Data Quality and Decision Making

  • Rosanne Price
  • Graeme Shanks
Part of the International Handbooks Information System book series (INFOSYS)


Decision-makers often rely on data to support their decision-making processes. There is strong evidence, however, that data quality problems are widespread in practice and that reliance on data of poor or uncertain quality leads to less-effective decision-making. Addressing this issue requires first a means of understanding data quality and then techniques both for improving data quality and for improving decision-making based on data quality information. This paper presents a semiotic-based framework for understanding data quality that consists of three categories: syntactic (form), semantic (meaning) and pragmatic (use). This framework is then used as a basis for discussing data quality problems, improvement, and tags, where tags are used to provide data quality information to decisionmakers.


Data Quality Quality Category Improve Data Quality Quality Framework Integrity Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barnouw, E., ed. (1989) International Encyclopedia of Communications, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Belton, V. and Stewart, T.J. (2002) “Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: an Integrated Approach”. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Perny, P., Tsoukias, A., and Vincke, P. (2000) Evaluation and Decision Models: A Critical Perspective. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Chengular-Smith, I.N., Ballou, D., and Pazer, H.L. (1999) “The Impact of Data Quality Information on Decision Making: An Exploratory Analysis”, IEEE Trans. Knowl Data Eng 11, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clemen, R.T. and Reilly, T. (2001) Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
  6. English, L. (1999) Improving Data Warehouse and Business Information Quality: Methods for Reducing Costs and Increasing Profits, New York: Wiley Computer.Google Scholar
  7. Eppler, M.J. (2001) “The Concept of Information Quality: An Interdisciplinary Evaluation of Recent Information Quality Frameworks”. Studies Commun Sc, 1, 167-182.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, C.W., Chengalur-Smith, I.N., and Ballou, D.P. (2003) “The Impact of Experience and Time on the Use of Data Quality Information in Decision Making”, Inform Syst Res, 14, 2, 170-188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. French, S. (1988) Decision Theory: an Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality. Chichester, UK: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  10. Gendron, M. and Shanks, G. (2003) “The Categorical Information Quality Framework (CIQF): A Critical Assessment and Replication Study”, in Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems, (Adelaide, Australia, 2003); 1-13.Google Scholar
  11. Hoffer J., Prescott, M. and McFadden, F. (2006) Modern Database Management, New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  12. Kahn, B. K., D.M. Strong, & Wang, R.Y. (1997) “A Model for Delivering Quality Information as Product and Service” in Proceedings of International Conference on Information Quality (IQ 1997), Cambridge, 80-94.Google Scholar
  13. Kahn, B.K., Strong, D.M. and Wang, R.Y. (2002) “Information Quality Benchmarks: Product and Service Performance”, Commun ACM, 45, 4, 184-192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krogstie, J., O. I. Lindland, and Sindre, G. (1995) “Defining Quality Aspects for Conceptual Models”, Proceedings of IFIP8.1 working conference on Information Systems Concepts (ISCO3): Towards a Consolidation of Views, Marburg, Germany, 216-231.Google Scholar
  15. Krogstie, J. (2001) “A Semiotic Approach to Quality in Requirements Specifications”, Proceedings of IFIP 8.1 Working Conference on Organizational Semiotics, Montreal, Canada, 231-249.Google Scholar
  16. Madnick, S.E., Wang, R.Y., Dravis, F., and Chen, X. (2001) “Improving the Quality of Corporate Household Data: Current Practices and Research Directions” in Proceedings of International Conference on Information Quality (IQ 2001), Cambridge, 92-104.Google Scholar
  17. Madnick, S.E., Zhu, H. (2006) “Improving data quality through effective use of data semantics”, IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 59(2), 460-475.Google Scholar
  18. Morris, C. (1938) “Foundations of the Theory of Signs”, in International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol. 1, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Neiger, D., Price, R., and Shanks, G. (2007) An Empirical Study of Subjective Information Quality, Technical Report Number 2007/208, Clayton School of Information Technology, Monash University, Australia, 1-32.Google Scholar
  20. Olsen, D.L. (1996) Decision Aids for Selection Problems. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V. (1991) “Understanding Customer Expectations of Service”, Sloan Manage Rev (Spring), 39-48.Google Scholar
  22. Payne, J.W. (1976) “Task Complexity and Contingent Processing in Decision Making: An Information Search and Protocol Analysis”, Organ Behav Human Perform, 16, 366-387.Google Scholar
  23. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R. and Johnson, E.J. (1993) The Adaptive Decision Maker, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Peirce, C. S. (1931-1935) Collected Papers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pitt, L., Watson, R. and Kavan, C. (1995) “Service Quality: A Measure of Information Systems Effectiveness”, MIS Q (June) 173-185.Google Scholar
  26. Price, R., and Shanks, G. (2004) “A Semiotic Information Quality Framework” in Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Decision Support Systems (DSS2004), Prato, Italy, 658-672.Google Scholar
  27. Price, R. and Shanks, G. (2005a) “Empirical Refinement of a Semiotic Information Quality Framework” in Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS38), Big Island, Hawaii, USA, IEEE Computer Society, 1-10.Google Scholar
  28. Price, R. and Shanks, G. (2005b) “A Semiotic Information Quality Framework: Development and Comparative Analysis”, J Inform Technol, 20, 2, 88-102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Redman, T. (1997) “Improve Data Quality for Competitive Advantage”, Sloan Manag Rev, 36, 2, 99-107.Google Scholar
  30. Redman, T. (2001) Data Quality : the Field Guide, New Jersey: Digital.Google Scholar
  31. Rivett, P. (1994) The Craft of Decision Modelling. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Shanks, G. and Darke, P. (1998) “Understanding Metadata and Data Quality in a Data Warehouse”, Aust Comput J, 30, 4, 122-128.Google Scholar
  33. Shanks, G. and Tansley, E. (2002) “Data Quality Tagging and Decision Outcomes: an Experimental Study”, IFIP Working Group 8.3 Conference on Decision Making and Decision Support in the Internet Age, Cork, 399-410.Google Scholar
  34. Simon, H.A. (1983) Reasons in Human Affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Simon, H.A. (1996) The Science of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Stamper, R. (1991) “The Semiotic Framework for Information Systems Research” in Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  37. Wand, Y. and Wang, R. (1996) “Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations”, Commun ACM, 39, 11, 86-95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang, R. and Strong, D.M. (1996) “Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers”, J Manage Inform Syst, 12, 4, 5-34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosanne Price
    • 1
  • Graeme Shanks
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Information TechnologyMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations