Ataccama Data Quality & Master Data Management

My main use case for Ataccama ONE Platform  is mastering my customer data like customer details, address, phone number, and email, as we experience a lot of duplicates. We use Ataccama ONE Platform  for mastering and making the data unique.

For example, I use Ataccama ONE Platform in my daily work to handle a customer called John Doe with the address as one single tree, and we have one more record with the same customer name John Doe but with the address as four single tree. The PIN of those two customers is the same, and even the phone numbers and emails are the same, so we have two customers. We use Ataccama ONE Platform to merge those two customers and have one unique record, which is one master record.

This is our primary purpose, and I do not have anything else to add about how I handle these kinds of data issues.

The best features Ataccama ONE Platform offers, which stand out to me the most, is the way it takes out the survivorship record from a group of customers' data or any type of data based on the match and merge rules that we apply. That is the unique feature and the most enhanced feature I have ever seen.

When it comes to match and merge rules, Ataccama ONE Platform is quite straightforward. You identify what rules you need based on your business requirement. For example, if you want to match and merge the customer based on the last name plus address, that is one rule. You can go to selection criteria and have the column selected, such as the last name and the address. Similarly, you can have multiple rules in the order by, such as first name, last name plus email or first name, last name plus phone. It is quite straightforward.

Ataccama ONE Platform has positively impacted my organization, and when we talk about big wins, initially our project had almost eighty million to ninety million customer records which were not pure data, as it had a lot of duplicates. Ataccama ONE Platform has helped us narrow it down to sixty-five million. We are still trying to lower it down more, which is a big win—at least a twenty million reduction in the data size or the storage size.

This reduction has impacted our team and business by reducing costs, but we are expecting more reduction. We are not fully satisfied and are expecting at least twenty to thirty percent more reduction, but it has improved our cost and performance.

There are multiple areas where Ataccama ONE Platform can be improved. One area is handling the huge volume, which has been one drawback as it gets slow, and the performance or speed gets slow when there is huge data. The second thing is that after every change and every match and merge rule you apply, you need to reprocess the entire record, which has to again go through the match and merge rules.

If there is any change, instead of reprocessing all the records manually, Ataccama should have an inbuilt functionality to handle the reprocessing of the historical records based on the new rules.

I have been using Ataccama ONE Platform for two years.

I would not say Ataccama ONE Platform is one hundred percent stable. I would rate it at seventy percent stable.

Ataccama ONE Platform's scalability does not handle increases in data or users well. As the volume increases, the performance of Ataccama ONE Platform decreases.

Customer support is very good with Ataccama ONE Platform. I would rate the customer support a nine.

I did not previously use a different solution before Ataccama ONE Platform.

I do not have the metrics, but I have seen a return on investment.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it was not very high. It was at a high end but not that high, and costing was a problem.

What made the costing a problem with Ataccama ONE Platform is related to licensing, as it is every one year.

Before choosing Ataccama ONE Platform, we evaluated other options, specifically IBM MDM , but we wanted to try a new option with better technology, so we opted for Ataccama ONE Platform.

There are many features, and I currently do not recall anything else.

I gave Ataccama ONE Platform a rating of seven out of ten due to the main reasons being the mastering of the data and the efficiency it has. The one negative point that caused me to reduce the score by three points is due to the not proper handling of huge volume.

The negative point I mentioned, specifically, that brought the score down for me is that when there is a huge data reprocessing, the reprocessing of the jobs takes almost more than ten hours to fifteen hours and that disrupts our business load. We cannot do those processing during the business hours and have to wait for non-business hours as it takes ten hours and we cannot have our system down for ten hours.

My advice to others looking into using Ataccama ONE Platform would be that if the data is under fifty million or forty million, Ataccama ONE Platform is the MDM  tool you might be looking for. It is good for mastering, data quality, and reprocessing. It is not my company that has the business relation, but my client which has a relationship as a partner with Ataccama ONE Platform.

I will say, as per the new technology that Ataccama ONE Platform is, it is a great start. Within a few years, it has captured a lot of market, and I am very hopeful that in the next few years it will be the most popular mastering and data quality tool worldwide. I rated Ataccama ONE Platform a seven out of ten.

Some of the use cases for Ataccama ONE included data quality, identifying and mapping to Collibra , which was their data governance tool. It was critical for them to interface directly with that tool. They also used Ataccama for connecting to their ticketing system and later for inline fixing of data quality issues, moving them to someone able to take that issue and do course correction.

We used Ataccama ONE to read data from the mainframe for a data quality perspective. There's a significant lack in that area with tools being able to interface with mainframe. MetLife has a diverse environment, including DB2 , Oracle, SQL Server , legacy, and vSAN  files. Being able to work in these various environments and put them to a single data quality tool was very appealing. Additionally, Ataccama supported AI and machine learning, which was one of the features I liked. Furthermore, we were able to interface bidirectionally with Collibra  for data governance, catching data quality issues before propagating through the system.

The interfacing to tools such as Collibra was somewhat cumbersome and required more thought. While it was possible to configure these interfaces, they required some coding. It would be beneficial if these interactions could be more plug-and-play and less code-intensive, making them more efficient and easier to set up.

Ataccama ONE has been in use for over two years. I am not with MetLife anymore, but I know they are still using it.

Ataccama ONE was quite stable. We went through one patch during my tenure, which went smoothly, and the updates were worth implementing, with no significant problems observed.

There was a concern with the architectural team about how much processing Ataccama ONE would need as usage scaled up. I did not experience any problems personally, but I understood their concerns regarding resource usage in the long run.

Customer service was excellent, and I would give it a ten out of ten. MetLife worked with senior developers who made a positive impact on our experience, and I would hope that smaller clients receive similar attention.

MetLife did not use a previous solution. Everything was custom handwritten before Ataccama.

The initial setup of Ataccama ONE was somewhat complex. We needed their technical team involved for setup and configuration, which is common for tools of this complexity. Once set up, adding new data quality elements was straightforward.

The implementation involved Ataccama's technical team as they helped engage with the setup and configuration.

I noticed the data quality issues faced previously by MetLife cost significantly more than the Ataccama solution itself. Legally, financially, and reputationally, addressing these data quality issues was crucial, and implementing Ataccama was a major step for them.

Ataccama ONE was competitively priced. However, MetLife experienced challenges during the legal process of set-up, due to disagreement on certain legal clauses.

We evaluated Collibra as they had just acquired OWL, but concerns about integration and stability with the new acquisition made us hesitant to rely on them as a primary solution. The acquisition came with the risk of developer turnover and adjustments, so we opted for Ataccama.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Ataccama a high nine. The tool met many of our needs effectively, and the ability to leverage machine learning was particularly advantageous.

The primary advantage lies in the platform's high degree of automation. Supervision requirements are minimal, and in case of any component failure or connection issues, detailed emails promptly notify us about the problem's location and nature. Similarly, upon resolution, we receive email notifications confirming the fix. This automated notification system is particularly beneficial, as earlier versions lacked such features, necessitating constant manual monitoring. With this improvement, we can redirect our attention to other priorities instead of continuously overseeing the platform, contributing significantly to our efficiency.

The desktop version of the solution was particularly valuable to me, primarily for creating components. We opted for the data quality aspect to assess the quality of our data warehouse. The functionalities available allowed us to not only check data quality but also serve as an ETL tool. This versatility enabled data transformation and storage in various formats, including files on platforms like SharePoint  or local online directories. The flexibility of the tool catered to the specific needs of those building components, contributing to our desired outcomes.

Speaking specifically about the version we use, version 12.3, I'm unsure if this has been addressed in subsequent versions. One improvement I'd like to see pertains to the language used in certain components, especially in data quality checks. The language complexity posed a challenge for beginners. Although we had on-site assistance from Ataccama, making it manageable for us, some individuals found it difficult to comprehend, necessitating additional support. The provision of a comprehensive guide for on-premise installation can also be enhanced. The lack of detailed information on the solution's workings and the overwhelming nature of notifications, with extensive content, were areas of concern. Streamlining the notification content in newer versions would significantly expedite issue resolution.

I have been using Ataccama for eight to nine months.

We did encounter a few issues, primarily surfacing around two years post-implementation. These were largely related to network issues. Notably, when there were updates to the database, the application, at times utilizing Jenkins , faced challenges with restarts for both the application and the database. While this was the main hurdle, I currently cannot recall any additional significant challenges.

We haven’t applied this solution in a scalable setting, so I can’t comment on this aspect.

We have the customer support, but there is no particular assigned support facility for us.

I played a role solely in the migration process from the old version to the new version and was not engaged in the IT aspects, such as configuring equipment, setting code for installation, managing firewalls, etc. The installation process involved a company called Adastra. They were present on-site for approximately two to three months, overseeing installation, workforce setup, and providing explanations on system operations. Following this period, we solely relied on our in-house team, as we had no ongoing support arrangement with Ataccama.

Our licensing model wasn't user-specific; instead, we paid fees for the engine and maintenance. As we didn't have a support contract, maintenance fees were likely nonexistent. Regarding the upgrade, we had an account for the initial two or three years, and considering the features provided by the solution, the pricing was reasonable.

Ataccama’s website offers comprehensive guides enabling users to acquaint themselves with the solution, its benefits, current features, and future advancements. The guides are well-structured, focusing not only on the data port aspect but also on broader functionalities like data cataloging and data lineage. The solution provides a holistic view of the entire data flow, including source systems, data warehouse, transformations, and relevant details such as why and how changes occurred. For business users, it facilitates insights into data definitions, creators, and modification history. This extensive information is available when utilizing the complete package, distinguishing it from prior versions that primarily emphasized the data quality part.

Based on all factors, I would rate it 8 out of 10.

Primarily, the use cases pertain to the governance classification of metadata.

The notable aspect lies in the workflow structure, where building the workflow aligns significantly with data governance. They extract rules, and create factor automation, ensuring streamlined governance, especially for similar classifieds. The process involves defined steps and adjustable parameters that seamlessly integrate into the worklist components. Daily operations and background runs are accommodated within the workflow, maximizing possibilities for Acronis use cases. Data profiling and masking, where understanding data details is crucial for security without compromising confidentiality. is well-utilized across different fronts, offering a user-friendly experience for making decisions on data storage, classification, and mapping. The front-end interface is particularly commendable, facilitating easy understanding, and the back-end process in Ataccama ensures the completion of classifier profiling and metadata tagging.

The focus for future improvements lies in strengthening the handling of unstructured data. This entails adapting to new environments, extracting data from platforms such as Slack or Teams, and creating workflows that integrate governance, data privacy, and policy considerations. While the structured data aspect is robust, the current emphasis is on working with restructured databases. There is a notable challenge in having to provide detailed filters before the site recognizes the search criteria. While it facilitates global searches, improvements in the search bar functionality are essential for a more user-friendly experience.

I have been using it for approximately two years.

Dealing with massive amounts of data, I've observed occasional minor hiccups during maintenance or required upgrades. Apart from these instances, I haven't encountered any significant challenges in maintaining Ataccama. The maintenance aspect is straightforward, and I've even witnessed my admin team handling it with ease. Overall, I would say it is stable and reliable.

Considering the extensive data volume in the company-assigned project, which involves working with data ranging from millions to billions, the scalability of Ataccama is quite evident. Specifically, in dealing with metadata, it proves to be highly scalable. The organization heavily relies on it, being integrated with another governance product, Collibra.

I would rate the support that they provide seven out of ten.

Both Collibra and Ataccama are fully functional for all users, including service teams, third-party vendors, and client members.

The initial setup, particularly when it comes to prioritizing and implementing policies, is extremely user-friendly and lightweight.

Despite not being extremely low-cost, the pricing appears reasonable, making it a profitable and viable choice for companies that prioritize data security and adhere to specific policies.

It is an ideal choice for companies prioritizing lineage, stringent data policies, and security measures. Specifically beneficial for businesses handling highly secure data like US customer information with policies such as CPNI, its selection is driven by its alignment with business needs. The platform ensures a secure and efficient solution, minimizing complexity compared to alternative products, and proves to be a strong choice when aligned with the unique needs and demands of the project. Overall, I would rate it seven out of ten.