Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) Outputs

Garbage in, garbage out–or GIGO–has been with us since the early days of computing in the 1960s. In the field of computer science or information and communications technology, says Wikipedia, GIGO “refers to the fact that computers, since they operate by logical processes, will unquestioningly process unintended, even nonsensical, input data (“garbage in”) and produce undesired, often nonsensical, output (“garbage out”).”

theintactone goes on to explore an expansion of the term to Garbage In, Gospel Out, “a sardonic comment on the tendency to put excessive trust in ‘computerized’ data, and on the propensity for individuals to blindly accept what the computer says. Since the data entered into the computer is then processed by the computer, people who do not understand the processes in question tend to believe the data they see.”

Needless to say, this is most unfortunate. The computer is often blamed for the failings of what is really a people-and-process problem. This is particularly true when decision-support systems are concerned and the input to computer programs derives from individuals or teams rather than from streams of accounting or other data.

GIGO is also used as a pejorative by persons who seek to undermine or deride use of advanced analytical and decision-support systems. I challenge this stand; GIGO can occur regardless of the system used–Excel documents are particularly prone to GIGO, either by accident or malicious forethought. The same can be said for any input. It is not a device problem. It is a people problem; frequently a company cultural problem.

People make decisions. Analytics help people make decisions; hopefully good ones. The difference is often the decision process; specifically how to bring people together to improve the quality of their decision making.

The six principles of Decision Quality (DQ) offer a great starting point for minimizing garbage in. By training everyone who has input to the decision process in the six principles and by developing transparency around the decision process, politics can be minimized, objectivity maintained and garbage circumvented.

Garbage in, garbage out–or GIGO–has been with us since the early days of computing in the 1960s. In the field of computer science or information and communications technology, says Wikipedia, GIGO “refers to the fact that computers, since they operate by logical processes, will unquestioningly process unintended, even nonsensical, input data (“garbage in”) and produce undesired, often nonsensical, output (“garbage out”).”

Wikipedia goes on to explore an expansion of the term to Garbage In, Gospel Out, “a sardonic comment on the tendency to put excessive trust in ‘computerized’ data, and on the propensity for individuals to blindly accept what the computer says. Since the data entered into the computer is then processed by the computer, people who do not understand the processes in question tend to believe the data they see.”

Needless to say, this is most unfortunate. The computer is often blamed for the failings of what is really a people-and-process problem. This is particularly true when decision-support systems are concerned and the input to computer programs derives from individuals or teams rather than from streams of accounting or other data.

GIGO is also used as a pejorative by persons who seek to undermine or deride use of advanced analytical and decision-support systems. I challenge this stand; GIGO can occur regardless of the system used–Excel documents are particularly prone to GIGO, either by accident or malicious forethought. The same can be said for any input. It is not a device problem. It is a people problem; frequently a company cultural problem.

People make decisions. Analytics help people make decisions; hopefully good ones. The difference is often the decision process; specifically how to bring people together to improve the quality of their decision making.

The six principles of Decision Quality (DQ) offer a great starting point for minimizing garbage in. By training everyone who has input to the decision process in the six principles and by developing transparency around the decision process, politics can be minimized, objectivity maintained and garbage circumvented.