Business Intelligence Network - The Vision for BI and Beyond

Printer-friendly

E-mail to friend

Information Quality in Communication

Published: January 11, 2006

As shown by last week’s tragic coal mining misinformation, ambiguous language must be avoided when reporting or communicating critical information.

Many people have a narrow definition of Information Quality that focuses on what is in the databases, usually calling their quality function, “‘Data’ Quality.” But Information Quality is really much larger, ultimately consisting of Quality of all communications.

The first week of this year began with a tragic accident where 13 miners were trapped in a West Virginia coal mine explosion. As concerned family and friends waited for news at a nearby church, an information quality problem caused the physical tragedy to become an emotional tragedy as well. 

The Misinformation
USA TODAY’s cover headline, “12 miners found alive,” featured a CNN breaking news report: image, “12 MEN FOUND ALIVE.”  They reported, “Twelve miners trapped inside a coal mine for 42 hours were found alive shortly before midnight Tuesday, prompting screams of joy from family members in a nearby church.

“‘They’re all alive! screamed one woman as she ran out of the church, its bells ringing in the dark.” The governor had told the families “12 of the 13 miners were OK and coming out. One miner had been found dead.”

However, this information turned out to be tragically cruel “misinformation.”

The Real Information
“A coal company executive says it became clear within 20 minutes that the news anxious family members had received about the survival of a dozen trapped miners was terribly wrong.

“For three hours, church bells rang in celebration, families joined arm-in-arm to sing joyous hymns, the governor proclaimed it a miracle, and television newscasts and newspapers spread the word around the world.

“When the truth finally unfolded early Wednesday, with families members called back and told the 12 were actually dead and only one miner survived, joy instantly turned into fury and a scuffle broke out when relatives lunged at a coal company official.”

One cannot even conceive the feelings of the concerned loved ones, whose concern-turned-to-euphoria-turned-to-heartbreak, despair and outrage. 

The Information Quality Problem Causes and Remedies
Information Quality Problem 1: The actual communication contained imprecise and uncertain language, further compounded by significant noise and static. Figure 1 is a transcript of the actual recorded communications obtained by ABC News’ “Primetime.”

Figure 1. Transcripts of Sago Mine Emergency Calls

Lines 4 and 10 are examples of “ambiguous and unconfirmed statements.” The emotional hope of the hearer of the message could have interpreted it in the positive sense and passed on the “interpretation” that the miners were alive. Sadly, this was not the case. 

Information Quality Principle: Messages of importance must be explicit and devoid of ambiguous language. It must be clear so that it is NOT misinterpreted. When a message must be “interpreted by the receiver (whether orally or in writing), the receiver will often bias the message by interpreting it favorably to their own interests. If the rescuers were intending to describe the condition of the miners, they should have said something like, “We have found 12 [or several] miners’ bodies.  We cannot yet tell whether they are alive or dead, but we are checking their vital signs.”

Information Quality Problem 2:  The message received failed to confirm the messages that he or she thought they heard.  No clarifying questions are asked, “Are sure?” or “How have you confirmed this?”  When the families heard the relayed message, they accepted it at face value without questioning it.  Even when the conditions were known to be quite serious, apparently no one followed up with, “how do you know?” or “what were the rescuers exact words?”

Information Quality Problem 3: Both CNN and USA TODAY—and many others—failed to apply the Golden Rule of journalism: “verify your information.” There have been numerous journalistic faux pas recently, from paying journalists to print a [biased] story, to plagiarism, to deliberate falsification. The intense pressure to be the first with the story can cause short cuts. Short cuts increase errors. 

Information Quality Principle: “Verify your information with an independent source.” For A-priority information (important information where errors create significant negative consequences), you must confirm it is correct and complete before you release it. 

If you are NOT able to verify that the information is accurate, you must “provide a disclaimer,” to communicate an appropriate level of certainty of the message. I found no disclaimer or caution in the USA TODAY article that this information had not yet been independently verified. Had the message to the miners’ families been “qualified,” they might not have had their expectations raised to an unrealistic level only to be dashed by the truth.

Information Quality Problem 4: Compounding the false information delivery was the withholding of information that could have prevented the intensity of the traumatic reaction when the truth was released. A coal company executive confided that within 20 minutes of the release of the misinformation, it became clear that the information was wrong.

“International Coal Group Inc. chief executive Ben Hatfield said families were not told of the mistake until three hours later because officials wanted to have all the information right first.” But it was too late for them to get the information right “first.” They botched that by disseminating the misinformation without verifying it at the outset. Allowing the families to celebrate a false hope for three hours only increased the trauma when they finally shared the truth.

Information Quality Principle: “Honesty with sensitivity is the best policy.” If there is a false expectation, the longer you delay in setting the facts straight, the more problematic—and costly—it will be when you finally do. Do not allow people to “believe” as accurate a message that has not been confirmed as accurate. Provide any caution that the information has not yet been independently verified if such is the case.

Conclusion
Information Quality problems always bear a cost. In these unfortunate situations, there is no way to quantify the “costs” and pain caused to those affected by this tragic accident.

Our prayers and sympathies go out the families and friends of the victims of this tragic accident, and the further trauma caused by the misinformation. 

Please share your ideas for the Intelligent Learning Organization with me at Larry.English@infoimpact.com