Washington State Department of Ecology : Facility/Site Home

Facility/Site Resolution Protocol

The Scenario: Different Ecology databases, tracking many of the same facilities, are being linked together into the Facility/Site Identification System (F/S System). As part of the linking process, someone is trying to enter a new or ‘candidate’ facility in the F/S System. The Data Migration Engine (DME) first does its work and finds a possible match with an existing facility already in the system (in ‘production’). There’s a discrepancy between the candidate’s name (or some other ID data element) and the name in the production system. By most accounts (name, location, lat/long, facility address, mailing address, etc.), they look to be the same facility. Assuming they are the same facility…

• Which name, spelling, or data element is correct?
• How will the discrepancy be resolved?
• Who will input the resolution into the F/S System?

The Goal:

• Resolve the discrepancy in such a way that it is simple, consistent with the facility, and consistent with the F/S System’s naming and address standards.
• As part of the discrepancy resolution process, ensure good coordination and communication between the people using the various systems being linked together. As some changes will be necessary in order to resolve discrepancies, timely and clear notification of these changes is essential.
• Make the changes as needed in the F/S System, with a reference to who made a given change and when.

The Protocol: Who does the sleuthing? The person initially trying to enter the new record is to do the sleuthing. This person is assumed to be working with a ‘candidate’ record (within the DME), trying to match it with a facility record already found in the F/S System (production). This person will take the lead in reconciling that particular record. This data discrepancy detective will be referred to as the ‘reconciler’. The reconciler must be well versed in the F/S System’s naming/address standards before beginning the following process. Contact Ecology’s current Database Administrator for more about these standards, if necessary.

1. Check your own data first. Confirm your own source of the data item in question first. This may mean reviewing your own program’s paper files or contacting your regional program or field staff. The goal is to obtain a documented reference (in print) from the facility that will verify the item in question. If there is more than one document on file, the most recent will be used. If your candidate record IS NOT consistent with your own program’s document(s), modify your candidate record as needed, being sure to follow the system’s naming and address standards. Re-attempt a match within the DME.
   
   If your most recent document IS consistent with your candidate record and there’s still a discrepancy (i.e. the reconciler’s program data/document are still in disagreement with the production data) . . .
2. Call others within the Resolution Group for help. See which of your co-workers can help you. Look at the facility’s "Interactions" within the F/S System (the production data), identify which other program(s) have already entered this facility into the System. Noting the facility’s county of location, the reconciler will then know who to contact by program and by regional office for more information. The reconciler then contacts the appropriate person(s) from the resolution Group list – (see below) and explains the nature of the discrepancy. The reconciler may need to provide a paper copy of the record/item in question, or a facility ID # (generated by the F/SSystem, or elsewhere) to the others contacted to help clarify the discrepancy.
3. Have the other program(s) compare and verify their own records. If the reconciler’s own candidate record is consistent with a current (most recent) document from the facility, the reconciler will note the date of that document and share it (over the phone, via FAX, e-mail, etc.) with the others contacted in the resolution group.

It will be the responsibility of the others contacted by the reconciler to search for a more recent document from the same facility (within their own respective files). If found, the others must reply right away (phone or e-mail) and provide a copy of the document (item in question) to the reconciler as soon as possible, again, only if it is more recent that the one cited by the reconciler.

***(How much time should be allowed for this step? A day? A week? More?)***

The most recent document from the participating programs will be determined by the reconciler, and will be considered the most accurate source to be used for the F/S System. The program holding the most recent document will be responsible for updating the appropriate information in the F/S System as soon as possible. Make sure to notify the other programs of any changes made, as described in steps 2, 5, and 6. The reconciler will update their own candidate record accordingly.

If an ID data discrepancy still exists . . . it will likely be due to two or more inconsistent documents from the same facility, from approximately the same time (dates may not match exactly). So, at the reconciler’s discretion . . . (otherwise, the most recent date rule will apply.)

4. Call the facility and ask. The reconciler is then responsible to contact the facility for a resolution. The reconciler is guided to first contact the facility person referenced on the most recent document, whenever possible. The next contact to try would be the one identified within the reconciler’s own data files (program). Subsequent contacts should come from the next most recent documents, and/or as advised by other Ecology employees having recent direct contact with the facility (regional/field staff, etc.).

Explain the discrepancy (cite conflicting documents) to the facility contact and ask how they want to resolve it -–exactly. The facility has the final word on their name. We will shorten the facility name only if it is too long to fit, and then only by abbreviations already noted within Ecology’s standards, if possible. Ecology’s mailing address standards will be applied unless there’s an agreed upon (and documented) reason not to by the Resolution Group.

While speaking with the facility contact, read the proposed resolution back, confirming the spelling/numbers in question. Keep a written record of the conversation and resolved item as it should be in the F/S System. This must include: (a) the contact person’s name; (b) contact person’s position in the facility; (c) your (reconciler’s) name; and (d) the date. It will be the reconciler’s responsibility to update the F/S System as soon as possible, if the change is based on such a call to the facility.

5. Convey the resolution to others. As soon as practicable, and preferably before updating the F/S System, let the others with whom you’ve been working know of the proposed resolution. Anyone NOT OK with a proposed change is expected to produce and provide to the reconciler something more current in writing from the facility, or accept the change.
6. Provide written records of such changes. At the weekly Data Merge meetings, these changes will be made available in print, and via a Microsoft WORD file. They will be consolidated into an on-going file, to be maintained by Ecology’s Database Administrator, for institutional memory.

In Summary . . . the key to the success of this process will be clear and timely communication within the Resolution Group. Many discrepancies are expected. Data discrepancies are not to be taken as a reflection on any individual or program. Teamwork is critical here. Resolution is based on documents from, or contact with, the facility/company in question. Personal judgment should be avoided. Questions, which will surely arise, should be addressed first by this protocol and secondly by the Resolution Group, as a team. The entire group will be responsible for testing, using, and improving this protocol!