Advertisement

Approaches to Information Quality Management: State of the Practice of UK Asset-Intensive Organisations

  • Philip Woodall
  • Ajith Kumar Parlikad
  • Lucas Lebrun
Part of the Engineering Asset Management Review book series (EAMR)

Abstract

Maintaining good quality information is a difficult task, and many leading asset management (AM) organisations have difficulty planning and executing successful information quality management (IQM) practices. The aims of this work are, therefore, to understand how organisations approach IQM in the AM unit of their organisation, to highlight general trends in IQM, and to provide guidance on how organisations can improve IQM practices. Using the case study methodology, the current level of IQM maturity was benchmarked for ten organisations in the U.K. focussing on the AM unit of the organisation. By understanding how the most mature organisations approach the task of IQM, specific guidelines for how organisations with lower maturity levels can improve their IQM practices are presented. Five critical success factors from the IQM-CMM maturity model were identified as being significant for improving IQM maturity: information quality (IQ) management team and project management, IQ requirements analysis, IQ requirements management, information product visualisation and meta-information management.

Keywords

Asset information quality Asset information system Asset management Information quality management Information quality practices Information quality requirements Information quality management maturity model 

References

  1. Gao J, Baškarada S, Koronios A (2006) Agile maturity model approach to assessing and enhancing the quality of asset information in engineering asset management information systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on business information systems (BIS 2006), 31 May–2 June 2006, Klagenfurt, Austria, pp. 486–500.Google Scholar
  2. Baškarada S (2008) IQM-CMM: information quality management capability maturity model. PhD thesis, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia.Google Scholar
  3. British Standards Institution (2004) Asset management: PAS 55-1: British Standards Institution.Google Scholar
  4. Ouertani MZ, Parlikad AK, McFarlane DC (2008) Towards an approach to select an asset information management strategy. Int J Comput Sci Appl 5:25–44.Google Scholar
  5. Baškarada S, Koronios A, Gao J (2006) Towards a capability maturity model for information quality management: a TDQM approach. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on information quality (ICIQ-06), Cambridge, MA, 10–12 November 2006.Google Scholar
  6. Eppler MJ (2000) Conceptualizing information quality: a review of information quality frameworks from the last ten years. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on information quality, Cambridge, MA, pp. 83–96.Google Scholar
  7. Juran JM (1974) Quality control handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Wang R, Strong D (1996) Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manage Inf Syst 12:5–34.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Strong D, Lee YW, Wang R (1997) 10 potholes in the road to information quality. IEEE Comput 30:38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lin S, Gao J, Koronios A (2006) Key data quality issues for enterprise asset management in engineering organisations. Int J Electron Bus 4:96–110.Google Scholar
  11. English L (1999) Improving Data warehouse and business information quality: methods for reducing costs and increasing profits. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Kahn B, Strong D, Wang R (2002) Information quality benchmarks: product and service performance. Commun ACM 45:84–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Al-Hakim L (2007) Information quality management: theory and applications. IGI Global, Hershey, PA.Google Scholar
  14. Redman T (1996) Why care about data quality? In: Data Quality for the Information Age. Artech House, Boston.Google Scholar
  15. Batini C, Cappiello C, Francalanci C, Maurino A (2009) Methodologies for Data Quality Assessment and Improvement. ACM Comput Surv 41:1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. English L (2002) The essentials of information quality management. Information Management Magazine, 1 September 2002. http://www.information-management.com/issues/20020901/5690-1.htmlGoogle Scholar
  17. Ge M, Helfert M (2007) A review of information quality research. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on information quality, 9–11 November 2007, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Levis M, Helfert M, Brady M (2007) Information quality management: review of an evolving research area. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on information quality, 9–11 November 2007, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. Ruževièius J, Gedminaitë A (2007) Business information quality and its assessment. Eng Econ 2:18–25.Google Scholar
  20. DataFlux (2008) The Data Governance Maturity Model. http://www.dataflux.com/DataFlux-Approach/Data-Governance-Maturity-Model.aspxGoogle Scholar
  21. Ryu K, Park J, Park J (2006) A data quality management maturity model. ETRI J 28:191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Institute of Asset Management (2009) Asset information guidelines – guidelines for the management of asset information. Woodlands Grange, UK.Google Scholar
  23. Délez T, Hostettler D (2006) Information quality: a business-led approach. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on information quality, Cambridge, MA, 10–12 November 2006.Google Scholar
  24. Caballero I, Caro A, Calero C, Piattini M (2008) IQM3: information quality management maturity model. J Universal Comput Sci 14:3658–3685.Google Scholar
  25. Baxter P, Jack S (2008) Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qual Rep 13:544–559.Google Scholar
  26. Fowler FJ (1993) Survey research methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Woodall
    • 1
  • Ajith Kumar Parlikad
    • 1
  • Lucas Lebrun
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Manufacturing, Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations