SHARE
Follow this article on Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Bookmark and Share
Home >> Information Architecture

Old data quality models are ‘so nineties’: Prof

Old data quality models are ‘so nineties’: Prof

By:  Kathleen Lau  On: 01 Sep 2010 For: ComputerWorld Canada Creator

A University of Texas professor has released a study that will help businesses measure the impact of poor data quality on financial performance. The new data attributes he’s identified and why senior execs will pay attention

Data quality in the enterprise has long been solely about accuracy and real-time access, but a university professor is pushing a new model that better reflects today’s realities, and is making available benchmarks for businesses to determine how financial performance is affected.

“That’s so nineties kind of thinking, my gosh,” said Anitesh Barua, a distinguished teaching professor and lead researcher at the University of Texas in Austin, of traditional data quality models.

Barua has augmented the old data quality model with new attributes like intelligence, remote accessibility and sales mobility (data accessed through sales apps). He then measured 150 global Fortune 500 companies along these attributes as well as their overall performance to create a series of charts and graphs with which companies can measure certain financial metrics that are key indicators of competitiveness, health and profitability.

“Back then if we had accurate data that was good enough. Now we’re asking if there is intelligence in it … is it data or is it actionable information?” said Barua.

The current reality of a mobile and remote workforce has changed the scope of work and, too, altered the traditional data quality model, he said.

The research was conducted jointly by the University of Texas and the Indian School of Business.

The study found that certain data quality attributes have a direct impact on employee productivity, return on equity, return on invested capital, and return on assets, said Barua.

For instance, the report offers guidance such as if a business improves a particular data attribute by X per cent, then the expected benefit with respect to return on assets is Y per cent.

Barua said the advantage of tying data quality to financial metrics is it attracts the attention of the right people. “If we want senior management to be really involved in this stuff — the CEO, CFO, COO — to take notice, we have to demonstrate that when we do these things, ultimately it’s felt at the enterprise level,” he said.

The study also looked at the degree to which each data attribute had been developed in terms of importance and awareness among respondents. Least well-developed was intelligence of data, a finding not surprising to Barua who said data intelligence is much more broad than the narrow sales and customer focus that businesses afford it.

Remote accessibility of data was the most well-developed, considering a workforce that is increasingly mobile and remote.


Sign up for our Newsletters












Print |  Views: 2711   |   Rating:offoffoffoffoff  (0 votes)
Rate this article on a scale of
1 to 5 stars,5 being the best.




Kathleen Lau Kathleen Lau was a senior writer with ITWorldCanada.com and ComputerWorld Canada from December 2006 to August 2011.In her role as senior writer, she covered broadly technology news and issues r... more

Comments (3)

Martin Sarabura
by Martin Sarabura 9/2/2010 9:01:56 PM

Where is the information published?

Richard Ordowich
by Richard Ordowich 9/5/2010 10:53:46 AM

Measuring the impact of IT and data quality and data governance is not new. The challenge has been coming up with measures for costs to improve data and measures to assess the impact. Others have published articles on this subject before but the examples are anecdotal or they describe a single instance of a data error such as someone keying in a wrong value as indicative of a pervasive problem or give the impression that a data quality improvement program could have prevented the error from occurring. Trying to assess the value of information is also very elusive. Ignoring the fact that this study was sponsored by a commercial organization there appears to be an attempt to embellish the results with terms like “dramatic” improvement. In addition I could find no substantiation for statements such as “The cost of increasing effective data is relatively minor compared to the resulting substantial returns.” This assumes there is no cost to increasing effective data. Or this statement “In an era of hyper-competition where every enterprise is jockeying for position to remain competitive and profitable, investing in better data still appears to be a low-hanging fruit.”. Yes there are examples of low hanging fruit but organizations who have improved their data had to go much further than just addressing the low hanging fruit opportunities. I don’t understand this statement “Fortune 1000 business were to increase the mobility of its sales organization’s data by just 10% and the amount of capital is held constant, net income would increase by $5.4 million each year.” Does this imply that there is no additional capital required to improve the effectiveness of data?

What is difficult in justifying data quality and data governance projects is coming up with a defensible business case or ROI. I’m not sure this study helps achieve this goal.

Brian Keedwell
by Brian Keedwell 9/7/2010 10:45:48 AM

In the long run ROI is a function of Operating profit and Invested capital. Leaving aside invested capital for a moment, operating profit depends mainly on EFFECTIVENESS (E) of processes. Process effectiveness has two components a)process QUALITY (what the process generates) and b) process PRODUCTIVITY (a function of what the process costs to conduct).

Quality and Productivity of processes are related by E = f(Q,P) - almost always an S-curve.

Given recent breakthroughs in communication technology by far, by far the greatest opportunity today for sustainable competitive advantage is to TRANSFORM MOBILE PROCESSES - and within those the Selling and Delivering of SERVICES such as CONSULTATIVE SELLING and FIELD ENGINEERING are the low-hanging fruit.

Now it's time to think about the financial and other metrics! The metrics are the basis for setting of TOLERANCES on FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS on PROCESSES.

AXIOMATIC DESIGN of processes is one answer - certainly not band-width and esoteric mobile devices.

Name: (required) eMail: (optional)

Your email address will not appear online and will be used only if the editor wishes to contact you personally for additional comments.