Property and Asset Management (PAM) data project weeknotes w/c 05.08.19

This week we focused on two main areas: continuing to better understand the scale of the issues with property and asset management data and also starting to think about how we might use the LLPG to address some of these issues (awful pun not-intended).

In order to make sure that we were aligned with other work that had been done in this area we spoke to Ian Marriot and team (including +Clayton Daniel as our demo-master) who explained the thinking that has guided their efforts on the Property Index. This tool compares data on Universal Housing (UH) and Codeman (the asset management system PAM uses currently).

This gave us a helpful overview of the scale of some of the data quality issues and also a view of some of the things they’ve considered to improve them. There were some headline numbers (more dwellings on UH than Codeman), which had reasonable explanations (UH includes additional dwelling types like temporary accommodation), but others that revealed more of a problem (blocks or sub-blocks marked as disabled on Codeman but not marked on UH).

In addition to this we have started to put together a list of all the teams / services in Hackney that make direct use of PAM data and which data items they are interested in. This will help us to start to build a picture of which data items are the mainstream ones that we need to be accommodating in our solution.

It has also helped us hone our thinking on where we draw the line in terms of which data elements to add into the LLPG to ensure we can maintain data quality (of both our address data itself which is super important to protect, as well of PAM data itself). We’ll need to come up with some clear criteria to test with PAM colleagues in the next sprint.

This week we have started to look in more detail at the LLPG itself. This has prompted a discussion about how we will test the hierarchies in the LLPG. We have discussed the merits of cross referencing vs parent child relationships as a method of creating our hierarchies in the LLPG.

We chose to test cross referencing rather than parent child as parent child itself would not allow us to have enough layers in the hierarchy due to limitations of the LLPG structure and software we use to maintain it. We considered a hybrid of parent child and cross-refs, but in our discussions parent child did not seem to have any significant benefit.

Before the end of this sprint we’ll be talking through the pros and cons of this approach with the Dev team, Apps Management and other Data & Insight reps to get some healthy challenge and ensure that our proposed approach won’t cause unnecessary work for them down the line in surfacing PAM data for applications or reporting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.