Informatica Perspectives

I’ve just been reading a US Department of Education briefing document on improving data quality in education performance data. The report stresses the impact that low quality data can have on measuring the success of education programs. It discusses for example the numerous data quality problems identified in the “No child left behind” program established in 2001. The problems are typical – non-standardized data definitions, inconsistent data from different sources, data entry errors, lack of timeliness.

The briefing document outlines a broad set of data quality guidelines to be implemented right across the education system in the US – at State level, in Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and in schools themselves. The three foundation stones of the data quality framework outlined are:

• suitable technical infrastructure,
• a comprehensive dictionary of data definitions
• staff ownership, organization and training
The guidelines and policies defined in this document are in general fairly common to data quality and governance initiatives I have seen in companies and organizations across a range of industries.

However, what is interesting for me in this example is the sheer number of people, across all levels of the Education system, who will have specific responsibility for data quality. The guidelines recommend the following roles and responsibilities:

 State level: establish a chief information officer, a data quality office, and a data policy advisory committee.
 LEA level: establish a chief information officer, a data quality coordinator, and an NCLB data quality specialist. In small LEAs with few students and a small administrative staff, all functions might be performed by a single person or shared among all staff.
 School level: establish a data quality oversight team including data stewards responsible for each key data element. In small schools, the “team” might be a single staff member responsible for reviewing and verifying data collected at the LEA or State level and serving as a conduit for data quality information among the school, the LEA, and the State.”

This all adds up to a lot of people. If the guidelines are fully implemented across the US education system, then tens of thousands of individuals will have a defined role in data quality management. The document also recommends incentives for these data quality workers – both at an individual and at school level. The incentives should be both cautionary and motivational, according to the official guidelines.

This is a good example of the level of resources being mobilized in large organizations today to drive meaningful data quality improvement. It indicates just how important high quality data has become to overall business or institution success.

Note the document I refer to is freely available to all online via the following link:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/standardsassessment/nclbdataguidance.doc.