Data, Information, and Knowledge Management
Jim Harris in Data Quality, Debates tagged Best of 2011, Business Intelligence, Data Governance, Philosophy Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 3:00AM The difference, and relationship, between data and information is a common debate. Not only do these two terms have varying definitions, but they are often used interchangeably. Just a few examples include comparing and contrasting data quality with information quality, data management with information management, and data governance with information governance.
In a previous blog post, I referenced the Information Hierarchy provided by Professor Ray R. Larson of the School of Information at the University of California, Berkeley:
- Data – The raw material of information
- Information – Data organized and presented by someone
- Knowledge – Information read, heard, or seen, and understood
- Wisdom – Distilled and integrated knowledge and understanding
Some consider this an esoteric debate between data geeks and information nerds, but what is not debated is the importance of understanding how organizations use data and/or information to support their business activities. Of particular interest is the organization’s journey from data to decision, the latter of which is usually considered the primary focus of business intelligence.
In his recent blog post, Scott Andrews explained what he called The Information Continuum:
- Data – A Fact or a piece of information, or a series thereof
- Information – Knowledge discerned from data
- Business Intelligence – Information Management pertaining to an organization’s policy or decision-making, particularly when tied to strategic or operational objectives
Knowledge Management
Image by EpicGraphic
This recent graphic does a great job of visualizing the difference between data and information, as well as the importance of how information is presented. Although the depiction of knowledge as consumed information is oversimplified, I am not sure how this particular visual metaphor could properly represent knowledge as actually understanding the consumed information.
It’s been awhile since the term knowledge management was in vogue within the data management industry. When I began my career, in the early 1990s, I remember hearing about knowledge management as often as we hear about data governance today, which, as you know, is quite often. The reason I have resurrected the term in this blog post is because I can’t help but wonder if the debate about data and information obfuscates the fact that the organization’s appetite, its business hunger, is for knowledge.
Three Questions for You
- Does your organization make a practical distinction between data and information?
- If so, how does this distinction affect your quality, management, and governance initiatives?
- What is the relationship between those initiatives and your business intelligence efforts?
Please share your thoughts and experiences by posting a comment below.
Related Posts
The Real Data Value is Business Insight
Is your data complete and accurate, but useless to your business?
Data Confabulation in Business Intelligence
Thaler’s Apples and Data Quality Oranges
DQ-View: Baseball and Data Quality
Beyond a “Single Version of the Truth”
Reader Comments (6)
I love the pic, Jim.
I've always thought of knowledge as information with the how and why.
Hi Jim,
As always an intriguing post. Especially where you draw a parallel between Data Governance and Knowledge Management (wisdom management?) We sometimes portray data management (current term) as 'well managed data administration' (term from 70's-80's).
As for the debate on 'data' and 'information' I prefer to see everything written, drawn and / or stored on paper or in digital format as data with various levels of informational value, depending on the amount and quality of metadata surrounding the data item and the accessibility, usefullness (quality) of that item.
For example, 12024561414 is a number with low informational value. I could add metadata, for instance: "Phone number", that makes it potentially known as a phone number. Rather than let you find out whose number it is we could add more information value and add more metadata like: "White House Switchboard". Accessibility could be enhanced by improving formatting like: (1) 202-456-1414.
What I am trying to say with this example is that data items should be placed on a rising scale of informational value rather than be put on steps or firm levels of informational value. So the Information Hierarchy provided by Professor Larson does not work very well for me. It could work only if for all data items the exact information value was determined for every probable context. This model is useful for communication purposes.
If anybody out there works for an organization that can readily answer those questions please let me know ;).
For us, theoretical discussions are underway, as are data management and information architecture initiatives, but we have a way to go before there is good understanding of the practicality of managing data, much less information as an asset.
Regarding the practicality of it, I think if the organization starts with the management of its data, it is in a more ready state to evolve into the management of business processes and information, and begin to see the links between information and business objectives (which hopefully doesn't take toooo long).
Thank you Jim.
Hi Jim,
This is by far the most concise, and comprehensive approach to the old question of differentiating between data, information, knowledge and wisdom.
Thanks a lot for sharing.
As always, thanks everyone for contributing your commendable comments.
@Phil — I like that equation: Information + How + Why = Knowledge
@Frank — Great point about the rising scale of informational value added to data by metadata, formatting, and context.
@Jill — I think that most organizations would view my questions as more theoretical than practical, and I agree with you that starting point of practicality has to be linking data management with its related business processes.
@ Efesa — Happy to hear that you found it concise and comprehensive :-)
From the LinkedIn Group for the IAIDQ, Jane Sanders and I had the following exchange:
Jane Sanders: Basically, Data is information that is physically available (structured or not), and Information is Data + derived data + the experience of using the data + external information supporting the use of data.
Jim Harris: It appears that you are suggesting that external reference data, metadata, and a specific use combines to transform data into information. Correct?
Jane Sanders: Except from the metadata part, yes. At our offices, metadata is not a piece of information that is critical, in order for people to use data as information in business processes. But I guess it depends on what business you're in. If we imagine 'information' being an item, built using a list of parts, then that list of parts include 'data'.
Jim Harris: Thanks for the clarification, Jane. I really like the item/parts analogy for information/data. Best Regards, Jim
Great post, Jim.
I went through the "Academic" answer to this recently with the Data->Information->Knowledge->Wisdom and got confused by the whole subject.
Now from my own personal experience, I would say decomposing this information into the different subcategories is hard to do in the workplace. One man's data is another man's information (and when it does become information this is where a Business Glossary can help). It's hard enough to manage data (structured, unstructured, social. etc.), deciding when and for who it becomes information and then what combination of information becomes knowledge.
So for our company we refer to our program as (Enterprise) Information Management which manages the life-cycle of data/information from inception to destruction and all the steps in between. Personally I dislike the term "governance" as it has a rigidity to it like its a "directive" from compliance when we know IM provides much more value than that.