We're sorry but this page doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Feedback

Don't fix bad data, do this instead

Formal Metadata

Title
Don't fix bad data, do this instead
Title of Series
Number of Parts
131
Author
Contributors
License
CC Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal and non-commercial purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
Language

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Genre
Abstract
In a time where GenAI is quickly growing in popularity, along with prescriptive analytics and online ML models, the question is raised whether we still need to care about data quality? We strongly believe that the answer is yes, and even more so than before! Our expectations of data are high, and this often leads to frustrations when reality does not meet these expectations. In the pursuit of data quality, expectations must be grounded in reality. It is often the case that a gap exists between anticipated outcomes and the actual data reality, which leads to frustration and mistrust. This talk delves into pragmatic strategies that can be employed to bridge this gap. The talk will discuss both the technical (hard) and cultural (soft) measures implemented to uphold these standards. Key Takeaways: 1. Integration tests serve as a proactive barrier, preempting the violation of data contracts, unlike reactive data quality checks. 2. Prioritisation is crucial; a product-centric mindset is key when evaluating the balance between resource investment and potential gain. 3. Data quality management is requiring both hard and soft measures Are you a data scientist, software engineer, product manager, or data engineer? Join us in this discussion; data quality concerns us all.