Category: Information Quality

  • Electoral Information Quality – A Consolidating post

    As the blog is getting legs a bit now, I thought it best to consolidate the posts of the last few weeks on the Electoral Register issues into one point of reference, particularly for readers new to the site.

    I am also taken the opportunity to upload a few additional articles etc. that I have written on the issue to the blog for reference.

    Articles:

    First up is a draft paper I have put together on the proposed solutions and why they are likely to be inadequate. 

    Next up is a link to an article I have had published in an International newsletter for Information Quality Management Professionals.

    Finally there is an article based on my post on what scrap and rework is of earlier this month. This article was submitted to national newspapers as an opinion piece – and I should acknowledge the assistance of Simon over on Tuppenceworth with whipping it into shape. Click here to download Scrap and Rework article. The article is also reproduced as an appendix in the previously mentioned report.

    As regards posts – pretty much any of the posts in the Information Quality/Electoral Data Quality category are relevant. I will double check all the post categorisations to make sure that nothing is missing.

    That’s my update for today.

     

     

  • Process Design & Quality

    Quality is defined as the ability of a product or piece of information to meet or exceed the expectations of its customers/consumers.

    Quality begins in the design stage, at the white board when you are figuring out how your process should work. I won’t waste my energy today rattling on about our Electoral Register issues, rather I’ll take a different example…

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/10/ms_messenger_paradox/

    This is an example of poor quality information. The instructions presented to the customer are illogical and set up a logical recursion that would stump many a Dalek.

    Reminds me of the joke about the computer programmer who was found dead in the shower. The shampoo bottle instructions read “Wash, Rinse, Repeat”.

     

  • The Irish Times Editorial yesterday…

    The Irish Times ran a nice editorial piece yesterday (2006/05/11) on the Electoral Register that highlighted the administrative failure that surrounds the Electoral Register.

    One good line: “IF the potential for abouse exists within the voting system – and it unequivocally does – the Government’s responsibility is to protect democracy and correct the electoral register

    The Old Lady of D’Olier Street correctly identifies that there is a “reluctance at official and political level to step outside traditional mechanisms to address the situation”.

    The reported ruling out by Dick Roche of the use of personal identification at polling stations reflects this apparent lack of willing to change processes to improve the quality of the register and improve the controls on the Electoral process. As the Irish Times rightly points out, you have to produce evidence of address to get a parking permit from Local Authorities. I can’t join a library in Dublin because I don’t have a utility bill at an address in Dublin.

    The chronic lack of leadership on this issue is appalling. Here’s a link to a piece I’ve written in an International Journal for Information Quality people… it references some reseach that was done in 2004 into attitudes to Information Quality in UK Public Sector organisations…

    … in the mean time as the Irish Times haven’t responded to the opinion piece I sent them based on my chocolate cake/scrap & rework post I suppose I’ll have to tout it around the other papers… I’ll stick up the draft for reference here later today.

  • Link to my comments on tuppenceworth..

    Those nice punters concerned citizens over at Tuppenceworth have taken up cudgels in defence of democracy and quoted from my post explaining scrap and rework to explain to their readers why they should prepare for a feeling of dé ja et ré ja vú… (french for “I’ve been here before, and I’ll be here again”).

    Here’s the link to them and here’s a trackback link to my comment to them re: ICT Expo…

    I was disappointed… but given the number of Healthcare, Dept of Social Welfare and HSE people who came along I would be less worried about going to hospital and claiming for the sick days off the social than I would be about whether my vote would actually be counted in the midst of “vote-spamming” (a term I will now coin to describe the use of fictitous votes or the ‘stacking’ of the register to influence the outcome of an election)…

     

  • ICT Expo

    sheeeeeeeessssshhhhh!

    I’m just winding down from the last few days of excitement around the ICT Expo Information Quality Master Class. Larry English was over to do a Master Class on Information Quality. It went very well, and I think Larry enjoyed his visit to Dublin.

    Everyone seemed to get a lot out of what was a very intense day- not least me. It is a pity that none of our politicians came along – but there were representatives from our Hospitals, the HSE, financial services and telecomms.

    Larry’s take on our electoral register issues was interesting, especially given the work that he has done with the Carter Foundation for Electoral Reform in the US. The use of Census Enumerators is just scrap and rework. It will establish a cleansed register at a point in time but unless the processes and root causes are addressed the register will degrade again from that point forward.

    I refer readers to my previous posts on that topic….

    By the way… 16 days left to the expiration of Census Enumerator contracts (and counting).

  • Why Scrap and Rework isn’t good enough

    Simon has thrown down a bit of a challenge…  can I show why Information Scrap and Rework isn’t good enough because it seems like a sensible starting point…

    First off… let me provide a reference that should educate and delight (at least some of you) that explains what this Information Quality yoke is all about… THERE we go. The reference is a little old (2002) but for an update come to ICTEXPO on Friday.

    Now… why isn’t Scrap and Rework good enough?

    Who likes chocolate cake? Isn’t it a pain when your face gets covered in chocolate from mashing handfuls of cake into your gob? But you can wipe your face (usually in your sleeve) and carry on. That’s scrap and rework. A better solution is to wipe your face and take a smaller division of cake (a forkful). That is a change in the process based on an analysis of why you keep getting a chocolatey face, coupled with a scrap and rework task to set a baseline of cleanliness for your face that you will seek to maintain.

    Simon is right – scrap and rework looks like a good place to start, and when you say “Data Quality” to most people that’s what they think, under the labels “data scrubbing”, “data cleansing” or similar. However, it doesn’t address the actual source of the poor information quality, much as wiping your face in your sleeve doesn’t stop your face getting covered in chocolate.

    Therefore, once you clean your database, you will very quickly find it filling up with duff data again. Which eventually results in another round of scrap and rework to fix things again. Which then leads people to say that Information Quality management doesn’t work and costs lots of money. But scrap and rework isn’t information quality management. It is a process step to improving the quality of your information but it is just one step in many that range from culture change (from apathy to active interest) to process change to training etc.

    Tom Redman is one of the co-founders of the IAIDQ. His metaphor is that databases are like lakes. No matter how many times you clean the lake, if you don’t address the sources of ‘pollution’ (root causes, cake-eating processes) then you will never achieve good quality.

    To put it in professional terms that Simon (law-talking boyo that he is) might understand, scrap and rework is like apologising and offering some compensation everytime you punch a complete stranger in the face. A far better solution is to examine why it is you punch strangers in the face and stop doing it. Your apologies and offers of money to the injured fix the historical damage but do not prevent future occurences. And I doubt Simon would counsel any of his firm’s clients to continue punching strangers in the face.

    Scrap and rework is costly. Scrap and rework on a repetitive institutionalised basis is futile, creating a sense of doing something about your Information quality without actually getting anywhere but burning a pile of cash to stand still. It is an important step in any information quality management programme. However, understanding your data capture processes and the root causes of your poor quality data and then acting to improve those processes to address those root causes are the components that contribute to a sustained improvement in quality.

    Scrap and rework solves the problems of today at a short-term economic cost. However, it serves to bury the problems of tomorrow unless it takes place in tandem with process improvement to address root cause and the development of a ‘Quality culture’.

    To tie this back to the Electoral Register, to rely on scrap and rework would mean that we would get a clean register this time around at a point in time. However, over time the register would degrade in quality again, in the same way as your face gets dirty again if you don’t change the way you eat your cake.

    Now put that chocolate cake down and get a fork!

  • Information non-quality on the blog

    Simon over at tuppenceworth has been on to me. Apparently my blog isn’t quite meeting his expectations.

    Can’t have that.

    Simon’s problem is that he isn’t quite sure what scrap and rework is. He says that it sounds bad to him, and I use it in a way that suggests it is a thing we shouldn’t do… but what exactly is it?

    Can’t have that. Must meet or exceed expecation… so what I will do is put together a page in the blog that will contain a lexicon of terms that I can link to… I’ll try to make it alphabetical as it would be ironic if I couldn’t manage that simple an Information process.

    Any terms that I use (and I suspect there may be many) that require definition please let me know. I sometimes speak a different language (dataqualitarian) and I acknowledge that I need to translate sometimes to communicate clearly.

    Thanks Simon.

     

  • Reponse to Damien Blakes’ post on irishelection.com

    Damien Blake written a good piece on IrishElection.com regarding his view on how to address the Electoral Register.

    Much of what he says has merit as a short term solution. He suggests that we scrap the register (no problem there) and rework it from scratch (again, no problem there) rather than limp on with a defective register.

    Damien suggests that my writings will eventually find their way into undergraduate or post graduate theses.  I too look forward to the day that clear thinking about the fundamental best practices of Quality Management applied to Information form part of University curricula at undergraduate level and post-graduate level, much like the practices of Manufacturing Quality Management gained acceptance. In the US this is already beginning to happen, and I have been involved in curriculum development work with an Irish University in a similar vein.

    What I have written is based on a number of years (best part of a decade) working in complex Information Management environments and on the shared experiences of other practitioners in the Information Quality Management space with whom I have spoken at conferences (internationally), and with whom I work on a regular basis as a Director of the International Association for Information & Data Quality. The techniques, methodologies and approaches I put forward are based on my real world,practical experiences in applying best practices that have been proven in other industries and disciplines.

    Damien’s further goes on to suggest using the PPS Number and associated data to register people – preferably automatically. What Damien has suggested here is a process change to address root causes of poor data quality. Excellent. That is what I have been writing on… well at least as far at the review/change of processes goes. I’ll come ot my concerns with his proposal in a moment. Well done for thinking about the root causes of the problem and how the processes can be changed to address it. Top of the class that man.

    Damien’s suggestion doesn’t address the fact that there is no legal obligation on anyone to register to vote, and it could even be argued that one has a constitutional right not to register to vote. Automatic voter registration based on a “Single View of Voter” may not be a runner. Also, the Data Protection Commissioner has limited the uses that a PPS number can be put to – however I am sure legislation could get around that. The Digital Rights Ireland site has a nice paper on it about the ‘scope creep’ in the use of PPS Numbers that I’ve referenced in an earlier post.

    Ultimately, even if we scrapped the Register in the morning and rebuilt it in a shining pristine form, the simple fact is that name and address data degrades at a significant rate. In the absence of clear controls and processes to manage and maintain that data at an acceptable level of quality we will find ourselves rapidly returning to a situation where the Register is unreliable – Scrap and Rework is not the route to a high quality Information asset. It is a step on the journey, and an important process – but in the absence of process re-engineering to address root causes of defects and deficiencies the inevitable result is more scrap and rework.

    Damien’s proposal to use the name/address/citzenship data associated with the PPS number would serve to reduce redundancy of data (multiple copies of the same data held in multiple data stores) but it may run into Data Protection issues. But as a change of process for the management of Electoral Register data to address deficiencies in the existing process it has merit. But should you have to be a tax payer or a recipeint of State benefits in order to vote?

    Damien’s suggestion for a Statutory agency or a reallocation of resources/roles to task someone with maintaining the Register. Again, I am in wholehearted agreement. What Damien proposes here is a review of the Governance model for this data to give clear accountability, authority and mandate and (I would surmise) a standardisation of processes, controls and toolsets for managing and measuring the quality of Electoral Register data. I fully agree with the general thrust of Damien’s proposal here, although the specifics of what that Governance model in my view should be aligned with the requirements of the process and the requirements of the controls necessary to ensure the quality of the electoral register – simply assigning a role with a stroke of a pen does not deliver quality improvements.

    I agree with Damien that the process for voter registration and for maintaining that data should be a simple as possible. Clear definition of processes and business rules to support ‘flow-through’ registration and data maintenance are part of the Information Architecture design that should underpin any long term solution. Simplicity of process  could be part of the ‘customer expectation’ against which the quality of the process (and the information it produces) could be measured. However a simple ‘customer’ interface that sits on top of chaotic processes riddled with deficiencies and absences of controls to ensure the quality of the Information will not achieve the full objective of a simple to operate set of processes or functions that deliver reliable and high-quality Electoral Register information.

    Damien is right. We need to start again. We need to start again in terms of the information in the Register. We need to start again in terms of the Governance model that is put in place to manage this Information Asset. We need to start again in terms of the processes that people follow to create, update and maintain that information to ensure that we achieve our objective of a reliable, accurate (within a margin for error) Electoral Register. We need to start again in terms of how we think about the ‘architecture’ that this Electoral Information is held. We need to start again in terms of ensuring that we adopt appropriate technologies and strategies to address identified weaknesses in the processes for managing our Electoral Register data.

    However, to focus just on scrap and rework simply solves the problem of today. Addressing the root causes in the processes and governance as well as conducting scrap and rework on the data solves today’s problems and prevents those of tomorrow.

    I’m glad Damien and I are in such agreement on the principles, even though we may differ in our view on specifics (specific solutions aren’t my goal here – raising awareness of Best Practices was my intention). I hope he can find the time to attend the Information Quality Master Class that is being held in the RDS on Friday where a person with even more years experience in this domain than I will be sharing his knowledge with delegates

  • Use of PPS Numbers..

    The literati over at Digital Rights Ireland have a nice posting on their blog about the issues surrounding the use of PPS numbers and the overwhelming need for clarity of governance in their use to avoid ‘scope creep’.

    Here is the link to that post… http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/04/20/pps-numbers-and-cradle-to-grave-tracking/

    Defined processes that address identified root causes, operating in the context of a clear Governance model supported by appropriate technology and Information Architecture, building from a baseline that may be set through initial scrap and rework to recover quality is the only sustainable solution to the Electoral Register issues.

    The proposals to extend the use of PPS Numbers without a clearly established Governance raises the spectre of scope creep in the use of both the PPS and Electoral register data.

  • Electoral Register Forms

    I had a look at the Reach Service Portal ( a central portal for citizen information).

    They had a helpful link to a form to register for the Register of Electors. Very helpful. My thoughts are as follows:

    1.  If there is no standard template in existence amongst local authorities ( to the Minister’s surprise), why has the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council form been picked as the standard one to select through a central information portal? Is it in some way superior to the other forms? If so, should this be the standard form?
    2. The form does not allow for deleting people from the register (such as might need to be done if a person moved out of a residence) nor does it seem to allow for flagging a change in name – which could lead to additional people being added to the register just because they got married and their names changed.

    The form does state that it is an offence to provide false information. What processes are in place for checking for false/inaccurate information?

    Perhaps Irish citizens visiting the Blogosphere could check with their local authorities to see if they can register to vote through an ‘on-line’ facility. Thus far all I have found is a link to Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. I may be missing something on www.wexford.ie (Wexford County Council’s site) but I can’t even find a link there to an application form.

    If you do find a form or on-line service, post a comment here with your assssment of the form – is it easy to understand/use? Is the information capture process meeting your expectations?

    Dunlaoghaire Rathdown Councils’ form for Electoral Register… the apparent standard form.