It boggles my mind.
How can a unit/team/group have processes that either flat-out cause data quality problems or enable them by turning a blind eye, yet have budget and resources assigned to fixing up the mess after the fact? How can a phenomenon such as this occur? Is it because the organization is new at Data Quality and their idea of resolving it is to apply re-active fixes because they don’t know any better? I DON’T THINK SO!
I think they know better. I think they know better but they also know that resolving it will require Data Governance which means organizational change. Big Change. And discomfort. Big discomfort.
So here is my question then. How can our leaders, strategists, financial analysts and auditors present their budget figures for the year and get approval for this inadvertent Oxymoron of processes?