DM p20-21 Capscan Paper Feb09.qxp 29/01/2009 13:18 Page 20
White Paper: Data Quality
A
survey, commissioned from MCC tions of their data match reality, and are words and
International by Capscan and conducted in intentions being matched with actions?
August 2008, provides a mixed picture of These and other questions were tackled by the sur-
data quality management in the businesses surveyed. vey of readers of CBR Online. Some 189 completed
Most organisations saw data quality management questionnaires were received with the readers skewed
as primarily the responsibility of those in marketing towards higher management (particularly in IT) with-
and IT, and of sufficient importance to merit the in large organisations and mostly within the United
attention of senior management. They do, however, Kingdom. Almost 70% of respondents were at IT
continue to see data quality as the responsibility of management or director level. In total, 78% of
an individual or department, rather than of all staff. respondents managed a contact database internally.
Respondents overestimate the quality of their data
and are less aware of the damage that poor quality KEY FINDINGS
data can do to their business. Few have the necessary
processes, tools or strategic will to take action to Responsibility
improve data quality. Data is still not measured or Some 11.1% pointed to upper management as
financially valued and contact information collected responsible; 30% to the IT department; 22.2% to the
marketing department; 5.8% to the sales department.
Data quality:
Yet only a single person gave the response which
shows true understanding of data quality: “All staff”.
All staff who contribute to, and consume data
understand the importance of maintaining quality to
perception v
the future of their organisation, and to be responsible
for their part in that process. Allowing a false sense of
security to allowing staff to point at somebody else as
being responsible – an “it’s their problem” attitude –
will lead to a lower level of data quality.
reality
Though only 40.7% of companies had an enter-
prise-wide data quality management policy in place,
87.3% named a staff position as being responsible for
data quality.
The results of a survey commissioned by Capscan and
The preponderance of IT staff regarded by respon-
dents as being responsible for data quality is also
carried out late last year paint a very mixed picture of
indicative of an issue within data quality.
data quality management in the organisations surveyed,
Traditionally, IT staff have been responsible for the
finds Graham Rhind in this White Paper.
data container: the programming, the architecture,
the hardware. They rarely appreciate that the impor-
tance lies not with the container but with its con-
in many cases is still not checked or validated, tents: the data.
despite its value and importance. A significant positive result, though, is the
Some of the more forward thinking organisations increased representation of upper management with-
have invested in data management technologies, the in those named as responsible for data quality,
most popular being address, identity and data quality reflecting the increased weight that some organisa-
management solutions and banking validation soft- tions are giving to data quality issues. Some 88% of
ware. In contrast, the penetration, use and awareness respondents state that their organisations view data
of data screening services amongst those surveyed quality as important or fairly important.
were still fairly low.
Perception and action
The challenge There is a marked contrast between words and
Data quality is not a purely operational or technolog- actions. Whilst almost all organisations gave some
ical issue. A significant improvement in data quality degree of importance to data quality issues, a very
can be achieved through a change in the way compa- much lower 41% states that they have an enterprise-
nies and their staff perceive their data and its quality. wide strategy. The use of software and processes to
To what extent does senior management buy in to improve and protect data quality is relatively low.
the need to improve data quality, and are resources Software with the highest implementation degree is
available? How do companies perceive the quality of de-duplication software at 32%. This would suggest
their data, and who is responsible it? Are policies in that the other 68% will have duplicate-ridden data-
place to manage data quality? Do people’s percep- bases. Address validation software was present in only
20 Database Marketing February 2009 www.dmarket.co.uk
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48