She explained that on an issue of this sort it was foolish to have an opinion in the absence of evidence.
The idea was that there would be one shared version of the facts, so people would stop debating what's happening and focus on solving problems.
There is a subtle difference between data and information. Data are the facts or details from which information is derived. Individual pieces of data are rarely useful alone. For data to become information, data needs to be put into context.
The key question is, 'How can this data help me take an action? What does it mean? What are the actionable insights?'
If you don’t have data, you lead by anecdotes.
A primary task of management in the developed countries in the decades ahead will be to make knowledge productive.
The transistor, invented 60 years ago, is the basic building block of the digital age. Now, consider a world in which there are a billion transistors per human, each one costing one ten-millionth of a cent. We'll have that by 2010. There will likely be 4 billion mobile phone subscribers by the end of this year...and 30 billion Radio Frequency Identification tags produced globally within two years. Sensors are being embedded across entire ecosystems - suppy chains, healthcare networks, cities...even natural systems like rivers.
Despite what some folks might tell you, not all data is useful. Any organization must make consistent decisions about what types of data are non-trivial, and what sorts of analyses will actually add value.
Whether a piece of news spreads online does not depend on whether it is true and coherent, but whether it is surprising, shocking and confirms prejudices. It can bounce endlessly in virtual echo-chambers—even if it is patently false.
Obtaining data is one thing. Working out what they are saying is another.