Last time I presented a simple model for assessing the potential positive impact of improved quality on improved decision making, and I suggested that we could look at an alternative spin on that same matrix. However, this time we will put more faith in the utility of quality data to drive the result. In this table, if the data is bad, the decision will be bad, and if the data is good, the decision is good:

	Data is good	Data is bad
Decision-maker is good	Decision is good	Decision is bad
Decision-maker is bad	Decision is good	Decision is bad

 

Interestingly, in both cases improving the data improves the result. Yet again, we have to augment the perception of the quality of the resulting decision in the context of the decision-maker’s capabilities: if the individual has a reputation for making bad decisions, even his/her good decisions will be questioned.

So here is one additional thought: if you knew that your decisions were always going to be questioned (whether they are based on good data or bad data), what is the motivation for actually making a decision altogether? Alternatively, you might choose to presume that your bad decisions are always the result of bad data. In that case, any time you were faced with a decision, it is to your benefit to question the quality of the data and defer the decision.

Does this sound familiar?