To be clear… my argument is simply that there is enough of a challenge in the information quality profession getting people to understand the fundamental issues, challenges, and benefits of sound quality management principles applied to information without introducing a potential distraction that the profession simply does not need.

If “Information Quality 2.0″ has some significant paradigm change in terms of approach, fundamentals or underlying technology then I might be persuaded that there is some merit in the label. However… if the label just means that people are starting to “get” the value proposition I remain to be convinced that there is a merit in adding yet more labels and buzzwords in to a cluttered mind-space (particularly when organisations are faced with a wide range of apparently competing challenges such as cost reduction, data protection, compliance, information quality etc.)

If I start going to the gym and following recommended practices in terms of my diet and exercise is that “Fitness 2.0″?

I do hope you don’t take any personal offence at my rant against “Data Quality 2.0″. Perhaps I have too much time on my hands here in my little home office and have been stuck too long trying to define what information quality is for my business plan. Perhaps I should take a walk to clear my head a bit

You have rightly pointed out that the phrase is out there and in use. I just question whether the phrase actually means anything and whether as a profession we should be encouraging the phrase or instead making efforts to show what information quality/data quality is actually about and ensuring that we link new approaches and techniques to the heritage of sound practices that underpin the work we do.

Perhaps if someone could show me what Data Quality 0.0 and Data Quality 1.0 looked like, and importantly demonstrate what the actual paradigm change is at each evolution, we could put the debate to rest.

But thanks a lot. I will take more care about my headings in the future.

I agree… you didn’t strike the match, but you seem to have fanned the flames alright. My concern is that as a profession we need to be careful what fires we fan and feed and which ones we let smoulder out on their own.

Vincent McBurney’s post seems to imply DQ2.0 is about companies using Web2.0 branding and marketing strategies to make the uninteresting interesting. That’s something I’m in favour of… far too often the subject matter we deal with (for example patient lives in a healthcare scenario) is too serious to joke about but that is only made worse when the vendor arrives without cracking a smile. Using Web2.0 tools, techniques and approaches to (as Andrew Brooks puts it “Make the invisible visible”) is a powerful approach that I definitely encourage- but it is just a new and different way of getting the word out about the problems and solutions and keeping a spotlight on your projects.

The danger is that we might find the phrase being used without any clear context as to what it actually means (as in the loyalty.vg post you link to). Soundbites like “Today it is Data Quality 2.0″ don’t add anything to the discussion about what companies should be doing. Particularly if when you scratch the surface you find that the understanding the speaker has of Data Quality 1.0 is simply data cleansing and scrap and rework… which isn’t actually Information Quality Management at all (it is part of it).

The Ventana Research post you link to in your comment would seem to imply that “Data Quality 2.0″ is just data quality that people give a damn about and are taking seriously. Lovely. So Data Quality 2.0 is just, well, data quality. (And to understand recursion we must first understand recursion).

Cognitive Data might use the term “Data Quality 2.0″ with regard to their product and its capability, but their product is just that – yet another product that can be embedded in processes to address (no pun intended) one identified root cause of common information quality problems in address data. Congratulations to them for being innovative (but I’d love to see if their product can handle Irish addresses and Irish address management issues). As for their use of “Data Quality 2.0″, I suspect this is more marketing spin than real meat – just as the ownership of a power drill didn’t change my Grandfather’s need to understand how to do carpentry, I doubt if the acquisition of any tool can actually help people truly solve their information quality problems without understanding what information quality actually is.

If we argue (for the sake of argument) that “Data Quality 2.0″ is the application of Web2.0 tools and techniques and Open Source development approaches to managing and improving the quality of information in our organisations then the label might have some value. However, that just means “Using today’s tools to solve tomorrow’s problems” and doesn’t get away from the fact that those approaches are still fundamentally grounded in core principles of quality management. If you establish a community resource in your organisation where any staff member can suggest or submit a solution to an information quality problem you might be using an Open Source approach, but you are in reality breaking down barriers and putting everyone to work on the transformation.

W.Edwards Deming would be very proud of you in that case.

http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/infosphere/business-objects-acquires-a-company-that-helps-you-pick-baby-names-18832

http://mydma09.bdmetrics.com/CDT-6269850/CognitiveDATA-Inc-/Details.aspx

http://www.loyalty.vg/crm_news/CRM_ATT.aspx

http://www.ventanaresearch.com/blog/commentblog.aspx?id=1786

http://www.cognitivedata.com/freakingclean_webinar/

…

But it seems I added fuel to the fire