Embarrassment of riches: how shrinking big data can boost business and tackle office politics

Big data is no use if all it does is sit on a database, argues Paul Alexander

I've been reflecting recently on how language conditions our lives both in and out of the office.

How often are we led to believe, for example, that ‘big is beautiful'? That perception informs our general pursuit of a little more of everything, without giving too much thought as to whether we really need it.

It is a position that I have been having to consider in detail while dealing with peers, partners and clients working in a number of different industries, all of whom are grappling with the puzzling realities presented by big data.

They admit that, having bought into the idea that if data is commercial gold dust, having more of it must surely equate to success. Over time, though, they have come to appreciate that you can actually have too much of a good thing.

What they and many others come to acknowledge is that it's one thing to amass great pools of data, but something else entirely to understand and be able to act upon what it's telling you.

That has become particularly true as companies and regulators ready themselves for the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May next year. The need to martial statistical material in order to protect consumers has made data even more fashionable or "sexy", as one commentator remarked.

More than being able to satisfy the Eurocrats (at least for as long as the UK remains in the EU, that is), the quest to divine the secrets of business success from all that accumulated information has been given renewed vigour.

Even so, lots of energy - and cash - is being expended in vain. Without a simple approach, information merely becomes facts held at head office that gather dust, either to fuel departmental turf wars or detachment, and certainly serve no purpose.

Most managers recognise that data has a value, but because they can't immediately establish what it is themselves, the task of doing so is delegated, quite often to less-senior tiers of an organisation - usually individuals in a technical role - which, it's assumed, should have more of a clue. However, the same staff asked to analyse it might not possess any real pedigree in data use and the opportunity to capitalise on the potential of that information is missed.

Another problem presents itself in those who believe information means insight and so jealously guard it, even from their own colleagues. That compartmentalisation leads to poor communication or even conflict and a series of key personnel each of whom has their own version of what they view as the truth.

They may well have a common goal but the inability to develop a coherent means of achieving it stymies any chance of progress and can even cause severe difficulties.

Embarrassment of riches: how shrinking big data can boost business and tackle office politics

Big data is no use if all it does is sit on a database, argues Paul Alexander

I'm aware of a certain (non-UK) retailer whose finance director insisted on keeping transactional data to himself and allowing colleagues only snippets of information, as he saw fit. It was later discovered that he had misread that data over the course of eight years and so caused his company acute discomfort. He had failed to take on board one of the most critical elements of a successful data strategy; namely, that of shared ownership.

Although it's important that companies have experienced teams able to work through information and highlight the issues of greatest importance, it is vital that their conclusions can be seen and utilised most appropriately by as many departments as necessary.

Google's chief economist, Hal Varian, for one, has gone on record as placing great value on how firms "visualise and communicate" data: "Managers," he says, "need to be able to access and understand the data themselves."

In my opinion, the two are co-dependent. Reading the data means specialists being able to reduce it down to the most essential KPIs - the things which really matter - and present it in a straightforward manner. That simplicity provides directors and CEOs with the kind of clarity enabling them to make decisions better.

Moreover, though, it enables staff on the front line to take almost instant actions to address and improve local performance. To do that, they must receive the information speedily. To those of us fortunate enough to be working in this digital age, the days of having to count on monthly sales meetings for updates seems incredible; even if they were not so long ago.

Take the case of one client that we asked for the most recent tranche of data, stretching back several months. It was wheeled into a meeting room in dozens of boxes, each containing hundreds of pages of spreadsheets. This was a company, I should point out, that was eager to meet the data challenge and sufficiently bold enough to see that what staff required was a picture of the ‘here and now', not a snapshot of recent history.

Businesses who are both alive to the tangible benefits of such insight and able to engage in what I describe as ‘data meditation' are most likely to succeed now and in the future. They have learned how to screen out some of the huge volume of information noise and concentrate on those elements or signals which demand most attention and can have more of an impact.

Beyond Analysis is an award-winning UK data consultancy, working with numerous major retail, travel and financial services brands at home and abroad. Co-founder Paul Alexander is listed among the most influential figures in the domestic data industry.