Too often I see a number of people in an organisation access data at the source and it’s uncertain if they have manipulated the data. Knowing that there is an element of uncertainty puts a cloud over the data’s integrity. For there to be rigour around data and establishing data lineage, someone needs to own data in an organisation. Even if a company doesn’t have the capacity to employ a Chief Data Officer, a data owner or data steward needs to be nominated to be responsible for the process in which the data is sourced, interpreted and reported.
If one person retrieves data about an asset and some changes are made, it’s the responsibility of the owner to know where it’s going, what report it’s being added to and how it may join other data to tell or shape a particular story.
It’s also the expectation from management that the people reviewing the data are aware of its source, lineage, how it has been changed and the governance framework set around it.
If you point to a number on a report and ask “where did that number come from?” and no one can tell you, there lies the problem. All data should be able to be traced back to its true origin so that when these numbers are audited or there is a question mark hanging over the data, there is a comprehensive explanation. If this traceability is lacking, the value of the data has been lost.
Not taking these crucial measures has significant repercussions and it can be costly for any organisation. Around the world, there are numerous examples of where bad data has been costly on an epic scale: from elections to financial data and marketing to asset related data. In terms of infrastructure, there have been roads and bridges designed and sometimes built in the wrong location because the data had been changed without being validated against other sources. Mistakes are often made because the data has been tampered with along the way without the end users knowledge.