Tuesday, 13 August 2013

What happens when the audit trail meets a data migration?

This is a post inspired by the T-SQL Tuesday blog party series; this month (#45) the topic is hosted by SQLMickey. The topic this month is Auditing, so I thought I'd write some thoughts on how to deal with auditing when doing a system migration.

Most systems have an audit trail of sorts, for legal or compliance reasons,  or possibly just to make the system administrator's life easier. The idea is that this forms a permanent record of who did what, when.

What happens to this when it's time to change the system or migrate the data out to a new system?  How so you retain the audit trail, both of the old system and prove the methods used to transfer the data haven't changed it?

There are many types of audit trail, including paper based ones, but during IT projects focus is usually concentrated on the electronic ones built into systems. Usually, you cannot import the trail from an old system into your new system, as that would imply an editable audit trail. This means that you have to use another method in order to maintain traceability and the link between the old system including the data in it and the new.
If the old system is being maintained then it may be sufficient to simply keep the old system logs where they are, and keep accurate records as proof of how this was transferred to the new system.
During the planning stages of an ETL migration it is likely that documentation will have been developed and this can be retained as proof of how the data was to be migrated.

This may be in the form of data maps, or instructions, but needs to be at the detailed level necessary to provide the required traceability.

By migrating data between systems you break the continuity of the records, so it is important that the records you keep are sufficient, and I find that it's best to involve the person from the business who has to defend items to an external auditor at an early stage, as they need to be comfortable that sufficient records are kept. This may involve data that will change as part of the migration, particularly when changing between systems that have a different way of organising data internally - but in my experience this is not important if proper records are kept such that the data can be related - in either direction - in the future.

If an old system is being decommissioned, it is important to decide whether the audit trail needs to be kept, and if so for how long, as this may be different to how long the data itself needs to be kept. You may also have decisions to make as to the form in which the data is kept - often this is linked to the cost of storage, for example if storing it in the previous system means that a licence would need to be maintained to access the information, but the sanctity of the audit trail must also be considered if the data is to be exported from the system.

A final point I would make is that however you retain this continuity between the data before and after migration, it is sensible to get someone else to review your work - both in terms of requirements and implementation, and document it so that even your decisions about the audit trail are audited.

No comments:

Post a Comment