Why trust in data is fragile and how to fix it

If You Can't Trust Your Data, You Can't Trust Your Decisions. 𝗣𝗼𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸—𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝘆. Yet, many businesses don't realise the damage until too late. 🔴 𝗙𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀? Expect dire forecasts and wasted budgets. 🔴 𝗗𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀? Say goodbye to personalisation and marketing ROI. 🔴 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮? Prepare for delays, inefficiencies, and lost revenue. 𝘗𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘐𝘛 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦—𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮. ❯ 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒊𝒙 𝑫𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑫𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝑸𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 To drive real impact, businesses must ensure their data is: ✓ 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 – Reflects reality to prevent bad decisions. ✓ 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 – No missing values that disrupt operations. ✓ 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 – Uniform across systems for reliable insights. ✓ 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 – Up to date when you need it most. ✓ 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱 – Follows required formats, reducing compliance risks. ✓ 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 – No duplicates or redundant records that waste resources. ❯ 𝑯𝒐𝒘 𝒕𝒐 𝑻𝒖𝒓𝒏 𝑫𝒂𝒕𝒂 𝑸𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒐 𝒂 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝑨𝒅𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 Rather than fixing insufficient data after the fact, organisations must 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 it: ✓ 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 – Data quality isn't just IT's job. ✓ 𝗔𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 – Proactive monitoring and correction reduce costly errors. ✓ 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗢𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 – Identify issues before they impact operations. ✓ 𝗧𝗶𝗲 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 – Measure the impact on revenue, cost, and risk. ✓ 𝗘𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗖𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 – Treat quality as a mindset, not a project. ❯ 𝑯𝒐𝒘 𝑫𝒐 𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝑴𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝑺𝒖𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔? The true test of data quality lies in outcomes: ✓ 𝗙𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝘀 → Higher operational efficiency ✓ 𝗙𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 → Reduced delays and disruptions ✓ 𝗟𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 → Savings from automated data quality checks ✓ 𝗛𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗿𝘀 → Higher CSAT & NPS scores ✓ 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 → Lower regulatory risks 𝗤𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. 𝗣𝗼𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺.

Stop blaming the data. Start building organizations where truth can survive contact with power. When analytics projects crash, it's easy to blame the data. "It's incomplete!" "It's biased!" "It's outdated!" There's often some truth in this, but just as often, it’s also a convenient fiction that protects egos while the real problems fester beneath the surface. Let's get real: Your data isn't always the villain. Your approach to data is just as likely to blame. Most organizations suffer from a form of "collection addiction"—hoarding terabytes of information while having no coherent plan for using it. They track everything from website clicks to coffee consumption patterns, then wonder why transformative insights don't magically appear. When you collect everything but question nothing, you've built a digital landfill, not a strategic asset. Meanwhile, the actual humans responsible for making sense of this information are drowning. Analysts get trapped creating beautiful dashboards for executives who focus more on the color scheme than changing their decision making. The result? Critical business decisions based on misinterpreted metrics and cherry-picked numbers that confirm the status quo. I have watched corporations make million-dollar decisions using data everyone privately acknowledged was being misread—but nobody would say so publicly. Sure, that's also a data quality problem. But the real issue here is a courage deficit. The hard truth? Many organizations still create hostile environments for what data actually provides: evidence that might challenge powerful people's assumptions. When an analyst's career prospects depend on delivering comfortable conclusions, don't be surprised when your "data-driven decisions" simply reinforce the status quo. In today's corporate landscape, the challenge isn’t dealing with bad data—it's dealing with inconvenient data. Fixing this requires more than better databases or fancier visualization tools. It demands creating environments where evidence matters more than hierarchy, where analytical skills are valued as much as technical ones, and where challenging questions are rewarded rather than silenced. Easy to say. Hard to incorporate into day-to-day culture. Stop blaming your data. Start building organizations where truth can survive contact with power. Because when it comes to analytics, your biggest competitive advantage isn't what you collect—it's what you're brave enough to hear.

This number is technically correct. So why doesn’t anyone trust it? This was one of the hardest lessons to learn early in my analytics career: Data accuracy ≠ data trust. You can build the cleanest model. You can double-check the SQL, audit the joins, QA the filters. And still… stakeholders say: “That number feels off.” “I don’t think that’s right.” “Let me check in Excel and get back to you.” Here’s what’s often really happening: 🔄 They don’t understand where the number is coming from. If they can’t trace it, they can’t trust it. Exposing calculation steps or using drill-throughs can help. 📊 The metric name isn’t aligned to what they think it means. You might call it Net Revenue. They think it’s Net Revenue after refunds. Boom, there is misalignment. 📆 They forgot the filters they asked for. “Why are we only looking at this year?” → “Because you asked for YTD only, remember?” Keep context visible. Always. 🧠 They’re comparing your number to what they expected, not what’s correct. And unfortunately, expectations are rarely documented. 🤝 You weren’t part of the business process that generates the data. So when something looks odd, they assume it’s a reporting issue, not a process or input issue. Here’s the kicker: Sometimes, being accurate isn’t enough. You also need to be understandable, explainable, and collaborative. That’s when trust happens. Have you ever been 100% confident in a metric, only to spend more time defending it than building it? #PowerBI #AnalyticsLife #DataTrust #DAX #SQL #DataQuality #DataStorytelling

My AI was ‘perfect’—until bad data turned it into my worst nightmare. 📉 By the numbers: 85% of AI projects fail due to poor data quality (Gartner). Data scientists spend 80% of their time fixing bad data instead of building models. 📊 What’s driving the disconnect? Incomplete or outdated datasets Duplicate or inconsistent records Noise from irrelevant or poorly labeled data Data quality The result? Faulty predictions, bad decisions, and a loss of trust in AI. Without addressing the root cause—data quality—your AI ambitions will never reach their full potential. Building Data Muscle: AI-Ready Data Done Right Preparing data for AI isn’t just about cleaning up a few errors—it’s about creating a robust, scalable pipeline. Here’s how: 1️⃣ Audit Your Data: Identify gaps, inconsistencies, and irrelevance in your datasets. 2️⃣ Automate Data Cleaning: Use advanced tools to deduplicate, normalize, and enrich your data. 3️⃣ Prioritize Relevance: Not all data is useful. Focus on high-quality, contextually relevant data. 4️⃣ Monitor Continuously: Build systems to detect and fix bad data after deployment. These steps lay the foundation for successful, reliable AI systems. Why It Matters Bad #data doesn’t just hinder #AI—it amplifies its flaws. Even the most sophisticated models can’t overcome the challenges of poor-quality data. To unlock AI’s potential, you need to invest in a data-first approach. 💡 What’s Next? It’s time to ask yourself: Is your data AI-ready? The key to avoiding AI failure lies in your preparation(#innovation #machinelearning). What strategies are you using to ensure your data is up to the task? Let’s learn from each other. ♻️ Let’s shape the future together: 👍 React 💭 Comment 🔗 Share

10 of the most-cited datasets contain a substantial number of errors. And yes, that includes datasets like ImageNet, MNIST, CIFAR-10, and QuickDraw which have become the definitive test sets for computer vision models. Some context: A few years ago, 3 MIT graduate students published a study that found that ImageNet had a 5.8% error rate in its labels. QuickDraw had an even higher error rate: 10.1%. Why should we care? 1. We have an inflated sense of the performance of AI models that are testing against these datasets. Even if models achieve high performance on those test sets, there’s a limit to how much those test sets reflect what really matters: performance in real-world situations. 2. AI models trained using these datasets are starting off on the wrong foot. Models are only as good as the data they learn from, and if they’re consistently trained on incorrectly labeled information, then systematic errors can be introduced. 3. Through a combination of 1 and 2, trust in these AI models is vulnerable to being eroded. Stakeholders expect AI systems to perform accurately and dependably. But when the underlying data is flawed and these expectations aren’t met, we start to see a growing mistrust in AI. So, what can we learn from this? If 10 of the most cited datasets contain so many errors, we should assume the same of our own data unless proven otherwise. We need to get serious about fixing — and building trust in — our data, starting with improving our data hygiene. That might mean implementing rigorous validation protocols, standardizing data collection procedures, continuously monitoring for data integrity, or a combination of tactics (depending on your organization’s needs). But if we get it right, we're not just improving our data; we're setting our future AI models to be dependable and accurate. #dataengineering #dataquality #datahygiene #generativeai #ai

Data silos aren’t just a tech problem - they’re an operational bottleneck that slows decision - making, erodes trust, and wastes millions in duplicated efforts. But we’ve seen companies like Autodesk, Nasdaq, Porto, and North break free by shifting how they approach ownership, governance, and discovery. Here’s the 6-part framework that consistently works: 1️⃣ Empower domains with a Data Center of Excellence. Teams take ownership of their data, while a central group ensures governance and shared tooling. 2️⃣ Establish a clear governance structure. Data isn’t just dumped into a warehouse—it’s owned, documented, and accessible with clear accountability. 3️⃣ Build trust through standards. Consistent naming, documentation, and validation ensure teams don’t waste time second-guessing their reports. 4️⃣ Create a unified discovery layer. A single “Google for your data” makes it easy for teams to find, understand, and use the right datasets instantly. 5️⃣ Implement automated governance. Policies aren’t just slides in a deck—they’re enforced through automation, scaling governance without manual overhead. 6️⃣ Connect tools and processes. When governance, discovery, and workflows are seamlessly integrated, data flows instead of getting stuck in silos. We’ve seen this transform data cultures - reducing wasted effort, increasing trust, and unlocking real business value. So if your team is still struggling to find and trust data, what’s stopping you from fixing it?

Data trust often drops as data quality improves. Sounds backwards, right? When I first started working with data and AI at large enterprises more than a decade ago, one of the biggest blockers for data and AI adoption was the lack of trust in data. That is what got me into the world of data quality in the first place. But here is what I did not expect: 👉 As companies became more data mature and improved their data foundations (including data quality), data trust across the organisation often dropped. Should it not be the other way around? You would think that better data and increased data maturity would increase data trust. The reality is: 👉 Trust in data is not just about data quality. It is about whether the data, and its quality, meet the expectations and requirements for the data and AI use cases. When organisations become more data mature, their use cases evolve. Typically, it can look like this: 1️⃣ Ad hoc analytics 2️⃣ Dashboards used by management 3️⃣ Data products 4️⃣ Data as a product 5️⃣ AI/ML in production Advanced data use cases such as data products and AI/ML in production require much higher data quality than the "simpler" use cases. And here is the big problem: the data quality requirement increases much faster than the speed at which the underlying data quality improves. That is why organisational trust in data decreases when data maturity increases, even though the underlying data quality actually improves. 👉 For data leaders, here is the takeaway: To come out on top, you have to take data quality extremely seriously and proactively. Much more so than what is happening at the average enterprise out there right now. Data quality cannot be an afterthought. Do you agree?

I froze for a minute when a client asked me “How do I know my data is safe with you?” Not because I didn’t have an answer But because I knew words alone wouldn’t be enough. After all, trust isn’t built with promises. It’s built with systems. Instead of just saying, “Don’t worry, your data is safe,” I did something different. I showed them: 👉 NDAs that legally protected their information 👉 Strict access controls (only essential team members could ) 👉 Encrypted storage and regular security audits 👉 A proactive approach—addressing risks before they became problems Then, I flipped the script. I told them- “You’re not just trusting me, you’re trusting the systems I’ve built to protect you” That changed everything. → Clients didn’t just feel comfortable—they became loyal. → Referrals skyrocketed because trust isn’t something people keep to themselves. → My business became more credible. And the biggest lesson? 👉 Security isn’t just a checkbox. It’s an experience. Most businesses treat data protection as a technical issue. But it’s an emotional one. When clients feel their information is safe, they don’t just stay. They become your biggest advocates. PS: How do you build trust with your clients?