.
b. There are standards for documentation that ensure that data is usable across teams.
c. The time and effort involved in data preparation are commonly understood.
d. Data is used to inform decision-making, though not always routinely.
3. Managed and Integrated
Data is available through published APIs; corrections to requested data are monitored and API service quality is discussed within the team. Data security protocols are partially automated ensuring electronic access for the data is possible.
a. Within the organisation, teams publish and share data as a supported output.
b. Documentation is of sufficient quality to enable teams across the organisation that were not involved in its collection to use it directly.
c. Procedures for data access are documented for other teams, and there is a way to obtain secure access to data.
Teams provide reliable data services to other teams. The security and privacy implications of data sharing are automatically handled through privacy and security aware ecosystems.
a. Within teams, data quality is constantly monitored, for instance through a dashboard. Errors could be flagged for correction.
b. There are well-established processes to allow easy sharing of high-quality data across teams and track how the same datasets are used by multiple teams across the organisation.
c. Data API access is streamlined by an approval process for joining digital security groups.
Internal organizational data is available to external organizations with appropriate privacy and security policies. Decision making across the organisation is data-enabled, with transparent metrics that could be audited through organisational data logs. If appropriate governance frameworks are agreed, data dependent services (including AI systems) could be rapidly and securely redeployed on company data in the service of national emergencies.
a. Data from APIs are combined in a transparent way to enable decision-making, which could be fully automated or through the organization’s management.
b. Data generated by teams within the organisation can be used by people outside of the organization.
Footnotes and References
We will refer to these entities as organizations in our text below. To reflect the hierarchical structures of these organizations, we will also refer to departments and teams as smaller sub-units of the wider organization. ↩
See, for example: https://datamaturity.esd.org.uk ; https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-steps-to-better-code/; https://www.cio.com/article/3077871/the-four-stages-of-the-data-maturity-model.html ; https://www.oreilly.com/content/10-signs-of-data-science-maturity/ ↩
Data Readiness Levels, by Neil D. Lawrence (2017) https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.02245 ↩
An API is an interface that defines the mode of interaction between different software intermediaries. If an API to data is made available, it means that the data can be accessed programmatically, i.e. by the software directly, without the need for direct human intervention. ↩
The idea of Data Maturity is by no means unique, and many others exist: there is the Dell Data Maturity Model https://www.cio.com/article/3077871/the-four-stages-of-the-data-maturity-model.html as well as many Big Data Maturity Models. Classic models like the Capability Maturity Model examine software processes. ↩
Developed to assess the quality of work produced by software teams, the Joel Test is Joel Spolsky’s series of 12 simple yes or no questions that can be used to identify areas for improvement in programming teams. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-steps-to-better-code/ ↩
This work also builds on previous engagement between the authors and others working in this area, in particular Daniel Marcu (2013). Machine Translation Maturity Models (unpublished notes) and Damon Civin (2017) https://medium.com/@damoncivin/the-joel-test-for-data-readiness-4882aae64753. ↩
To achieve this, each indicator could be assessed on a Likert scale. ↩