When a company examines its data to determine if it can meet business expectations while identifying possible data gaps?

Four Primary Traits of Value of InfoChapter 6: Valuing & Storing Organizational Information — DatabasesI.Business Benefits of High-Quality Informationa.The ability to understand, digest, analyze, and filter information is key to growth and success for any professional in any industry info iseverywhere in an organization b.Information granularity: the extent ofdetail within the information (fine anddetailed/course and abstract) employees must be able to correlate thedifferent levels and formatsc.Successfully collecting, compiling,sorting, and analyzing info from multiplelevels, in varied format, and exhibitingdifferent granularities can providetremendous insight into how anorganization is performingd.Next step is to look at the four primary traits that help determine the value of infoe.Transactional information: encompasses all the info contained within a single business process or unit of work primary purpose is to support daily operational/repetitive tasksi.Ex. Determine how much inventory to carry f.Analytical information:encompasses all theorganizational infoprimary purpose is to supportthe performing of managerial analysis tasks i.Ex. Hiring additional sale personnel orbuilding a new manufacturing plantg.Timeliness is an aspect of information thatdepends on the situation h.Real-time information: immediate, up-to-date information request without realizing continual change must evaluate the timeliness for the information for every decision i.Real-time systems: provide real-time information in response to requests use to uncover key transactional information need to make faster and more effective decisions j.Business decisions are only as good as the quality of the information used to make themk.Information Inconsistency: the same data element has different values two last namesl.Information integrity:measure of the quality of information issues can cause mangers to consider the system reports invalid and will make decisions based on other sources i.Knowing how low-quality info occurs can help a company correct them m.Four primary reasons for low quality information:i.Online customers intentionally enter inaccurate information to protect their privacyii.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 4 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Data Management, Databases, Relational model

Reprint: R0702F

Regulators, industry groups, consultants, and individual companies have developed elaborate guidelines over the years for assessing and managing risks in a wide range of areas, from commodity prices to natural disasters. Yet they have all but ignored reputational risk, mostly because they aren’t sure how to define or measure it.

That’s a big problem, say the authors. Because so much market value comes from hard-to-assess intangible assets like brand equity and intellectual capital, organizations are especially vulnerable to anything that damages their reputations. Moreover, companies with strong positive reputations attract better talent and are perceived as providing more value in their products and services, which often allows them to charge a premium. Their customers are more loyal and buy broader ranges of products and services. Since the market believes that such companies will deliver sustained earnings and future growth, they have higher price-earnings multiples and market values and lower costs of capital.

Most companies, however, do an inadequate job of managing their reputations in general and the risks to their reputations in particular. They tend to focus their energies on handling the threats to their reputations that have already surfaced. That is not risk management; it is crisis management—a reactive approach aimed at limiting the damage. The authors provide a framework for actively managing reputational risk. They introduce three factors (the reputation-reality gap, changing beliefs and expectations, and weak internal coordination) that affect the level of such risks and then explore several ways to sufficiently quantify and control those factors. The process outlined in this article will help managers do a better job of assessing existing and potential threats to their companies’ reputations and deciding whether to accept a particular risk or take actions to avoid or mitigate it.

Executives know the importance of their companies’ reputations. Firms with strong positive reputations attract better people. They are perceived as providing more value, which often allows them to charge a premium. Their customers are more loyal and buy broader ranges of products and services. Because the market believes that such companies will deliver sustained earnings and future growth, they have higher price-earnings multiples and market values and lower costs of capital. Moreover, in an economy where 70% to 80% of market value comes from hard-to-assess intangible assets such as brand equity, intellectual capital, and goodwill, organizations are especially vulnerable to anything that damages their reputations.

A version of this article appeared in the February 2007 issue of Harvard Business Review.