We exist in an increasingly data driven world. More and more, we are encouraged or directed to ‘listen to the data’ above all else. After all, the data doesn’t lie. Does it?
Data Ethics in business is the name of the practice used to ensure that the data being used to make high-value commercial decisions is of the highest quality possible. However, there is a catch. Human beings are the catch. We have gut-instinct, prejudices, experience, belief systems, conditioning, ego, expectation, deceit, vested interests etc. These behavioural biases all stand to cloud the data story, and usually do.
A high-value commercial decision does not necessarily have immediate financial consequences. Although, in commercial terms, a sub-optimal outcome is invariably linked with financial loss. In the first instance, the immediate effects of a high-value decision can be on organisational morale or have reputational consequences.
When a high-value decision is to be made there are invariably advocates and detractors. Both camps like to believe that they are acting in the service of a cause greater than themselves. Occasionally, some of the actors cloud the story because their self-interest is what really matters to them, and they try hard to mask that with the veneer of the greater good. Hence the term ‘Data Story’, because behind the bare numbers and pretty graphics there is an entire story.
The concept of conducting a pre-mortem examination of the entire data story to model what can go wrong is becoming more important for senior decision makers. It is getting increasingly difficult to use the traditional internally appointed devil’s advocate as, due to the inherent complexity of understanding a data story, this function needs to be performed by subject matter experts. Although the responsibility for decision-making always falls on the Senior Management, they want to do it with a full breakdown of the many facets of the data story.
In order to achieve this, individuals with a unique blend of talents, experience and inquisitiveness must be used. People with absolute objectivity and discretion, who don’t rely on inductive reasoning. Ones who are robust enough to operate independently, diplomatically and discreetly and have executive backing to interrogate all the data sources, ask the difficult questions and highlight any gaps, inconsistencies, irregularities. From this they can provide a report for the Executive Sponsor(s) with questions to ask and inquiries to make so a well-informed decision can be made.
After all, when there is lots at stake, no one wants to be remembered as the person that screwed-up and tried to blame the data?