There are countless
ways to oversee and manage your corporate data. But, the approach you take will likely determine the success
or failure of your data governance initiative.
Some companies will
take a “passive” approach, giving users the ability to freely interact with
information in back-end systems, then monitoring the results of those
interactions – after the fact – using various reporting and data assessment
tools. Others will be more proactive, monitoring the way data is created,
modified, and handled in real-time as these tasks are performed, so problems
can be detected and corrected before “bad” data is introduced into the
operating system environment.
In this post, we will
discuss the many problems that may arise when companies take a passive approach
to data governance, and highlight the reasons why active data governance is the
more effective route to take.
The key issue with
passive data governance is the fact that, once invalid or incorrect information
enters a database, it’s potential to create problems immediately begins. In the time between when a user adds
the bad data, and a tool identifies its existence and “cleanses” it, an incorrect
bill may be sent to a customer, an inaccurate work order may be transmitted to
a field service technician, or even worse, an invalid report may be sent to a
regulatory body. Therefore,
catching corrupt information beforehand is critical, particularly in heavily
regulated sectors such as financial services and healthcare.
Bad data within a
corporate environment can also lead to interruptions in core business
processes. Downtime can be
particularly significant if the poor quality information in question triggers
or is consumed by automated workflows.
These disruptions not only drain worker productivity, they can
negatively affect revenue generation.
And, most
importantly, the validation and correction of bad data after the fact will
require more resources than the proactive monitoring of data activities. The amount of time and cost associated
with scanning a massive database for integrity issues, then cleansing or
deleting corrupt information, far surpasses the resources needed to flag
suspicious data interactions as they occur, and validate them on the fly.
While passive data
governance can serve as a highly effective secondary measure, catching the one
or two errors or inconsistencies that may mistakenly bypass more active
monitoring measures, the truth is that active data governance is the only true
way to promote optimum information accuracy, timeliness, and completeness
across an entire business.
The value of data is
simply immeasurable to today’s corporations, and the speed at which information
flows throughout and beyond an organization leaves little room for error. Even the slightest problem with data
integrity, even if for a short period of time, could be detrimental to
operational efficiency, profitability, and regulatory compliance.
To learn more about
governing your data, or for tips to help optimize your data governance
strategy, visit our Web site at www.croyten.com.
Comments