London - The old Warner Brothers' cartoon bulldog Spike was perplexed by what he had just seen. So he pulled out an adding machine from his rolls of fat, examined the numbers and exclaimed, "It just doesn't add up!"
As the "big data" drumbeat continues, I'm reminded that decisions slavishly informed by numbers sometimes just don't add up. Those who worship data to the exclusion of common sense, experience, human nature and, yes, "gut feel" can run serious risks that exact significant costs. Just witness the causal role of the young, unwise "quant jocks" and their superiors in the financial crisis. How many times I've lamented hearing that "numbers don't lie" when, in reality, the people who use and abuse them do all the time - whether willfully or not.
On the other hand, data phobes who don't understand the essential role of legitimate quantitative evidence in effective decision making run equally devastating risks. So enough with the false dichotomy between the "quant" and "qual" camps. Good leaders should have sufficient comfort levels in both domains to produce data-informed decisions mediated by wisdom and judgment. After all, data are only as credible as we mortals who enter them into the system and then interpret and apply them.
For example, the much-ballyhooed government debt and growth model developed by Professors Reinhart and Rogoff at Harvard is now found to be in error - at least partially. Too bad, since some stimulus-stunting, austerity-driven choices made by European governments cited their work as inspiration if not as proof. It turns out that Reinhart and Rogoff or their people entered data incorrectly into some of their Excel spreadsheets and, well, the rest is history. Ah, my kingdom for the want of an accurate spreadsheet cell.
As the "big data" drumbeat continues, I'm reminded that decisions slavishly informed by numbers sometimes just don't add up. Those who worship data to the exclusion of common sense, experience, human nature and, yes, "gut feel" can run serious risks that exact significant costs. Just witness the causal role of the young, unwise "quant jocks" and their superiors in the financial crisis. How many times I've lamented hearing that "numbers don't lie" when, in reality, the people who use and abuse them do all the time - whether willfully or not.
On the other hand, data phobes who don't understand the essential role of legitimate quantitative evidence in effective decision making run equally devastating risks. So enough with the false dichotomy between the "quant" and "qual" camps. Good leaders should have sufficient comfort levels in both domains to produce data-informed decisions mediated by wisdom and judgment. After all, data are only as credible as we mortals who enter them into the system and then interpret and apply them.
For example, the much-ballyhooed government debt and growth model developed by Professors Reinhart and Rogoff at Harvard is now found to be in error - at least partially. Too bad, since some stimulus-stunting, austerity-driven choices made by European governments cited their work as inspiration if not as proof. It turns out that Reinhart and Rogoff or their people entered data incorrectly into some of their Excel spreadsheets and, well, the rest is history. Ah, my kingdom for the want of an accurate spreadsheet cell.
Twitter @jessicamcwade