OK, when USA Today has a story about information management you can be sure that the phenomenon is big enough that it will impact non-techies on a large scale.

When tech analyst John Gantz at researcher IDC began tallying up all the digital information generated annually, he first looked in the obvious places …

Gantz ultimately calculated that 161 exabytes of digital data — or about 161 billion GB — were generated in 2006. And the amount is expected to rise fast.

It is worth a quick read, although if you are a data geek a lot of this is pretty elementary, so you might just want to forward the URL on to your favorite business leader or project manager.

The article is a bit light on is the downstream ramifications of the data deluge. Obviously, there will be a lot of SAN units sold, but that opportunity is long gone unless you are able to take advantage of the innovators dillema. Looking over the horizon, there is a huge opportunty for people who can make this data not just searchable, but accessible and usable and trustworthy for decision-making.

The Scotsman wrote about a woman who returned home from the hospital to find a letter from the water company notifying her of her own death. While my guess is that this was a problem with information quality at the water, the breakdown could have happened at the hospital, in the government, or somewhere inbetween.  Regardless, it certainly is a black eye for data stewardship for someone.
Ignoring the recursive metaphysical implications of this situation, this really hits home how important information quality is in every organization.

NOTE: I originally spotted this on the upcoming page on Digg.

Having problems dealing with requirements from your customers? It could be worse … imagine if the placement of a single comma cost you $2.13 million!

The Globe and Mail has an article about a dispute between a customer and a supplier that hinged on exactly that. Two Canadian firms (Aliant and Rogers Communications) had a contract to string cable lines across utility poles. The dispute arose where …

Page 7 of the contract states: The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.

Because of the second comma, the contract could be canceled after 1 year instead of after 5 or 10. Aliant did so, and raised rates by 200%. Had that comma not been there, the move would have violated the contract.

This story is a great reminder why creating, maintaing, and following requirements is so difficult in technology projects. Make sure you know EXACTLY what you are agreeing to, especially when dealing with Service Level Agreements.

The Muncie Star Press wrote about a the terrible effects of poor iformation quality and its impact on a community.  Due to a data processing error, the City of Muncie incorrectly assessed property taxes on non-profit institutions, such as local hospitals and universities.

The inflated assessment was then used for budgeting, and once the problem was discovered there was a huge shortfall between revenue and spending.  Where this really hits home is when the Muncie Police and Fire Departments have to take first responders off the street in order to make up the difference.

Still wondering if information quality is worth looking at in your organization?