According to Information Management contributor Malcolm Chisholm, there may be a flaw in the classic definition of data quality
. He explained that many IT professionals use "quality" and "fitness for use" interchangeably, a distinction that may lead to an inefficient use of information resources. He stated that a more straightforward definition may be in order.
Chisholm opined that users can define data quality simply in relation to the information's source. He explained that data is a reflection of a thing, and that its accuracy as a representation of that thing is a one-to-one equivalence rather than a struggle to determine if it is fit for a number of analytical processes.
In Chisholm's view, determining whether information is correct for a process is not a data quality problem at all. He stated that quality efforts should focus simply on data's relationship to its source, providing a narrow list of criteria to focus on.
Keeping data quality high is an effort with repercussions in multiple sections of each company, according to TechTarget. The source noted a recent groundswell of interest in keeping information quality high in departments ranging from business to its traditional stronghold, IT.