Data do not exist just for data geeks and nerds. All of these data activities are inevitably funded by people who want to harness business value out of data. Whether it is about increasing revenue or reducing cost, in the end, the data game is about creating tangible value in forms of dollars, pounds, Euros or Yuans.
It really has nothing to do with the coolness of the toolsets or latest technologies, but it is all about the business — plain and simple. In other words, the data and analytics field is not some playground reserved for math or technology geeks, who sometimes think that belonging to exclusive clubs with secret codes and languages is the goal in itself. At the risk of sounding like an unapologetic capitalist, data don’t flow if money stops flowing. If you doubt me, watch where the budgets get cut first when going gets rough.
Data and analytics folks may feel secure, as they may know something in which non-technical people may not be well-versed in the age of Big Data. Maybe their bosses leave techies alone in a corner, as technical details and math jargon give them headaches. Their jobs may indeed be secure, for as long as the financial value coming out of the unit is net positive. Others may tolerate some techie talk, condescending attitudes, or mathematical dramas, for as long as data and analytics help them monetarily. Otherwise? Buh-bye geeks!
I am writing this piece to provide a serious attitude adjustment to some data players. If data and analytics are not for geeks, but for the good of businesses (and all of the decision-makers who may not be technical), what does useful information look like?
Allow me to share some ideas for all the beneficiaries of data, not a selected few who speak the machine language.
- Data Must Be in Forms That Are Easy to Understand without mathematical or technical expertise. It should be as simple and easy to understand as a weather report. That means all of the data and statistical modeling to fill in the gaps must be done before the information reaches the users.
- Data Must Be Small, not mounds of unfiltered and unstructured information. Useful data must look like answers to questions, not something that comes with a 500-page data dictionary. Data players should never brag about the size of the data or speed of processing, as users really don’t care about such details.
- Data Must Be Accurate. Inaccurate information is worse than not having any at all. Users also must remember that not everything that comes out of computers is automatically accurate. Conversely, data players must be responsible to fix all of the previous mistakes that were made to datasets before they even reached them. Not fair, but that’s the job.
- Data Must Be Consistent. It can be argued that consistency is even more important than sheer accuracy. Often, being consistently off may be more desirable than having large fluctuations, as even a dead clock is completely accurate twice a day. This is especially true for information that is inferred via statistical work.
- Data Must Be Applicable Most of the Time, not just for limited cases. Too many data are locked in silos serving myopic purposes. Data become more powerful when they are consolidated properly, reaching broader audiences.
- Data Must Be Accessible to users through devices of their choices. Even good information that fits the above criteria becomes useless if it does not reach decision-makers when needed. Data players’ jobs are not done until data are delivered to the right people in the right format and a timely manner.
Who are these data players who should be responsible for all of this, and where do they belong? They may have titles such as Chief Data Officer (who would be in charge of data governance); Data Strategist or Analytics Strategist: Data Scientist; Statistical Analyst or Program Developer. They may belong to IT, marketing, or a separate data or analytics department. No matter. They must be translators of information for the benefit of users, speaking languages of both business and technology fluently. They should never be just guard dogs of information. Ultimately, they should represent the interests of business first, not waving some fictitious IT or data rules.
So-called specialists, who habitually spit out reasons why certain information must be locked away somewhere and why they should not be available to users in a more user-friendly form, must snap out of their technical, analytical or mathematical comfort zone, pronto.
Techies who are that one-dimensional will be replaced by a machine in the near future.
The future belongs to people who can connect dots among different worlds and paradigms, not to some geeks with limited imaginations and skill sets that could become obsolete soon.
So, if self-preservation is an instinct that techies possess, they should figure out who is paying the bills, including their salaries and benefits, and make it absolutely easy for these end-users in all ways listed here. If not for altruistic reasons, for their own benefit in this results-oriented business world.
If information is not used by decision-makers, does the information really exist?