By Alan Hewitt
I recently found the output from a business survey conducted by Diligent and Board Agenda which looks at, “Clarity from complexity: how boards can leverage emerging technology and data to drive confident strategic decision-making.” You can download the full report here.
The report’s introduction states:
“Certainly, the problem isn’t a lack of data. A typical corporate technology stack has evolved over time, as tools are developed to tackle the latest challenges, until the environment has grown as complex as the commercial landscape itself. Each separate point solution generates vast quantities of data, acting as an exponentially growing – but increasingly chaotic – digital record of the organisation. Somewhere in all that data is the governance, risk and compliance (GRC) intelligence boards and senior leaders need to inform strategic decisions. The challenge is how to find the signals amongst the noise created by tools that rarely talk to each other and frequently link back into manual processes that can introduce errors and inaccuracies.”
What struck me immediately is the language used and maybe the use of that language which may lead to some potentially false conclusions.
The executive summary states:
“We aimed to gauge the level of adoption of digital technologies, the use and accuracy of data and also the perceived benefits of AI in decision making. The overriding image is of boardrooms inundated with data and lacking AI knowledge. Understandably, this leads to uncertainty, especially in how the latest technologies can help to augment decision-making processes, as well as manage increased risks. And yet a considerable number of organisations (93%) claim that access to data and business intelligence tools in the boardroom has increased dramatically over the past five years. The recognition of data-driven intelligence as a key weapon in the decision-making armoury is undermined by a lack of faith in boards’ data knowledge. This is also reflected in a lack of faith in decision-makers’ understanding of how AI can make a difference to their task. Despite this, organisations recognise the impact of data and business intelligence tools in driving decision making and this is shaping investment plans.”
I understand that this business survey has a strong technology focus but is it fair, reasonable or desirable for boards to have an in-depth knowledge of “Big Data,” Business Analytics tools, etc.? Surely what boards need is good quality, reliable, timely and accurate information and NOT data. This may be just semantics but too often I see examples of the use of technology jargon which can, at least on occasion, confuse and mislead people.
I looked up the difference between Data and Information and it is quite revealing. On the Bloomfire website (here) I found the following:
The Key Differences Between Data vs Information.
- Data is a collection of facts, while information puts those facts into context.
- While data is raw and unorganized, information is organized.
- Data points are individual and sometimes unrelated. Information maps out that data to provide a big-picture view of how it all fits together.
- Data, on its own, is meaningless. When it’s analyzed and interpreted, it becomes meaningful information.
- Data does not depend on information; however, information depends on data.
- Data typically comes in the form of graphs, numbers, figures, or statistics. Information is typically presented through words, language, thoughts, and ideas.
- Data isn’t sufficient for decision-making, but you can make decisions based on information.
I think that the majority of non-technical people would relate to this and believe that information is what they, and in this context boards, actually need. As the report mentions, good-quality information must be based on good-quality data but it’s the information that brings clarity and perspective. How this survey is structured could well result in those who completed it finding the jargon confusing and lead to some less than accurate conclusions.
I am sure that both Diligent and Board Agenda are actually referring to information, which is generated and presented by the use of modern high-powered IT tools, increasingly including AI, BUT they don’t say that and I wonder if the lack of context is doing their survey a disservice.
The following is an extract from a blog piece by Barry Gamble for Praxonomy, which can be found here:
“There is perhaps, at times, too much emphasis on the form at the expense of the substance of the role. A key component to setting the agenda is access to data and information so the board is able to properly debate options available. Too often boards are overwhelmed by vast volumes of data but fail to have the right information which is digestible and from which real insights might emerge.
“If the reality is that boards are consistently overwhelmed by the sheer volume of “data” they are expected to assimilate, process and then act upon maybe it’s time that we put the “information” provided to boards at the forefront of our thinking and not, maybe, confuse things with reference to IT jargon?”
–––––––––
Learn more about Praxonomy’s secure, user-friendly board portal, Boardlogic here
Or why not schedule a demo with us here
Alan Hewitt