sensors

Article
DAQUA-MASS: An ISO 8000-61 Based Data Quality
Management Methodology for Sensor Data
Ricardo Perez-Castillo 1, * , Ana G. Carretero 1 , Ismael Caballero 1 , Moises Rodriguez 1,2 ,
Mario Piattini 1,2 , Alejandro Mate 3 , Sunho Kim 4 and Dongwoo Lee 5
1 Information Technologies & Systems Institute (ITSI), University of Castilla-La Mancha, 13071 Ciudad Real,
Spain; anaisabel.gomez@uclm.es (A.G.C.); ismael.caballero@uclm.es (I.C.);
moises.rodriguez@uclm.es (M.R.); mario.piattini@uclm.es (M.P.)
2 AQC Lab, 13051 Ciudad Real, Spain
3 Lucentia Lab, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante, Spain; amate@lucentialab.es
4 Department of Industrial & Management Engineering, Myongji University, Seoul 449-728, Korea;
shk@mju.ac.kr
5 GTOne, Seoul 07299, Korea; leewow@gtone.co.kr
* Correspondence: ricardo.pdelcastillo@uclm.es; Tel.: +34-926295300




Received: 1 August 2018; Accepted: 12 September 2018; Published: 14 September 2018


Abstract: The Internet-of-Things (IoT) introduces several technical and managerial challenges when
it comes to the use of data generated and exchanged by and between various Smart, Connected
Products (SCPs) that are part of an IoT system (i.e., physical, intelligent devices with sensors and
actuators). Added to the volume and the heterogeneous exchange and consumption of data, it is
paramount to assure that data quality levels are maintained in every step of the data chain/lifecycle.
Otherwise, the system may fail to meet its expected function. While Data Quality (DQ) is a mature
field, existing solutions are highly heterogeneous. Therefore, we propose that companies, developers
and vendors should align their data quality management mechanisms and artefacts with well-known
best practices and standards, as for example, those provided by ISO 8000-61. This standard enables a
process-approach to data quality management, overcoming the difficulties of isolated data quality
activities. This paper introduces DAQUA-MASS, a methodology based on ISO 8000-61 for data
quality management in sensor networks. The methodology consists of four steps according to the
Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle by Deming.

Keywords: data quality; data quality management processes; ISO 8000-61; data quality in sensors;
Internet-of-Things; IoT; Smart, Connected Products; SCPs

1. Introduction
“Our economy, society and survival aren’t based on ideas or information—they’re based on
things” [1]. This is one of the core foundations of the Internet-of-Things (IoT) as stated by Ashton,
who coined the term. IoT is an emerging global internet-based information architecture facilitating
the exchange of goods and services [2]. IoT systems are inherently built on data gathered from
heterogeneous sources in which the volume, variety and velocity of data generation, exchanging
and processing are dramatically increasing [3]. Furthermore, there is a certain emergence of IoT
semantic-oriented vision which needs ways to represent and manipulate the vast amount of raw data
expected to be generated from and exchanged between the “things” [4].
The vast amount of data in IoT environments, gathered from a global-scale deployment of
smart-things, is the basis for making intelligent decisions and providing better services (e.g., smart
mobility as presented in [5]). In other words, data represents the bridge that connects cyber and

Sensors 2018, 18, 3105; doi:10.3390/s18093105 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 2 of 24

physical worlds. Despite of its tremendous relevance, if data are of inadequate quality, decisions
from both humans and other devices are likely to be unsound [6,7]. As a consequence, Data
Quality (DQ) has become one of the key aspects in IoT [6,8–10]. In IoT, and in particular, Smart,
Connected Products (SCPs), have concrete characteristics that favour the apparition of problems due to
inadequate levels of data quality. Mühlhäuser [11] defines smart, connected products (SCPs) as “entities
(tangible object, software, or service) designed and made for self-organized embedding into different
(smart) environments in the course of its lifecycle, providing improved simplicity and openness
through improved connections”. While some of the SCP-related characteristics might be considered
omnipresent (i.e., uncertain, erroneous, noisy, distributed and voluminous), other characteristics are
more specific and highly dependent on the context and monitored phenomena (i.e., smooth variation,
continuous, correlation, periodicity or Markovian behaviour) [6].
Also, outside of the IoT research area, DQ has been broadly studied during last years, and it has
become a mature research area capturing the growing interest of the industry due to the different types
of values that companies can extract from data [12]. This fact is reflected by the standardization efforts
like ISO/IEC 25000 series addressing systems and software quality requirements and evaluation
(SQuaRE) [13], or ISO 8000-60 series concerning the best practices in data quality management
processes. In order to assure adequate levels of data quality, it is necessary to produce and implement
methods, processes, and specific techniques for managing data concerns. We pose that such standards
can be tailored and used within the IoT context, not only bring benefits standardizing solutions and
enabling a better communication between partners. Also, the number of problems and system fails
on the IoT environment is reduced, better decisions can be taken due to a better quality of data, all
stakeholders are aligned and can take benefit of the advances on the standard used, and it is easier to
apply data quality solutions in a global way because the heterogeneity is reduced.
Due to the youth of IoT, and despite DQ standards, frameworks, management techniques and
tools proposed in the literature, DQ for IoT has not been yet widely studied. However, and prior to this
research line, it is possible to cite some works that had addressed some DQ concerns in sensor wireless
networks [8,14], or in data streaming [15,16] among other proposals [6]. However, these works have
not considered the management of DQ in a holistic way in line with existing DQ-related standards. In
our attempt to align the study of DQ in IoT to international standards, this paper provides practitioners
and researchers with DAQUA-MASS, a methodology for managing data quality in SCP environments,
which considers some of the DQ best practices for improving quality of data in SCP environments
aligned to ISO 8000-61 [17]. Due to the intrinsic distributed nature of IoT systems, using such standards
will enable the various organizations to be aligned to the same foundations, and in the end, to work in
a seamless way, what will undoubtedly improve the performance of the business processes.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the most challenging data
quality management concerns in the context of the SCP environments; Section 3 explores related work.
Section 4 explains the data quality model in which our methodology is based on. Section 5 presents our
proposed methodology for managing data quality in SCP environments. Finally, Section 6 discusses
conclusions and implications of this work.

2. Data Quality Challenges in SCP Environments

This section introduces some general ideas about Smart, Connected Products (SCPs) operations,
as an essential part of IoT. In addition, some challenges related to DQ in SCP environments are
also introduced.
According to Cook et al. [18], a smart environment is a small world where all kinds of smart
devices are continuously working to make inhabitants’ lives more comfortable. According to
Mühlhäuser [11], SCP provides intelligent actions through improved connections by means of
context-awareness, semantic self-description, proactive behaviour, multimodal natural interfaces,
AI planning, and machine learning.
 Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 3 of 24

SCPs
Sensors 2018, 18, x have three main core components: physical, smart, and connectivity components. 3 of Smart
24
components extend the capabilities and value of the physical components, while connectivity extends
the capabilities
the capabilities and andvaluevalue
of theof the
smartsmart components.
components. ThisThis enables
enables some some
smart smart components
components to exist
to exist
outside
outside the physical
the physical product
product itself,
itself, withwith a cycle
a cycle of value
of value improvement
improvement [19].[19].
IoT IoT
andand SCPSCPcancan bebeconfused
confusedin in some
some contexts.
contexts. However,
However,IoT IoTsimply
simply reflects the the
reflects growing number
growing
of SCPs
number and highlights
of SCPs and highlightsthe new the opportunities
new opportunities they can
theyrepresent. IoT, which
can represent. can involve
IoT, which people or
can involve
things, is a mean for interchanging information. What makes SCPs
people or things, is a mean for interchanging information. What makes SCPs essentially different essentially different is not
is the
Internet,
not the butbut
Internet, the the
changing
changing nature of the
nature “things”
of the “things”[19]. A product
[19]. A product that is smart
that is smartandandconnected
connected to the
cloud
to the cloudcould become
could become partpart
of anofinterconnected
an interconnected management
managementsolution; and companies
solution; and companies can therefore
can
evolveevolve
therefore from making
from makingproducts to offering
products more complex,
to offering higher-value
more complex, servicesservices
higher-value within a “system
within a of
systems”
“system [20]. [20].
of systems”
SCPsSCPs include
include processors,
processors, sensors,
sensors, software
software and and connectivity
connectivity that that
allow allow
datadata
to betoexchanged
be exchanged
between the product and its environment. The data collected by sensors of these SCPs can can
between the product and its environment. The data collected by sensors of these SCPs be then
be then
analysed
analysed to inform
to inform decision-making,
decision-making, enableenable operational
operational efficiencies
efficiencies and and continuously
continuously improve
improve the the
performance of the product. This paper focuses on the data produced by such sensors, and howhow
performance of the product. This paper focuses on the data produced by such sensors, and
inadequate
inadequate levels
levels of data
of data quality
quality maymay affectaffect the processing
the processing of data,
of the the data,
while while
smart smart
and and connectivity
connectivity
partsparts of SCPs
of SCPs are outside
are outside of scope
of the the scope of this
of this paper.
paper.
SCPsSCPscan can be connected
be connected in large,
in large, complex
complex networks
networks throughout
throughout threethree different
different layerslayers
[9]: [9]:
acquisition,
acquisition, processing
processing and and utilization
utilization layerlayer
(see(see Figure
Figure 1). 1).

Utilization user
Layer

www

Processing Data management &

Layer Processing centre

routing node

Acquisition
Layer

sensor node

Figure
Figure 1. Layers
1. Layers in SCP
in SCP environments.
environments.

 •Acquisition
Acquisition
layerlayer refers
refers to sensor
to the the sensor
datadata collection
collection system
system where
where sensors,
sensors, raw raw (or sensed)
(or sensed) and and
pre-processed data are managed. This is the main focus
pre-processed data are managed. This is the main focus of this paper. of this paper.
 •Processing
Processing
layerlayer involves
involves datadata resulting
resulting fromfrom
datadata processing
processing and and management
management centre
centre where
where
energy,
energy, storage
storage andand analyse
analyse capabilities
capabilities are are
moremore significant.
significant.
 Utilization layer concerns delivered data (or post-processed data) exploited, for example, over a
GIS or combined with other services or applications.
As previously stated, the scope of the paper is limited to the data produced by SCPs’ sensors.
Hence, the proposal is mainly intended to be applied in the context of the acquisition layer.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 4 of 24

• Utilization layer concerns delivered data (or post-processed data) exploited, for example, over a
GIS or combined with other services or applications.

As previously stated, the scope of the paper is limited to the data produced by SCPs’ sensors.
Hence, the proposal is mainly intended to be applied in the context of the acquisition layer.
Nevertheless, the management of the data quality in sensors can impact on how data is processed
(processing layer) and how data may be used later (utilization layer).
Networking and management of SCP operations can generate the business intelligence needed
to deliver smart services. Smart services are delivered to or via smart objects that feature awareness
and connectivity [21]. SCP can carry out the following functions to support smart services [22]: status,
diagnostics, upgrades, control and automation, profiling and behaviour tracking, replenishment and
commerce, location mapping and logistics, etc.
SCP operations enable new capabilities for companies, although also arising new problems and
challenges must be taken into account. On one hand, SCP operations require companies to build and
support an entirely new technology infrastructure [19]. Technological layers in the new technology
landscape include new product hardware, embedded software, connectivity, a product cloud running
on remote servers, security tools, gateway for external information sources, and integration with
enterprise business systems. On the other hand, SCP operations can provide competitive advantages,
which are based on the operational effectiveness. Operation effectiveness requires to embrace best
practices along the value chain, including up-to-date product technologies, the latest production
equipment, and state-of-the-art sales force methods, IT solutions, and so forth. Thus, SCP operations
also creates new best practices across the value chain [19].
According to the different sources of data in these SCP environments, we can distinguish different
types of aggregated data:

• Sensor data: data that is generated by sensors and digitalized in a computer-readable format (for
example, the camera sensor readings).
• Device data: It is integrated by sensor data; observed metadata (metadata that characterizes the
sensor data, e.g., timestamp of sensor data); and device meta data (metadata that characterizes
the device, e.g., device model, sensor model, manufacturer, etc.), so device data, for example, can
be data coming from the camera (device).
• General data: data related to/or coming from devices which has been modified or computed to
derive different data plus business data (i.e., data for business use such as operation, maintenance,
service, customers, etc.).
• IoT data: general data plus device data.

A reduction in the levels of quality of these data due to different problems in SCP operations can
threaten the success factors of SCP environments [6]. The quality of produced data is often affected
by dysfunctional SCP devices and sensors, which are the sources providing data, and can potentially
result in inadequate levels of quality that are only detected later on, when data are being processed
and used. Therefore, while we can identify dysfunctional SCP devices through the analysis of sensor
data by using data quality management techniques, it is noteworthy that these devices will impact
the rest of the sensor network. According to [6], Table 1 summarizes some of these SCP factors that,
in some cases, could condition or lead to data quality issues. In addition, the three columns on the
right of Table 1 show (marked with a cross) the most critical layers affected in a greater extent by every
SCP factor.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 5 of 24

Table 1. SCP factors that can finally affect the levels of DQ according to [6].

SCP Factor Side Effect in Data Quality Acquisition Processing Utilization

SCPs are expected to be deployed on a global scale. This leads to a huge heterogeneity
Deployment Scale in data sources (not only computers but also daily objects). Also, the huge number of X X
devices accumulates the chance of error occurrence.
For example, computational and storage capabilities that do not allow complex
Resources constraints X X
operations due, in turn, to the battery-power constraints among others.
Intermittent loss of connection in the IoT is recurrent. Things are only capable of
Network X X
transmitting small-sized messages due to their scarce resources.
Embedded sensors may lack precision or suffer from loss of calibration or even low
Sensors X
accuracy. Faulty sensors may also result in inconsistencies in data sensing.
SCP devices will not be deployed only in tolerant and less aggressive environments. To
monitor some phenomenon, sensors may be deployed in environments with extreme
Environment X X
conditions. Data errors emerge when the sensor experiences the surrounding
environment influences [23].
Things are generally defenceless from outside physical threats (both from humans and
Vandalism X X
animals).
A sensor node fails, but it keeps up reporting readings which are erroneous. It is a
Fail-dirty. X X
common problem for SCP networks and an important source of outlier readings.
Privacy Privacy preservation processing, thus DQ could be intentionally reduced. X
Sensor devices are vulnerable to attack, e.g., it is possible for a malicious entity to alter
Security vulnerability X X
data in an SCP device.
Data gathered by smart things are sent in the form of streams to the back-end pervasive
applications which make use of them. Some stream processing operators could affect
Data stream processing quality of the underlying data [10].Other important factors are data granularity and X X
variety [24]. Granularity concerns interpolation and spatio-temporal density while
variety refers to interoperability and dynamic semantics.
 Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 6 of 24

Tilak et al. [23] provide a taxonomy of sensor errors. These errors are directly related to different
data quality problems in the acquisition layer. The mentioned taxonomy distinguishes the following
six types of data sensors errors (see Table 2). Apart from errors in isolated SCP devices, there are other
communication errors which can happen at SCP network level [23]. Table 3 summarizes the main
types of communication errors: omission, crashes, delay and message corruption. The table shows the
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24
DQ18,issue
Sensors 2018, x FORderived by each problem, the root cause and possible solution.
PEER REVIEW 6 of 24
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24
Table 2. Sensors errors deriving DQ problems in SCP environments (adapted from [8]).
Table
Sensors 2018, 18, 2. Sensors
x FOR errors deriving DQ problems in SCP environments (adapted from [8]).
PEER REVIEW 6 of 24
Table
Sensors 2018, 18, 2. Sensors
x FOR errors deriving DQ problems in SCP environments (adapted from [8]).
PEER REVIEW 6 of 24
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEERError
REVIEW Description Example
6 of 24
Error
Table 2. Sensors Description
errors deriving DQ problems in SCP environments (adapted from [8]). Example
Sensors 2018, 18,
Error x FOR PEER REVIEW Description 6 of 24
Example
Temporal Table
delay 2. SensorsTheerrors derivingare
observations DQThe problems
continuously
observations in SCP areenvironments
produced (adapted
with a constant
continuously produced from [8]).
temporal
Error
Table Temporal
2. Sensors delay error
errors derivingare DQcontinuously
problems Description
in SCP environments (adapted from [8]). Example
Temporal delay The observations with adeviation produced
constant with
temporal deviationa constant temporal
error
Table 2. Sensors errors deriving DQ problems in SCP environments (adapted from [8]). Example
Error
error Description
deviation
Temporal delay
Table
Error 2. SensorsThe observations
errors derivingare DQcontinuously
problems in SCPproduced
Description with a constant
environments (adapted temporal
from [8]). Example
error
Error
Temporal
Constant ordelay
offset The
Theobservations
observationsare continuously
continuously deviation
Description
produced
deviate from with a constant
the expected temporal
value by a Example
Error
Temporal
Constant ordelay
offset The
Theobservations
observationsare continuously
continuously
The Description
produced
deviate
observations fromwith
continuously adeviate
constant
the expected temporal
value
from by a Example
error
error Constant or offset error deviation
constant offset.
Temporal
error delay The observations are continuously
the expected produced
value
deviation
constant offset. by awith a constant
constant offset. temporal
Constant
Temporal ordelay
offset Theobservations
The observationsare continuously
continuously deviate
produced from the
with expected
a constant value by a
temporal
error Theobservations
deviation between the deviation and the expected value is
observations
error
error
Constant or offset The constant
deviation offset.
Continuous varying The deviation between the observations and the expected valueby
continuously deviate from the expected value is a
Constant
Continuous orvarying
error offset continuously
The observations changing The according
deviation
continuously to some
between
deviate
constant from
offset. continuous
thethe time-dependent
observations
expected and by a
value
or drifting
Constant error
or error
offset continuously
Theobservations
The deviation changing
between according
the
continuously to some
observations
deviate continuous
andthe time-dependent
theexpected
expected valueby is a
error
or drifting
Continuous the expected
function value
(linear
constant or isfrom
continuously
non-linear).
offset. value
changing
Constant orvarying
Continuous
offset varying
The or drifting continuously
observations
continuously changing function deviate
(linear
according or
to some from
non-linear). the
continuous expected value by a
time-dependent
error The deviation between theconstant
according
observationsoffset.
to some and continuous
the expected value is
or drifting
error
Continuous
Crash error
varying
or jammed error
The sensor stops providing constant
any readings offset.on its interface ororgets jammed
The deviation
continuously between
changing function the observations
time-dependent
(linear
according to or
some and
function
non-linear). the(linear
continuous expected value
time-dependent is
Continuous
Crash
or drifting varying
or jammed
error TheThesensor stops providing
deviation between any
the readings onand
observations its interface or gets
the expected jammed
value is
errorvarying
Continuous continuously and
changing stuck in
according
function some
(linear incorrect
tonon-linear).
some
or value.
continuous
non-linear). time-dependent
or drifting
error
Crash or jammederror The The deviation
sensor stops between
and
providing stuckthe in
any observations
some
readings incorrect
on and
its the
value. expected
interface or getsvalue
jammedis
Continuous varying continuously changing according
function (linear to some
or continuous
non-linear). time-dependent
or drifting error continuously
Data changing
is correct for values
The according
within
sensor stopsto
somesome continuous
interval
providing time-dependent
butreadings
any are modified onjammedfor
error
or drifting
Crash error
or jammed The sensor and
stops providing stuck
function in
any some
(linear
readings incorrect
or on itsvalue.
non-linear). interface or gets
Crash or Data
jammed is correct
error for values
function
its within
(linear
interface some
or or
gets interval
non-linear).
jammed but
and are modified
stuck in for
Trimming
Crash error error
or jammed values outside the
The sensor stops providing
and interval.
stuckany Beyond
readings
in Beyond
some the interval,
on its value.
incorrect the data can
interface or gets jammed be
Trimming
Crash error
or jammed The values
Data
sensor outside
is correct forthe
stops providing interval.
values within
any some some
readings theoninterval,
interval
incorrect but the
value.
its value.
interfaceare data
modified
or canjammed
gets befor
error trimmed
and stuck or may
in somevary proportionally.
incorrect
Crash or
Trimming jammed The sensor stops providing
trimmed orany
may readings
vary on its
proportionally.interface or gets jammed
error error values
Data outsidefor
is correct the
and interval.
stuckwithin
values Beyond
in some some the
incorrect interval,
interval butthe
value. aredata
modifiedcan befor
error and Datawithin
stuck is correct forinterval
values within
aresome
Trimming error The
Data observations
is correct
values outsideforthevalues
trimmed or in
occasionally
interval. may some
deviate
some
vary incorrect
from
proportionally.value.
the expected
but value,
modified at
for
Outliers error The
Data observations
is correct for occasionally
interval
values
random butBeyond
within
points
deviate
are
insome
the
the
modified frominterval,
interval
time
thebut
for
domain.
the
expected
values
are
data
outside
modified
can be
value, at
for
Trimming errorTrimming
Outliers error values
error outside the
trimmed interval.
or mayBeyond
vary the interval, the
aredata can befor
Trimming error
Data
The is correct
observations
values outside
for
the
values
the
random within
interval.
points
occasionally
interval. Beyond
in theproportionally.
some
deviate
Beyond
interval
the
time
the from thebut
interval,
domain.
interval, the
expected
the
modified
data
data can beat
value,
can
Outliers error
Trimming error trimmed
values outsiderandomthe be or
interval. may vary
Beyond proportionally.
the interval, the data can be
trimmed trimmed
points
or may inor
vary may vary
theproportionally.
time proportionally.
domain.
TheThe observations
observations occasionally
deviate from thedeviate
expected from the expected
value stochasticallyvalue,inatthe
Outliers error
Noise error TheThe observations
observations trimmed or
occasionally
deviate frommay vary
deviate
the proportionally.
from the expected value,inatthe
Outliers error
Noise error value domain random
The points
andobservations
permanentlyinexpected
theoccasionally
time
in
value
thedomain.
temporal
stochastically
deviate from
domain.
The observations
value domain occasionally
randomand points
permanentlydeviate
in the time
in from
the the expected
domain.
temporal domain. value, at
Outliers error OutliersThe The observations
error deviate from the
the expecteddeviate
observations occasionally expected
value, atfrom value
random stochastically the inatthe
points invalue,
the expected
Noise error
Outliers error random points in the time domain.
value domain
The observations random and
deviate from permanently
pointsthe time
inexpectedin the
domain.
the time domain. temporal domain.
value stochastically in the
Noise error The observations Table 3.
deviate SCP Network
from the expectedErrors. value stochastically
Noise error value domain
Table and
3. SCP permanently
Network in the
Errors. value temporal domain. in the
The observations
value domaindeviate
and
The from the expected
permanently
observations in
deviatethe temporal
from stochastically
the domain.
expected in the
Noise error
Sensor Fault The observations
DQ deviate from theRoot
Problem expected Cause value stochasticallySolution in the
Noise error value domain
Tablevalueand
3. SCP permanently
Network Errors. in
in the
the temporal domain.
Sensor Fault Noise error value DQ domain
Problem stochastically
and permanently Root in Cause value domain
the temporal domain.
andSolution
Table 3. permanently
SCP Network in the
Errors. temporal domain. Network reliability,
Omission
Sensor Faultfaults Absence of values
DQ Problem Missing
Root sensor
Cause Network reliability,
Solution
Omission faults Absence of values
Table 3. SCP Network Missing Errors.sensor retransmission
Table 3. SCP retransmission
Network reliability, with
Sensor
Omission Fault
Crash faults
faults DQ Problem
Inaccuracy/absence
Absence of values of Network Root Errors.
Environment
Missing Cause
sensor Solution
Redundancy/estimating
Crash faults Table
Inaccuracy/absence 3. SCPof Network Errors.
EnvironmentCause Errors. Redundancy/estimating
Sensor Fault
(fading/intermittent) DQvalues
Problem Table 3. SCPRoot Network
interference reliability,with
Solution
retransmission
Networkpast values
Sensor Fault
Omission faults
(fading/intermittent) DQvalues
Absence Problem
of values Root Cause
Missing
interference sensor Network Solution
past values
reliability,
Crash
Delay faults
Sensor Fault
faults Inaccuracy/absence
DQ Problem
Inaccuracy of Environment
Root domain
Time Cause Redundancy/estimating
retransmission
TimelineSolution
solutions with
Omission faultsSensor FaultAbsence of values
DQ Problem Missing sensor Root Cause Network Solution
reliability,
Delay
Omission
Crash faults
(fading/intermittent)
faults
faults Inaccuracy
Absence values
of values
Inaccuracy/absence of Time
Missing domain
interference
Environment sensor Timeline
past
Redundancy/estimating solutions
retransmission
values
Message corruption Integrity Communication Network
Integrity validation with
reliability,
retransmission
Omission
Message faults Absence of Absence
valuesofof values Missing sensor Network reliability,
Delaycorruption
Crash faults
(fading/intermittent)Omission faults Integrity
Inaccuracy/absence
Inaccuracy
values Communication
Environment
Time domain
interference Missing sensor Integrity
Redundancy/estimating
Timeline
past validation
solutions with
values
retransmission
Crash faults Inaccuracy/absence of Environment Redundancy/estimating retransmission
with
(fading/intermittent)
Message corruption values
Integrity interference past values
 (fading/intermittent)
Delay
DQCrash faults
characteristics Crashto assess
faults data qualityofin useCommunication
Inaccuracy
Inaccuracy/absence
values
Inaccuracy/absence
Time
within domain
Environment
interference
of a specific
Environmentcontext. Integrity
Timeline
Redundancy/estimating
This
past
validation
solutions
aspect
values
with
considers
Redundancy/estimating
 (fading/intermittent)
DQDelay
Message faults
characteristics
corruption to assessInaccuracy
data quality
Integrity
values Time
in use Communication
within domain
interference a specific context. Timeline
This
Integrity solutions
aspect considers
validation
pastprocessing
values
selected criteria to estimate the
(fading/intermittent)
Delaycorruption
faults quality of
Inaccuracy raw sensor
values Time data
domain at the acquisition
interference and
Timeline layer.
with past values
solutions
 Message
selected
DQDelay criteria
characteristics
faults to estimate theIntegrity
quality
to assessInaccuracy
data quality of raw Communication
sensor
in use within data
Time make at the
a specific
domain acquisition
context. Integrity
and validation
processing
This aspect
Timeline layer.
considers
solutions
There are
Message someDelay
corruption DQ faults
characteristics considered,
Integrity Inaccuracy which Communication it possible
Time domain toIntegrity
estimate the quality
Timeline
validation on
solutions
 Message
There are
selected some DQ
criteria
DQ characteristics
corruption
datacharacteristics
sources,
characteristics
to estimate
to assessthe
theircorruption
Message context data considered,
quality
quality
Integrity
of acquisition
of rawin use
and
Integrity
which
sensor
their within make
data
Communication
transmission a at it possible
the
specific acquisition
to the data
Communication
toIntegrity
context. estimate
This
management
the quality
and processing
aspect
and
Integrity validation
considers
validation on
layer.
 DQ
data
There sources,
selectedarecriteria
some their
DQ
to to assessthe
context ofdata
characteristics
estimate quality
acquisition in
considered,
quality of raw use
and within
their
which
sensor make
data a at
specific
transmission context.
to the
it possible
the to data
acquisition This
estimate
and aspect
management considers
the quality
processing and
on
layer.
 processing.
DQ
selected These
characteristics
criteria to DQ characteristics
to assess
estimate data
the quality are
quality
of accuracy
in use
raw sensorand
within
datacompleteness
a at
specific
the according
context.
acquisition This
and to ISO/IEC
aspect
processing 25012
considers
layer.
 processing.
DQ
data
There sources, These
characteristics
arecriteria
some their
DQ DQ
to characteristics
assessofdata
context
characteristics are
quality
acquisition accuracy
in
considered, usetheir
and and
within
which completeness
a specific
transmission
make according
context.
to the
it possible toItdata
estimateto ISO/IEC
Thismanagement
aspect
the 25012
considers
quality and
on
[25]
There and
selected reliability
All
are the mentioned
some DQ and
to estimate communication
the devices/sensor
SCP
characteristics quality reliability
of raw
considered, sensor
errors
which as
data
will proposed
make at the
lead it to in [9].to
acquisition
different
possible DQ is problems
and also related
processing to the
layer.
in the three
on layers
[25] and
selected
processing.
data reliability
criteria
sources, Theseto DQ
their and
estimate communication
the quality
characteristics
context of are
acquisition reliability
of accuracy
raw
and sensor as
and
their dataproposed
at the
completeness
transmission into[9].
acquisition Itestimate
according
the is
and
data also the quality
related
processing
to ISO/IEC
management to the
layer.
25012
and
utilization
There
data are some
depicted
sources, layer DQ
intheirand
Figure includes
characteristics
1.
context As of availability
considered,
previously
acquisition regarding
mentioned,
and which
their DQ ISO/IEC
make
problems
transmission 25012
it possible
can thebe[25]
to plus
estimate
represented timeliness
theasquality and
on
a degradation of
utilization
There
[25] and
processing. layer
arereliability
someTheseDQ and
DQand includes
characteristics availability
communication
characteristics considered,
are regarding
which
reliability
accuracy as
and ISO/IEC
make
proposed
completeness into[9].
25012
it possible toItdata
[25]estimate
according management
isplus
also
to timeliness
the quality
related
ISO/IEC to and
and
on
the
25012
adequacy
data sources,
some
processing. DQas defined
their
These DQ in
context
characteristics [9]. of
thatacquisition
characteristics are and
especially
are accuracy their transmission
important
and in different
completeness to the data
environments.
according management
Let
totimeliness
ISO/IEC us and
consider
25012 two
adequacy
data
utilization aslayer
sources, defined
[25] Characteristics
and their
reliability and inincludes
and [9].
context of acquisition
availability
communication and their
regarding
reliability transmission
as ISO/IEC
proposed to [9].
25012
in the Itdata
[25] is management
plus
also and
relatedinternal
to the
 DQ
processing.
groups ofThese
data DQ aimed at managing
characteristics
quality characteristics:areinternal
accuracy data
andquality. The main
completeness goal
according ofalso
managing
to ISO/IEC 25012
 [25]
DQ and
processing.
adequacy
utilization reliability
Characteristics
These
aslayer
definedDQ
andand
aimed communication
[9].at managing
incharacteristics
includes are
availabilityreliability
internal
accuracy data as
and
regarding proposed
quality.
completeness
ISO/IEC in
The25012
main[9]. It
goal
according
[25] is
of related
managing
plusto timeliness
ISO/IEC to the
internal
25012
and
data and
[25] quality
utilization is to avoid
reliability
layer and inconsistent
communication data and maintain
reliability as ISO/IECthe temporality
proposed in [9].[25] of
It is sensor
also data to
related at the
 data
[25]
DQ quality
adequacy DQ as is toand
•Characteristics
and reliability avoid
and
characteristics
defined aimed
inincludes availability
inconsistent
communication
attomanaging
[9]. assess data
data regarding
and
quality
internal maintain
reliability
in as
data use theThe
proposed
within
quality. a25012
temporality
in [9].
specific
main goal of
isplus
of also timeliness
sensor
Itcontext. data
related
This
managing at and
to
aspect the
internalconsiders
processingaslayer
utilization
adequacy layer. These
and
defined in characteristics
includes
[9]. are consistency
availability regarding and ISO/IECcurrency25012 according
[25] plustotimeliness
ISO/IEC 25012 and
 processing
utilization
data
[25]
quality layer.
layer
selected
DQ Characteristics
and volatility
adequacy
is to
as defined
These
and
criteria
avoid
asaimed characteristics
includes
toinconsistent
proposed
in
estimate
at
[9].at managing are
availability
thedata consistency
regarding
quality
and
internal
in [9]. internal
ofmaintain
data and
ISO/IEC
rawquality.
sensor currency
the data 25012 according
at the
temporality
The main [25]
goal ofplus
acquisition
of totimeliness
sensorISO/IEC
managingand
data 25012
and
processing
at the layer.
internal
 DQ
[25] Characteristics
and
adequacy
processing volatility
as defined
layer.
dataCharacteristics aimed
as
These
quality is to avoid proposed
in [9]. managing
in [9].
characteristics
inconsistent are
data data
consistency
anddata quality.
maintain and The
currency
theThe main goal
according
temporality of
of managing
to ISO/IEC
sensor data internal
25012
at the
 DQ
data quality aimedinconsistent
is toThese
avoid at managingdata internal
and data quality.
maintain the main goalof
temporality of sensor
managing internal
datainternal
at the
3. Related
DQ
[25] Characteristics
and
processing volatility
layer. aimed
as proposedat managing
in [9].
characteristics internal
are consistency quality.
and The
currency
Work is to avoid inconsistent data and maintain the temporality of sensor data at main goal
according of managing
to ISO/IEC 25012
data quality
processing layer. These characteristics are consistency and currency according to ISO/IEC the
25012
3. Related
data
[25] andWork
quality is to avoid
volatility as proposedinconsistent
in [9]. data and maintain the temporality of sensor data at the
processing
The and
[25] goal layer. These
of this section
volatility characteristics
is
as proposed twofold. are
First,
in [9]. consistency
Section and
3.1 presents currency
some worksaccordingrelatedto ISO/IEC
to the study25012of
3. Related Work
processing
The
[25] and oflayer.
goal volatility These
this section characteristics
is
as proposed twofold.in
are
First,
[9].
consistency
Section and currency
3.1 presents some worksaccordingrelatedto to
ISO/IEC 25012
the study of
data quality
3. Related
[25] and in
Work sensor networks and SCP environments in general. Second, Section 3.2 introduces and
data quality
The goalinvolatility
ofsensor as proposed
networks
this section and in
is twofold. SCP[9].
environments
First, Section 3.1inpresents
general.some Second, Section
works 3.2 introduces
related to the study and
of
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 7 of 24

There are some DQ characteristics considered, which make it possible to estimate the quality
on data sources, their context of acquisition and their transmission to the data management
and processing. These DQ characteristics are accuracy and completeness according to ISO/IEC
25012 [25] and reliability and communication reliability as proposed in [9]. It is also related to
the utilization layer and includes availability regarding ISO/IEC 25012 [25] plus timeliness and
adequacy as defined in [9].
• DQ Characteristics aimed at managing internal data quality. The main goal of managing internal
data quality is to avoid inconsistent data and maintain the temporality of sensor data at the
processing layer. These characteristics are consistency and currency according to ISO/IEC
25012 [25] and volatility as proposed in [9].

3. Related Work
The goal of this section is twofold. First, Section 3.1 presents some works related to the study
of data quality in sensor networks and SCP environments in general. Second, Section 3.2 introduces
and compares some data quality methodologies in order to draw the main contribution of the
proposed methodology.

3.1. Sensor Data Quality

There are some published works in the literature that address the concerns related to data quality
management in SCP and IoT environments. Karkouch et al. [6] presented a state-of-the-art survey for
DQ in IoT. This survey presents IoT-related factors endangering the DQ and their impact on various
DQ characteristics. Also, DQ problems manifestations are discussed (and their symptoms identified) as
well as their impact in the context of IoT. Gonçalo et al. in [8] provided a similar survey addressing the
problem of not being able to ensure desired DQ levels for dependable monitoring when using wireless
sensor networks. This work pays special attention to comprehension of which faults can affect sensors,
how they can affect the quality of the information and how this quality can be improved and quantified.
Gutiérrez Rodríguez and Servigne in [9] also analysed data errors in sensor networks, in particular in
environmental monitoring systems. In this paper, authors address the problem of uncertainty of data
coming from sensors with an approach dedicated to providing environmental monitoring applications
and users with data quality information. Badawy et al. [26] combined parametric and non-parametric
signal processing and machine learning algorithms for automating sensor data quality control, which
can identify those parts of the sensor data that are sufficiently reliable for further analysis and discards
useless data.
Another research subarea of DQ in sensor networks is the DQ management in sensor data streams.
Klein et al. [10] presented a quality-driven load shedding approach that screens the data stream to
find and discard data items of minor quality. Thus, DQ of stream processing results is maximized
under adverse conditions such as data overload. Campbell et al. [15] advocated for automated quality
assurance and quality control procedures based on graphical and statistical summaries for review and
track the provenance of the data in environmental sensor streams.
Other works focus on data management from different viewpoints. For example,
Al-Ruithe et al. [27] detailed roles, responsibilities and policies in the context of IoT-Cloud converged
environments and provide a generic framework for data governance and security. Similarly,
Qin et al. [14] provided a data management perspective on large-scale sensor environments
applications posing non-functional requirements to meet the underlying timeliness, reliability and
accuracy needs in addition to the functional needs of data collection. Although all these approaches
are interesting and provide a useful vision, they still do not address how to make available (e.g.,
institutionalize) best practices in data quality management to the entire organization. Such approach
has been proven to be more efficient when it comes to create an organizational data quality culture.
This vision is specifically important in the case of IoT, since the SCP operations can be executed across
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 8 of 24

different networks belonging to different departments or even organizations. From our point of view,
this is a critical aspect for IoT that must be covered in a holistic way.

3.2. Data Quality Methodologies Comparison

There are some methodologies that can be used as drivers for assessing and managing DQ.
First, Lee et al. [28] proposed AIMQ as a methodology that encompasses a model of data quality,
a questionnaire to measure DQ, and analysis techniques for interpreting the DQ measures. This
methodology is mainly used to analyse the gap between an organization and best practices, as well
as to assess gaps between information systems professionals and data consumers. The application
of this methodology is useful for determining the best area for DQ improvement activities. This
methodology has not been widely used and in a greater extent it has been considered to be too
theorical and dependent on the domain. McGilvray [29] provides a practical approach for planning
and managing information quality. In comparison with the methodology proposed by Lee et al.,
McGilvray’s one provides a more pragmatic and practical approach to achieving the desired state of
DQ within an organization. However, this methodology is still dependent on the domain of application.
ISO/TS 8000-150:2011 [30] “specifies fundamental principles of master data quality management, and
requirements for implementation, data exchange and provenance”. This standard constitutes an
informative framework that identifies processes for DQ management. This framework could be used
in conjunction with, or independently of, quality management systems standards, for example, ISO
9001 [31].
Batini et al. [32] provided a literature review about different methodologies for data quality
assessment and improvement. Most of the methods and techniques included in such review cannot be
considered as a DQ management methodologies since do not consider all the managerial concerns
in a holistic manner. At the contrary, most of these methods are focused on DQ assessment or
improvement in isolation. Similar to the mentioned review, a most recent study developed by Woodall
et al. [33] classified most recent DQ assessment and improvement methods. This work suffers the same
problem than the work of Batini et al. Apart of these methodologies, there is a lack of comprehensive
methodologies for the assessment and improvement of DQ in the domain of SCP operations and their
underlaying data.
The recent standard ISO 8000-61 [17] provides a set of standard guidelines for managing DQ in a
holistic way, which can be tailored for different domains. However, its main purpose is not to serve
as a methodology for DQ management per se, but it simply provides a process reference model. In
this sense, the standard is more descriptive than operative, what makes it not usable out-of-the-box.
Aligned with this standard, this paper proposes the DAQUA-MASS methodology to deal with DQ
in SCP environments. The main contribution of DAQUA-MASS methodology is that it takes the
standard best practices for depicting an operative way to manage DQ (as depicted in the processes
of ISO 8000-61) and tailors these to the particular domain of SCP environments, and in particular, in
sensor-related data.

4. DAQUA-Model: A Data Quality Model

Reviewing the literature, it is possible to find that the concept of data quality has been defined in
different ways. The widest used definitions are aligned with the concept of “fitness for use”. In [34], it
is defined as: “Data Quality is data that is fit for use by data consumer. This means that usefulness
and usability are important aspects of quality”. Different stakeholders can have different perceptions
of what quality means for the same data [35]. It largely depends on the context in which data is
used. Thus, DQ in IoT environments must be adequately managed considering the very nature of
the IoT systems. Typically, to improve data quality, a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle specifically
tailored for the context of usage is followed. In this sense, we think that adopting the processes of ISO
8000-61 which are deployed in the PDCA [36] order can largely help to provide a methodology for
managing data quality in IoT environments. At the core of the PDCA cycle for IoT environments is
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 9 of 24

the identification of a Data Quality Model (DQModel) which, being composed of several data quality
characteristics suitable for the problem, is used to identify and represent the data quality requirements
Sensors
Sensors
Sensors
Sensors Sensors
2018,
2018, 2018,
Sensors
2018,
18, 18,
2018,
Sensors x18,x2018,
2018,
x18, x 18,
18, x x
x 18, 9 of9 249 9of
of 24of 24
9 of
924of 249 24
of 24
required in the context. [9].
In our case,InInthe In
and
Inthe
thethe
In In following
according
the
following
following
the
following In following
following
the paragraphs,
paragraphs,
paragraphs,
paragraphs,
following toparagraphs,
paragraphs,our
paragraphs,
wewe we we introduce
philosophy
we
introduce
introduce
we
introduce introduce
introduce
we and andand
introduceand of summarize
and
summarize
and
summarize aligning
summarize summarize
summarize
and thethethe
summarize thewithfifteen
the
fifteen
fifteen
fifteenthe fifteen
fifteen
DQtheDQ DQ DQ
internationalcharacteristics
DQ characteristics
characteristics
characteristics
DQ
characteristics
fifteen characteristics
DQ and,
characteristics
and, and,
standards,
and, asas
asand, asand,
and, asas the
as
DQ Model a main amain
amainmain
aproposed, acontribution
acontribution
main
contribution
acontribution
main main contribution
contribution in
is contribution inthis
inthis in
ainspecialization
this this
in
part, part,
this
part,
part,
thisin
we we
thiswe
part, we
part, provide
we
provide
provide
we
provide
part,
of aprovide
provide
we
the aDQavision
aprovide vision
vision
vision a onaModel
vision
vision
on on
ahow on
how how
on
vision how
on
thesehow
these
on these
how
these
DQ
introduced these
howDQ DQ
these
DQ characteristics
DQ
characteristics
DQ
characteristics
these characteristics
characteristics
characteristics
DQ
in areare
characteristics
ISO/IEC are are tailored
are
tailored
tailored
are
tailored 25012 tailored
tailored
are
for forforforforfor
tailored
[25]. for
This
SCPs SCPs
SCPs
SCPs SCPs
SCPs operations.
operations.
SCPs operations.
operations.
operations.
operations. Along
operations.
Along Along
Along Along
Along
withwith with
with
Along
the the
with
the the
with definitions,
the
definitions,
the
definitions,
with definitions,
definitions,
definitions,
the forfor for
definitions,
the for
thethe
forthe
for
sakesake
thesake
the
sake
ofsake
for of
theof ofsake
sake
the the
the
of of understandability
the understandability
understandability
understandability
the understandability
understandability
of the understandabilityanan an an
example
example an example
an
example example
example
an is
is example
also isalso
isalso also
is is
alsoalso
is also
DQ Model isprovided
widely
provided
provided
provided provided
provided
for forfor
provided
each
accepted
for
eacheach
for each
for
eacheach
and
characteristic.
characteristic.
characteristic.
characteristic.
for each
used
characteristic.
characteristic. These
characteristic.
These These
These
inThese
These
the
examples
examples
examples
examples
industry.
examples
examples
These are are are
examples are specially
are
specially
specially
are
specially
Nevertheless,
specially
specially
are provided
provided
provided
provided
specially provided
provided
for forfor
provided
thefor
the
for
it
the
the for
hasthe
interpretation
the
interpretation
for
not
interpretation
interpretation
the
been
interpretation
interpretation of of
interpretation
specifically
ofthese
ofthese
these these
of of these
these
of these
developedDQ for
DQ DQ considering
DQ characteristics
DQ characteristics
characteristics
characteristics
DQ characteristics
characteristics
DQ SCP
in in
characteristicsthe inthe
inthe aspects.
inthein acquisition
the
acquisition
the
acquisition
in Inlayer,
acquisition
acquisition
acquisition
the fact,
acquisition
layer, layer,
layer, the
layer,
layer,
which
which which
which isscope
which
layer, which
is
the isthe
iswhich
the scopesection
istheis
scope
the scope
the
scope
is scope
scope
of of
the this ofthis
of
ofscope
thisof such
this
of this
paper.
paper.
this
paper. of standard
paper. paper.
paper.
this
However, However,
However,
However,
paper. However,
However, literally
it ithas
ithas
itHowever,
has ithas
to it
tohas
be states
to
tohas
be
it be
tobe
hasto
betobethat
be
noticed noticed
noticed
noticed noticed
that that
that
that
noticed
all all
thatallall
these these
these
these
all
thatDQthese
DQ
allDQDQ characteristics
it “does not include data produced by embedded devices or real time sensors that are not retained
noticed that all these DQ characteristics
characteristics
characteristics
DQ characteristics
characteristics
these DQ can
characteristics
can can
can
be be
canbebe
can considered
be
considered
considered
be
considered
can considered
considered
be for
considered
for for
all for
all
for
theall
allfor
thethethe
all
SCPall
forSCPSCP
the SCP
the
all SCP
layers
layersthe layers
SCP
layers layers
layers
SCP
with with with
with with
layers different
with
different
different
different different
different
with waysways ways
ways
different ways ways
ways
of ofassessment
assessment
of of
ofassessment assessment
assessment andandand interpretation.
and interpretation.
interpretation.
interpretation.
and interpretation.
for furtherofprocessing
assessment of assessment
and or interpretation.
historical and interpretation.
purposes” [25]. Therefore, in order to complement the standard,
From From
From
From the From
From
thethe the
pointpoint
Fromthe point
the
pointofpoint
of
the
view of
point
ofview view
view
of
point of
ofview
of
data
ofof
view
ofdatadata
data
of
viewof
data quality
data
quality
quality
qualityof quality
quality
data management,
management,
management,
management,
quality management,
management,
management,
it is isitisquite
ititquite is quite
it
itquite
is is
quite important
quite
important
itimportant
important
is important
important
quite not not tonot
not
important tonot
make to
not
tomake make
make
to
notto
make
the make
the
tothethe mistake
the
mistake
mistake
mistakethe
make mistake
mistake
the mistake
we provide some
of of of
confusing of
ofconfusing
orientation
ofconfusing
confusing
confusing
confusing
of the the the
confusing the the
readings
readings
the
readings
in
readings
readings
the
this
readings
of
ofreadings
paper
ofdysfunctional
dysfunctional
of of
onsensors
dysfunctional
ofdysfunctional
dysfunctional
dysfunctional of
how sensors
sensors
sensors
dysfunctional
to
sensors
sensors
with
specifically
with with
with
sensors with inadequate
with
inadequate
inadequate
inadequate inadequate
with
use
inadequate levels
levels
inadequate
levels
ISO/IEC
levels levels
levels
of of
data ofdata
ofdata of
levels data
of
data
25012
quality,
data
quality,
quality,
quality,
of quality,
data even
ineven
quality,
even
even
quality,
when
the
evenwhen
when
context
when
even when
even whenwhen
of
SCP environments. adysfunctional
dysfunctional
a dysfunctional
a adysfunctional
a dysfunctional
a dysfunctional a dysfunctional
sensor sensor
sensor
sensor cansensor
sensor
cancancan
sensorcan
produce produce
can
produce
produce produce
produce
can datadata data
data
produce data without
data
without
without
without without
without
data having
having having
having
without having
having adequate
adequate
adequate
adequatehaving adequate
adequate levels
levels
adequatelevels
levels levels
of of ofquality
levels
oflevels
quality
quality ofquality
of quality
quality(i.e.,
(i.e.,
of (i.e.,
(i.e.,
quality
not(i.e.,
not not
(i.e.,
not fitting
not
fitting
fitting
not
fitting
(i.e., fitting
fitting
not fitting
The DQ
thethe the
Model
the purpose
the
purpose
purpose
the
purpose focuses
purpose
purpose
the of of ofof
purpose
the the
theofthe
use of
use on
use
the use
the
of of
usethe
of of
use
data):
data):
the ofdata):
usequality
of
data):data):
the the
of the
data):
the reason
of
the
reason
reason
the
reason
data): the
reason
reason
the
for forforfor
data
making
reason
making for making as
formaking
making formaking
this part
this this
this
making distinction
of
this
distinction
this
distinction an
distinction information
distinction
distinction
this is is
distinction
that isthat
isthat that
is isthat
fixing
fixing is fixing
that
fixing system
fixing
fixing
that errors
errors errors
errors errors
errors
fixingdue duedue due
and
errors
to toto
due todefines
due toto to
due
dysfunctional
dysfunctional dysfunctional
dysfunctional
dysfunctional
dysfunctional
dysfunctional
sensors sensors
sensors
sensors sensors
sensors
requires requires
requires
requires
sensors requires
requires
first first
first
first
requiresfirstfixing
first
fixing
fixing
fixing fixing
first
the the
the the
fixing sensors;
the
sensors;
sensors;
the
sensors;
fixing sensors;
sensors;
the onon on on
the
sensors;
the the
on the
on
otherother
the
onother
the
other other
other
hand,hand,
the hand,
hand, hand,
ifhand,
other if
one ifone
ifone
hand, one
if
can if
can
one can
one
can assure
can
assure
if one assure
can
assure assure
assure
can
that that that
that
assure
the the
that the
that
the thethethe
that
quality characteristics for target data used by humans and systems (i.e., the data that the organization
root root
root
root cause cause
root
cause
root
cause is
rootcause
cause
is
not is
isnot not
cause not
is is grounded
not
grounded
grounded
not
grounded grounded
is grounded
not on on aon
groundedon
a aonadysfunctional
ondysfunctional
a dysfunctional
dysfunctional
aon dysfunctional
dysfunctional a dysfunctional sensor,
sensor,
sensor,
sensor, sensor,
sensor,
but butbutbut
sensor,
on on on
but
the on
butthe
the
on the
on
data
but data
the data
the
data
on datadata
itself,
itself,
the itself,
itself, itself,
data
then,then, then,
itself,
then,tothen,
to
itself,fix to
then,
tofixfix
to
then,
datafix
to
data
fixdata
datafixdata
quality
quality
to fix quality
data
quality quality
quality
data quality
decides toerrors,
analyse
errors,
errors,
errors, errors,
then
then
and
errors,then
then then
data
errors,
data then
data
validate
datadata quality
data
quality
quality
quality
then quality
data
through
quality management
management
management
quality management
management
management
the model).
techniques
techniques
techniques
management
techniques techniques
techniques should
should
techniques
should
This
should should
should
be be be
used
model
be
used
should beused
usedbeusedused
since
since be
categorizes
since
since
it itsince
since
usedshould itshould
should
itshould
it
since itnotshould
should not
itnot
quality
not
be
should
be not be
benot ignored
ignored
ignored be
notbe
ignored
attributes
ignored
ignored
be
what what what
what
ignored what
what
into
what
fifteen characteristics
data
data data
data data means.
data
means.
means.
means. means.
data Theand
means.
The TheThe
means. considers
TheThedescription
description
description description
description
description
The three
ofof
of ofthe
description thethe
of perspectives:
the
ofdata
datathe
of data
the
data datadata
quality
quality
the quality
quality quality
quality
data inherent,
characteristics
characteristics
characteristics
quality characteristics
characteristics
characteristics system-dependent
can
characteristics
can cancan
be be
can be
can
be found
found be
can found
befound
found in
befound
in
inthe in
the
found inthe
the and
infollowing
the
followingthe
following
in both
followingfollowing
following
the jointly
following
(see crosses in paragraphs:
Table
paragraphs: 4).
paragraphs:
paragraphs:
paragraphs:
paragraphs:
paragraphs:

Table 4. Table
DQ Table
Table
Table DQ 4.
4.Table
4.DQ
4.Table DQDQ
4.
Table4. Characteristics
DQ Characteristics
Characteristics
Characteristics
DQ
Characteristics
Characteristics DQ inISO/IEC
Characteristics
in ISO/IEC
ISO/IEC ISO/IEC
inISO/IEC
4.Characteristics
in in in in25012
25012 25012
ISO/IEC
25012
ISO/IEC
in25012 that
ISO/IEC
that
that that
25012
that
25012
cancancan
that
can
that
25012
be
can becanbe
can affected
be
affected
that
be be
beaffected
affected byby
affected
affected
canby
be
affectedby sensor
by
sensor
by
sensor data
sensor
sensor data
sensor
affected
by data
data
by errors.
data
errors.
data
errors.
sensor
sensor data errors.
errors.
errors.
data errors.
errors.
System Dependent
System Dependent
Dependent
Dependent

Dependent
Dependent

System Dependent

Temporal
Temporal
Temporal
Temporal
Temporal Constant
Temporal
Constant
Constant Constant
Constant
Constant
Temporal Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
ConstantContinuous
Continuous Crash
Crash
Crash
Continuous
Crash oror
Crash
Crash
or or oror or
Crash
Temporal Constant Continuous Crash or Trimming Outliers
Trimming
Trimming Outliers
Outliers Noise
Noise Noise
Dependent

Trimming
Trimming Trimming
Outliers
Outliers
Trimming
Trimming Outliers
Noise
Noise Noise
Outliers
Outliers Noise
Noise
DelayDelay
Delay
Delay Delay
Delay
or orOffset
Offset
or
orOffset
or Offset
or
Offset
Delay OffsetVarying/Drifting
Offset
Varying/Drifting
Varying/Drifting
Varying/Drifting
or Offset Jammed
Varying/Drifting
Varying/Drifting Jammed
Jammed Jammed
Jammed
Varying/Drifting
Jammed Jammed
Delay or Varying/Drifting Jammed Error
Error
Error
Error Error
Error Error
Error
Error
Error
Error Error
Error Error
Error
Error
Error
Error Error
Error
Error
Inherent
Inherent
Inherent
SystemInherent

Inherent
Inherent

Inherent

Error
Error
Error
Error Error
Error Error
Error
Error
Error
Error Error
Error Error
Error
Error
Error
Error Error
Error
Error Error
Error
Error
Error Error
Error Error Error Error Error
DQ DQ
DQ DQDQDQDQ Error Error Error Error
Inherent

Characteristics
DQ Characteristics Characteristics
Characteristics
Characteristics
Characteristics
Characteristics
Characteristics
System
System

System
System

Accuracy
Accuracy
Accuracy
Accuracy
Accuracy Accuracy x x xx x x x
Accuracy P P PP P P P S S S S S S S S S SS S SP SP P P P PP PP P P P P P
Accuracy Completeness
Completeness
Completeness
Completeness
Completeness x x xx x x x
Completeness
xCompleteness P S P P P P P PS PS S S S S S PS S S S S S S
P
Completeness x Consistency
Consistency x x xx x x x
Consistency
Consistency
Consistency
Consistency
Consistency S S S S S S S P P PP P P P P S S SS S S S S S SS S S S
ConsistencyCredibility x Credibility
Credibility x x xx x x x
Credibility
Credibility
Credibility
Credibility S S
S S S S S S S SPSS S S S S P P P P P PS PS S S S S S
S
Credibility x S S P S
Currentness
Currentness
Currentness
Currentness
Currentness x x x x x x xP P P P
Currentness
Currentness PP P S S SS S S S
Currentness x P S
Accessibility
Accessibility x xx x xx xx x xxx x x
Accessibility
Accessibility
Accessibility
Accessibility
Accessibility xAccessibility
Compliance Compliance
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance x xx x xx xx x xxx x x
Compliance
Compliance
x Compliance
Confidentiality Confidentiality
x
Confidentiality
Confidentiality x x x xx xx x xxx x x
Confidentiality
Confidentiality
ConfidentialityConfidentiality
Efficiency Efficiency x Efficiency
Efficiency x xx x xx xx x xxx x x
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency
Precision xPrecision
Precision x xx x xx xx x xxx x x P P PP P
PP P S S SS S S S
S
Precision
Precision
PrecisionPrecision
Precision
Traceability x x S S
Traceability x x x xx xx x xxxS xS SxS
Traceability
Traceability
Traceability
Traceability
Traceability S S S S
S SS S S S
Understandability x Traceability
x
Availability Understandability x xx x xx xx x xxxS x x
Understandability
Understandability
Understandability
Understandability
Understandability
Understandability S
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
Availability
PortabilityAvailability x x x x x xS xS SxS
Availability S S S S S SS S S S
Recoverability Portability
Portability
Portability
Portability
Portability
Portability x x x x x xS x x
Portability S
Recoverability
Recoverability
Recoverability
Recoverability
Recoverability
Recoverability Recoverability x x x x xS xS SxS S S S S S SS S S S

As part of the
 Accuracy.methodology,
Accuracy.
   Accuracy. Accuracy.
Accuracy. Accuracy.
It Itisthe
isItis
ItAccuracy.
the isthe
It the
It
is is
degree
degree the
It the
degree
we
degree
isdegree
the to
propose
todegree
to towhich
which
which
degree which
to to which
which
datadata
to
the
data
data data
which
has has
association
has
data
has attributes
has
attributes
attributes
has
attributes
data attributes
attributes
has thatthat
ofcorrectly
that
that
attributes
the
that
correctly
that
correctly
DQ
correctly
correctly
correctly
that
characteristics
represent
represent
represent
represent represent
represent
correctly the the the
the
represent
true true
the
true
true
the
with
value
true
value
true
value
valuethe value
of of
true
some
ofof
value ofof of
value
of
the sensor data errors
thethe the
the the
intended
intended
the
intended previously
intendedintended
intended
the attribute
attribute
attribute
attribute
intended attribute ashown
attribute
of ofaofaconcept
ofattribute of
concept of ain
aconcept
concept
a concept
of aor
or Table
concept orevent
orevent
concept
event or or2.in
event
event
in or These
event
ain ain aspecific
in
specific
event in
aspecific
a inarelationships
specific
specific context
specific
context
acontext
context context
context
specificof of
use.ofuse.
ofuse.
of
context Insuggest
use.
of
InIn
use.
SCP
ofInSCP
use.
SCP InSCP
use. InSCP that
environments,
environments,
environments,
In erroneous
environments,
SCP environments,
SCP a a a a a data
environments,
environments, a a
generated duelow to
low low
some
low degree
low
degree degree
low
degree degree
degree
low
of of ofaccuracy
malfunctioning
of accuracy
accuracy
accuracy
degree of of accuracy
accuracy
of
couldcouldcould
could
accuracy could
be bebebe
could
sensors derived
derived
derivedbe
could be
derived derived
could
derived
be
fromfrom from
from
derivedfromlead
devices
devices devices
from
devices devices
orthat
devices
from that that
affect
that provide
that
provide
that
devices
provide some
provide provide
provide
that values
values
values of
values
provide values
the
values
thatthat that
that DQ
could
that
values
could could
that
could could differ
could
differ
differ
that differ
could
fromfrom from
differ
characteristics.
differ from from
differ from
fromWe
the
the value
the
value value
onon thethe
on real
the
real world.
real
world. world.
ForFor example,
For
example, example,
a alowalowalow alow adegree
low
degree ofof
ofdegree ofaccuracy
ofaccuracy
accuracy accuracy can
can be be
can when
whenbe awhenahumidity
ahumidity
ahumidity
humidity
distinguish thesethethe value
valuethe value
on
relationshipstheon the the
valueon
real real
theon
in world.
real
world.
the
Table world.
real
For4For
world.example,
For
example,
with example,
For
‘P’ aexample,
and low degree
degree
‘S’ degree
low
respectively of accuracy
accuracy
degree ofcan can
accuracy
signifying be be
can
when when
be
can
that awhen
beaahumidity
humidity
when
sensor a humidity
error can
sensor sensor
sensor
sensor sensor
sensor
reads reads
reads
reads
sensor areads
areads
value areads
avalue value
value
a of a ofvalue
value
30% of
aof30%30%
of
value30%
andof30%
andofand
30%
and
the the
and
30% the
and
the
realreal
the
andreal
the
real value
real
valuethe value
real
value value
isreal value
is
50%. is
is50%. 50%.
50%.
is
value is
50%.
LowLowisLow
50%.
Low Low levels
Low
levels
levels
levels
50%. levels
Low
of of ofaccuracy
levels accuracy
oflevels of
accuracy
of
accuracy accuracy
accuracy
of could
could could
could
accuracy could
be be be
could
becould directly
be
directly
directly
be
directly directly
directly
be directly
have a primary or
related
related
secondary
related
related torelated
related
to tosensor
tosensor
sensor
related sensor
to to
sensor
impact
sensor
errors
errors
to errors
errors
sensor errors
errors
such such
such
inas
such
assuch
errors
DQ
assuch
such as
constant
characteristics.
constant
as
asconstant
constant constant
constant
as or oroffset,
orconstant or
offset, offset,
oroffset, or offset,
offset, outlier
outlier
outlier
or
Primary
outlier
outlier
offset, errors
outlier
errors
errors
errors errors
outlier
and and
means
and
errors
and noise
and
noise
errors noise
and
noisenoise
aerrors.
noise
errors.
errors.
and
direct
errors. errors.
errors.
noise
Also, Also,
Also,
(or
Also,
errors.
more
accuracy
Also,
accuracy
Also,
accuracy
accuracy accuracy
Also,
critical)
accuracy
accuracy
effect while secondary could
could
could
could could
could
be be beis
becould abe
indirectlycollide
indirectly
indirectly indirectly
be indirectly
indirectly beaffectedaffected
indirectly (or
affected
affected less
affected
affected
byby by critical)
continuous
by
bycontinuous continuous
continuous
by continuous
affected
continuous impact.
varying
varying
varying
by continuous
varying varying
varying
oror or
drifting
varying drifting
or
ordrifting
drifting
or drifting
orand
and and
drifting
and trimming
and
trimming
trimming
and
drifting
trimming trimming
trimming
and error error
error
error
trimming error
(see (see
error
(see
(see Table
(see
Table
Table
(see
Table
error 4).
Table 4).4).4).
4).4).Table
Table
4).
(see
 Completeness.
In the followingCompleteness.
 Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.
Completeness.paragraphs, isItis
It It
Completeness. Itisthe
the isthe
It Itthe
is is
we degree
the
degree
degree
degree the
It isdegree
the
to degree
to towhich
introduce
towhich
which to
degree which
to which
which subject
and
subject
subject
subject
to subject
subject
which data data data
summarize
data
subjectdata associated
data
associated
associated associated
associated the
associated
data withwithwith
with
associated
an with
an an
with
fifteen
an entity
entity
entityan
with an
entity DQ entity
entity
has has
an hashas
values
valueshas
entity values
has values
characteristics
valuesvalues
has
for for for
for
allall all
all
for
values for alland,
all
for all
expected
expected
expected
expected expected
expected
attributes attributes
attributes
attributes
expected attributes
attributes
and andandand
attributes
related related
and
related
related
and andrelated
related entity
entity
entity
entity entity
related instances
entity
instances
instances
instances instances
instances
entity in in inainaspecific
instances
a in
specificaspecific
specific
in
a acontext
specific
in a context
specific
context
context context
context
specificof ofof
use. ofuse.
use. use.
of
context
In of
In In
use.
SCP InSCP
use.
SCP
of InSCP
use.In
SCP environments,
SCP
environments,
environments,
In environments,
environments,
environments,
SCP environments,
as a main contribution in this part, we provide a vision on how these DQ characteristics are tailored
a low alow
a alow low
a degree
low
degree adegree
a degree
low ofdegree
degree
low of of ofcompleteness
ofcompleteness
completeness
degree of
completeness completeness
completeness
of could
completeness
could could
couldcould
be bebebe
could derived
be
derived
derived
derivedbe
could derived
derived
be
from from from
from
derived fromfromdevices
devices
devices
devices devices
devices
from that
that that
that
devices
arethat
are are
that
are reading
are
reading
reading
are
reading
that reading
reading
are
and and
and and
reading sending
and
sending
sending
and
sending sending
sending
and nono no nononono
sending
for SCPs operations. values.
values.
values.
values.
Along
values.
values.
For For For
For For
example,
example,
values.For
example,
with
example, example,
example,
For
the
a alow
a example,
low alow
lowdefinitions,
a degree
low
degree degree
adegree
low ofdegree
degree
a low of of of
for
ofcompleteness
completeness
completeness
of
completeness
degree
thecancan
completeness
completeness
of completeness
sake
cancan of
can
happen
happen
can
happen
the
happenhappen
happen
can when
when
understandability
when
when
happen when
the the the
when
the records
the
records
records
the
records
when records
records
the
of of ofsensor
ofsensor
sensor
records of
an
sensor
of
sensor
data
of
example
sensordata
data
data data
sensor datadata
is
also provided for each characteristic. These examples are specially provided for the interpretation of
these DQ characteristics in the acquisition layer, which is the scope of this paper. However, it has to be
noticed that all these DQ characteristics can be considered for all the SCP layers with different ways of
assessment and interpretation.
From the point of view of data quality management, it is quite important not to make the mistake
of confusing the readings of dysfunctional sensors with inadequate levels of data quality, even when
a dysfunctional sensor can produce data without having adequate levels of quality (i.e., not fitting
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 10 of 24

the purpose of the use of data): the reason for making this distinction is that fixing errors due to
dysfunctional sensors requires first fixing the sensors; on the other hand, if one can assure that the root
cause is not grounded on a dysfunctional sensor, but on the data itself, then, to fix data quality errors,
then data quality management techniques should be used since it should not be ignored what data
means. The description of the data quality characteristics can be found in the following paragraphs:

• Accuracy. It is the degree to which data has attributes that correctly represent the true value of the
intended attribute of a concept or event in a specific context of use. In SCP environments, a low
degree of accuracy could be derived from devices that provide values that could differ from the
value on the real world. For example, a low degree of accuracy can be when a humidity sensor
reads a value of 30% and the real value is 50%. Low levels of accuracy could be directly related to
sensor errors such as constant or offset, outlier errors and noise errors. Also, accuracy could be
indirectly affected by continuous varying or drifting and trimming error (see Table 4).
• Completeness. It is the degree to which subject data associated with an entity has values for all
expected attributes and related entity instances in a specific context of use. In SCP environments,
a low degree of completeness could be derived from devices that are reading and sending no
values. For example, a low degree of completeness can happen when the records of sensor data
have missing values. Low levels of completeness could be related directly to sensor errors such as
crash or jammed errors and indirectly, trimming and noise errors (see Table 4).
• Consistency. It represents the degree to which data has attributes that are free from contradiction
and are coherent with other data in a specific context of use. It can be either or both among data
regarding one entity and across similar data for comparable entities. In SCP environments, a low
degree of consistency could happen when two sensors produce contradictory data. For example,
for proximity sensors that provide the relative distance to the sensor position, a consistency
problem for a single sensor could be a negative distance value, while a consistency problem
between two sensors in the same position could be two different values. Thus, low levels of
consistency could be related with continuous varying/drifting error and indirectly with constant
or offset errors, trimming and noise error (see Table 4).
• Credibility. It is defined as the degree to which data has attributes that are regarded as true and
believable by users in a specific context of use. In SCP environments, a low degree of credibility
could be derived from a single sensor placed in someplace and the data cannot be validated by
another entity or even sensor. For example, a credibility issue could happen when a sensor whose
data is compared with another sensor placed near does not match. Low levels of credibility could
be related directly to sensor errors such as outlier errors and indirectly with constant or offset
error, continuous varying/drifting error and noise error (see Table 4).
• Currentness. It is the degree to which data has attributes that are of the right age in a specific
context of use. In SCP environments, a low degree of currentness could be derived from a sensor
that can be indicating past values as current value (see Table 4). For example, if an irrigation
sensor produces a value that indicates that the field must be irrigated, it has been irrigated and the
data is not updated. The data indicates whether it is necessary irrigation, or it is already irrigated,
so this would be data without sufficient currentness.
• Accessibility. It is the degree to which data can be accessed in a specific context of use, particularly
by people who need supporting technology or special configuration because of some disability. In
SCP environments, a low degree of accessibility could be derived due to the necessary user is not
allowed in the precise moment. For example, data produced by a specific sensor is unreachable
due to network issues.
• Compliance. It refers to the degree to which data has attributes that adhere to standards,
conventions or regulations in force and similar rules relating to data quality in a specific context
of use. In SCP environments, a low degree of compliance could be derived from data sensor that
is not being using the standards formats established on the organization. For example, if the
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 11 of 24

organization establishes that for distance sensors the unit for values is meters, and if some sensors
produce values expressed in meters and other in miles these data have low compliance levels.
• Confidentiality. It is the degree to which data has attributes that ensure that it is only accessible
and interpretable by authorized users in a specific context of use. In SCP environments, a low
degree of confidentiality could be derived from an inefficient security management of sensor
data. For example, a confidentiality leak might happen when data produced by a sensor placed in
a nuclear power plant can be freely accessed from external networks even when this data was
marked as sensible and, therefore, confidential in order to prevent possible terrorist acts.
• Efficiency. It is the degree to which data has attributes that can be processed and provide the
expected levels of performance by using the appropriate amounts and types of resources in a
specific context of use. For example, a sensor send data about where is placed and send a code
and a description every time the sensor sends o stores a record, it has low efficiency because only
the code is enough to know all about the place. In SCP environments, a low degree of efficiency
could be derived from the storage of duplicated data that could take more time and resources to
send or manipulate the data.
• Precision. It is the degree to which data has attributes that are exact or that provide discrimination
in a specific context of use. In SCP environments, a low degree of precision could be derived from
devices that are providing inexact values as in the next example. For example, sensor data that
store weight with no decimals and it is required a minimum of three decimals. Low levels of
consistency could be related directly with trimming errors, and indirectly with noise errors (see
Table 4).
• Traceability. The degree to which data has attributes that provide an audit trail of access to the
data and of any changes made to the data in a specific context of use. In SCP environments, a low
degree of traceability could be derived from sensor data with no metadata. For example, data logs
contain information about who has acceded to sensor data and operations made with them. Low
levels of traceability could be related indirectly to crash or jammed errors as well as to temporal
delay errors (see Table 4).
• Understandability. The degree to which data has attributes that enable it to be read and interpreted
by users, and are expressed in appropriate languages, symbols and units in a specific context of
use. In SCP environments, a low degree of understandability could be derived from sensor data
represented with codes instead of acronyms. For example, records of data about temperature
on a car has an attribute to know the place of the sensor in the car. This attribute can be stored
as a code like “xkq1”, but if is stored as “GasolineTank” it is supposed to have a higher level
of understandability.
• Availability. The degree to which data has attributes that enable it to be retrieved by authorized
users and/or applications in a specific context of use. In SCP environments, a low degree of
availability could be derived from the insufficient resources of the system in which sensor data is
stored. For example, to assure sensor data availability, sensor replication can be used to make
it available even if there is some issue on a sensor. Low levels of availability could be related
indirectly with temporal delay error and crash or jammed errors (see Table 4).
• Portability. The degree to which data has attributes that enable it to be installed, replaced or
moved from one system to another preserving the existing quality in a specific context of use. For
example, sensor data is going to be shared with a concrete system or even other organization or
department, data loss can occur. If this happens, for example, due to a data model mismatching
or a problem with the data format, the reason is directly related to portability of data. In SCP
environments, a low degree of portability could be derived from sensor data that does not follow
a specific data model (see Table 4) or the format present some problems.
• Recoverability. The degree to which data has attributes that enable it to maintain and preserve
a specified level of operations and quality, even in the event of failure, in a specific context of
use. In SCP environments, a low degree of recoverability could be derived from devices that
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 12 of 24

does not have a mechanism failure tolerant or backup. For example, when a device has a failure,
data stored in that device should be recoverable. Low levels of recoverability could be related
indirectly with temporal delay error and crash or jammed errors (see Table 4).

Although our DQ Model considers initially all the DQ characteristics defined in ISO/IEC 25012,
it could be necessary to customize the DQ characteristics chosen to adapt them into the specific
SCP context. This customization might depend on the concrete organization and how it applies the
methodology to specific SCP contexts. The customized model will conform the data quality model for
an organization with a specific SCP environment.

5. DAQUA-MASS: A Data Quality Management Methodology for Data Sensors

This section presents DAQUA-MASS, an ISO 8000-61-based Data Quality Management
methodology for data sensors. Steps provided in this methodology are based in some of the processes
introduced by ISO 8000-61 [17], which, as we previously said, gathers the best practices around data
quality management by means of a process approach. Each process in this standard is described by
means of a purpose, the outcomes and the activities that are to be applied for the assurance of data
quality. Thus, this standard mainly covers: (1) fundamental principles of data quality management; (2)
the structure of the data quality management process; (3) definitions of the lower level processes for
data quality management; (4) the relationship between data quality management and data governance;
(5) implementation requirements. This standard is used along with ISO 8000-62 to assess and improve
the organizational maturity when it comes to data quality management. However, in this paper, we
consider the processes in ISO 8000-61 to rigorously depict DAQUA-MASS.
Steps of DAQUA-MASS are grouped in four phases according to the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, as
it is done in 8000-61. PDCA is implicitly a closed loop, signifying that the process is iterative and last
phase of every iteration provides feedback on starting a new iteration. Many acknowledged models,
such as the in IoT information fusion [37] or the JDL model [38], are all closed loops. By this way, they
can be self-improved to adjust the dynamic world to maximize the performance. The IoT is a dynamic
system so, the data quality management is adapted to the changes in every loop of the methodology.
Each loop serves to adapt to changes and new quality needs that may arise. The methodology is
designed so that the complete cycle is iteratively executed depending on the goals, needs and resources
of the organization. The PDCA cycle will contribute to more effective and efficient data quality and
consists of seven steps grouped in the following four phases:
• The plan phase establishes the strategy and the data quality improvement implementation plan
as necessary to deliver results in accordance with data requirements;
• In the do phase the data quality improvement implementation plan is executed;
• During the check phase, it is conducted the monitorization of data quality and process
performance against the strategy and data requirements and report the results to validate the
efficiency of the corrective actions; and finally
• The act phase takes actions to continually improve process performance.
Figure 2 summarizes the step flow throughout the four phases. Every step is defined with a
general description and set of concrete activities. Following sections present all the methodology
steps grouped in the mentioned Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. The definition for all the steps provides a
table depicting all the expected input and output generated by each activity in the step as well as a
RACIQ matrix (R—Responsible (works on); A—Accountable, C—Consulted; I—Informed; Q—Quality
Reviewer) which indicates the role of stakeholders involved in the activity.
We consider the following list of stakeholders to be involved in the application of this methodology.
It should be notice that there are alternative, similar (even overlapped) role definitions in the context of
data quality management and SCP environments. However, we consider these are the most common
and well-known stakeholders, and other that are not mentioned can be easily assimilated to one of
the proposed.
 Figure 2 summarizes the step flow throughout the four phases. Every step is defined with a
general description and set of concrete activities. Following sections present all the methodology
steps grouped in the mentioned Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. The definition for all the steps provides a
table depicting all the expected input and output generated by each activity in the step as well as a
RACIQ matrix (R—Responsible (works on); A—Accountable, C—Consulted; I—Informed; Q—
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 13 of 24
Quality Reviewer) which indicates the role of stakeholders involved in the activity.

Figure 2. Methodology
Figure2. Methodology DAQUA-MASS
DAQUA-MASSphases
phasesand
andsteps.
steps.

• Chief Information Officer (CIO). It is the most senior executive in an enterprise responsible for the
We consider the following list of stakeholders to be involved in the application of this
traditional information technology and computer systems that support enterprise goal.
methodology. It should be notice that there are alternative, similar (even overlapped) role definitions
• Chief Data Officer (CDO). It is a corporate officer responsible for enterprise wide data governance
in the context of data quality management and SCP environments. However, we consider these are
and utilization of data as an asset, via data processing, analysis, data mining, information trading
the most common and well-known stakeholders, and other that are not mentioned can be easily
and other means. CIO and CDO are at the executive level.
assimilated to one of the proposed.
• Data Governance Manager (DGM). He or she is overseeing enterprise data governance program
development and is responsible for architecting certain solutions and frameworks. It is at the
strategic level.
• Data Quality Steward for SCP domain (SCP DQ Steward). It is a DQ steward at tactical level for
the area of SCP environments by considering its implications in DQ.
• Data Quality Steward (DQ Steward). It is responsible for utilizing an organization’s data quality
governance processes to ensure fitness of data elements—both the content and metadata. Data
stewards have a specialist role that incorporates processes, policies, guidelines and responsibilities
for administering organizations’ entire data in compliance with DQ policies and procedures. This
is at operational level.
• SCP Technical Architect (SCP Arch). A SCP architect is a SCP (and in general IoT) expert who
makes high-level design choices and dictates technical standards, including SCP technology
standards, tools, and platforms.

5.1. The Plan Phase

The data quality planning phase establishes data requirements and objectives for data quality,
creating plans to achieve the objectives and evaluating the performance of the plans. These plans
balance current data quality levels, cost, resources and capabilities across the organization for the
assessment of data quality of sensor data. This phase is initiated based on needs and expectations of
stakeholders or the feedback of the process improvements performed during data quality improvement
(the act phase). The expected result of the execution of this phase is the complete planification for
adequately collect sensor data. This includes requirements management, definition of policies for data,
devices lifecycle management, and it is important to highlight the definition of policies to retain the
original unmanipulated data and all versions of the input data. Table 5 summarizes inputs, outputs
and responsibility distribution for this phase. Following, a description of the steps grounded on the
corresponding ISO 8000-61 process is introduced. At this point it is reminded that the scope of the
methodology is on sensor data (see Figure 1).
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 14 of 24

Table 5. Inputs, outputs and RACIQ matrix for the Plan phase. (R—Responsible (works on); A—Accountable, C—Consulted; I—Informed; Q—Quality Reviewer).

Step Act. Input Output CIO CDO DGM SCP DQ Steward DQ Steward SCP Arch

P1-1 • List of prioritized data quality requirements • Specification of data lifecycle in I A C R

• Perform analysis definition SCP environments

P1-2 • Data Quality Policies for SCPs I A R R C

• Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments
• Data Quality Procedures for SCPs

• Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments

A
P1
P1-3 • Data Quality Policies for SCPs • Meta-data specification I C C
R
• Data Quality Procedures for SCPs

• Data Quality Strategy

P1-4 • Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments I A R R R C
• List of prioritized data
• Stakeholders or any other experts opinion
quality requirements

P2-1 • List of prioritized data quality requirements • Metrics list I A C R

• Mechanisms for data monitoring • Measurement plan
P2
• Metric list
P2-2 • Implementation of A Q Q R
• Measurement plan
measurement methods
• List of prioritized data quality requirements

• DQ Issues list • Root causes for DQ issues related

• Data Quality Strategy with SCP faults R
P3-1 I A R R
• List of prioritized data quality requirements • Report with the effects of DQ issues Q
• Business process definition on business processes

• Data Quality Strategy

P3-2 • List of prioritized data quality requirements • DQ risk catalogue I I A R R C
• Business process definition

• Root causes for DQ issues related with SCP faults

• Report with the effects of DQ issues on business processes R
P3-3 • Solution definition for mitigating I A R R
• Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments C
P3 root causes
• SCP node placement plan
• SCP node replication plan

• Data Quality Strategy

P3-4 • Business process definition
• Improvement target list
• DQ risk catalogue
• Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments

• Data Quality Strategy

P3-5 • List of prioritized data quality requirements I Q A R R C
• Data quality enhancement plan
• Report with the effects of DQ issues on business processes
• DQ risk catalogue
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 15 of 24

5.1.1. P1. Characterization of the Current State of the Sensor Data Contexts
This first step is devoted to characterizing the current state of the SCP environments and all the
specific sensor data contexts. This step has the following activities:
• P1-1. Sensor and sensor data lifecycle management specification. The lifecycle of sensors [2]
and sensor data [39] have to be defined so that it can be managed. For sensors, the lifecycle
starts when the device is obtained, and the last step is when it is necessary to replace o remove
the sensor because it became useless. For sensor data, the lifecycle starts when sensors produce
the data and ends when the data is eliminated. The end of the sensor data life cycle should not
be confused with the moment in which the data goes from being operational to historical data.
Operational sensor data is used on a day-to-day basis, but when data is no longer useful on a
day-to-day basis due to its age, these data is separated and stored in another database and become
into historical data. It is important to highlight that sensor and sensor data lifecycle is used to
better contextualize the environment of the data.
• P1-2. Management of quality policies, standards and procedures for data quality management.
Specify fundamental intentions and rules for data quality management. Ensure the data quality
policies, standards and procedures are appropriate for the data quality strategy, comply with
data requirements and establish the foundation for continual improvement of the effectiveness
and efficiency of data quality management in all the key SCP operations. The purpose of data
quality policy/standards/procedures management is to capture rules that apply to performing
data quality control, data quality assurance, data quality improvement, data-related support and
resource provision consistently. Before the implementation and definition of the complete plan, it
should be defined the policies, standards and procedures in order to define the implementation
plan based on them.
• P1-3. Provision of sensor data and work specifications. Developing specifications that describe
characteristics of data and work instructions for smart connected products enables Data processing
and data quality monitoring and control. To support the description of the provision of the sensor
data work specifications some metadata must be provided. Metadata can help with one of the
biggest problems of SCP: interoperability. Interoperability refers to the ability for one or more
smart connected products to communicate and exchange [15].
• P1-4. Identification, prioritization and validation of sensor data requirements. Collect the needs
and expectations related to sensor data from devices and stakeholders. Then, it is translated by
identification, prioritization and validation of data requirements. The purpose of Requirements
Management is to establish the basis for creating or for refining a data quality strategy for SCP
environments aligned to the needs and expectations of stakeholders. It is important to have well
defined and implemented good sensor data requirements to avoid problems since the start and to
facilitate the collection and integration of sensor data.

5.1.2. P2. Assessment of the Current State of the Levels of Data Quality
This step is aimed to evaluate the current state of the data quality levels in all the surrounding
SCP environments. This step has the following activities:
• P2-1. Identification of the data quality characteristics representing quality requirements and
determination and development of metrics and measurement methods. Develop or select the
measurement indicators, corresponding metrics and measurement methods used to measure the
quality levels of data produced by devices during all the SCP operations.
• P2-2. Measurement and analysis of data quality levels. Measure the data quality levels by
implementing the measurement plans and determining the measurement results. This means
the application of the measurement algorithms defined and developed on the previous step
(P2-1). Such algorithms strongly depend on the IT infrastructure landscape of every organization.
Thereby, every organization often develop their own algorithms or use commercial solutions
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 16 of 24

which are compliant with their own infrastructure. Merino et al. [7] presents algorithms and
metrics for each data quality characteristic. After data quality levels have been measured, these
can be quantitatively analysed to extract insights about the SCP environment being managed.
As a result, a list of nonconformities can be elaborated in the next step, with which to make
informed decisions.

5.1.3. P3. Data Quality Enhancement Plan Definition

Data Quality implementation planning identifies the resources and sequencing by which to
perform DQ control, DQ Assurance, DQ Improvement, data-related support and resource provision
across the organization. At this point, after the collection of sensor data requirements and the definition
of standards and policies, it is important to configure the devices to implement the plan and place
each node following a defined strategy. Optimal node placement allows to obtain the optimal value
through data. This step considers the following activities:

• P3-1. Analysis of root causes of data nonconformities. Analysing the root causes of each data
quality issue and assess the effect of the issue on business processes. The purpose of root cause
analysis and solution development of non-solved data quality non-conformities is to establish,
in accordance with the data quality strategy and with the priorities identified by Data Quality
Assurance, the basis on which to perform data cleansing and/or process improvement for data
nonconformity prevention.
• P3-2. Data quality risk assessment. Identify risks throughout the data life cycle, analyse the impact
if each risk was to occur and determine risk priorities to establish the basis for monitoring and
control of processes and data. The purpose of data quality monitoring and control is, by following
applicable work instructions, to identify and respond when Data Processing fails to deliver data
that meet the requirements in the corresponding data specification. It allows to control what is
happening on data or even on the SCP environment. For example, with the control of sensor data
quality, it is possible to identify certain issues on devices. Data is often the most important thing
to protect, because although the direct cost of losing it may be small compared with research
data or intellectual property. If a sensor is not functioning any more due to some reason, it can
be replaced, but if a data loss is produced is very difficult to recover it or even impossible to
recover. This can bring not only a data loss but can also be the root cause of other problems. In
conclusion, data quality risks should be identified in order to avoid them. As Karkouch et al.
highlight in [6], the main factors affecting DQ in SCP or IoT environments are: deployment scale,
resources constraints, network, sensors (as physical devices), environment, vandalism, fail-dirty,
privacy preservation, security vulnerability and data stream processing.
• P3-3. Development of improvement solutions to eliminate the root causes. Propose solutions to
eliminate the root causes and prevent recurrence of nonconformities. Evaluate the feasibility of
the proposed improvements through cost benefit analysis.
• P3-4. Definition of improvement targets. The purpose of this activity is to analyse possible
improvements areas according to the business processes, risk catalogue and the data quality
strategy; and then it selects those that are more aligned with the data quality strategy and/or are
able to lead to greater data quality enhancement regarding previous detected risks. Specific areas
or sub-nets of devices in the organization’s SCP environments could also serve as a criterion to
determine specific improvement targets.
• P3-5. Establishment of the data quality enhancement plan. Define the scope and target of data
quality and prepare detailed implementation plans, defining and allocating the resources needed.

5.2. The Do Phase

This phase consists of the data quality control that is carried out based on the implementation
plan established in data quality planning (see the Plan phase). The phase, when completed, delivers
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 17 of 24

data that meet the specified requirements. This phase involves creating, using and updating data
according to specified work instructions and monitoring quality by checking whether the data conform
to predetermined specifications.
In this phase, it is important to address aspects such as the provision of complete metadata, the use
of flags to convey information about data, the documentation of all sensor data processing, monitoring
and control of data, maintain appropriate levels of human inspection, perform range, domain and
slope checks, implement an automated alert system for sensor network issues or automate sensor data
quality procedures. Table 6 summarizes inputs, outputs and responsibility distribution for this phase.

D1. Execution of the Data Quality Improvement Plan

The purpose of Provision of Data Specifications and Work Instructions is to establish the basis on
which to perform Data Processing and Data Quality Monitoring and Control, taking account of the
outcomes of the Data Quality Planning, the Data-Related Support and the Resource Provision processes.
Having the plan obtained for the first phase, the first step is to provide data and work specification to
collect data from devices on the defined way. This step considers the following activities:

• D1-1. Establish flags to convey information about the sensor data. Flags or qualifiers convey
information about individual data values, typically using codes that are stored in a separate field
to correspond with each value. Flags can be highly specific to individual studies and data sets or
standardized across all data.
• D1-2. Definition of the optimal node placement plan. It is a very challenging problem that
has been proven to be NP-hard (non-deterministic polynomial-time hardness) for most of the
formulations of sensor deployment [40,41]. To tackle such complexity, several heuristics have
been proposed to find sub-optimal solutions [42,43]. However, the context of these optimization
strategies is mainly static in the sense that assessing the quality of candidate positions is based on
a structural quality metric such as distance, network connectivity and/or basing the analysis on
a fixed topology. Also, application-level interest can vary over time and the available network
resources may change as new nodes join the network, or as existing nodes run out of energy [44].
Also, if we talk about node placement, node or sensor replication. Replicating data sensors
is important for purposes of high availability and disaster recovery. Also, replication of this
data on cloud storage needs to be implemented efficiently. Archiving is one way to recover lost
or damaged data in primary storage space, but replicas of data repositories that are updated
concurrently with the primary repositories can be used for sensitive systems with strong data
availability requirements. Replication can be demanding in terms of storage and may degrade
performance due to if a concurrent updates strategy is enforced.
• D1-3. Redesign the software or hardware that includes sensors to eliminate root causes. It
is an alternative process to the optimal re-placements of sensors. For example, redesign and
reimplement a fragment of a SCP’s firmware could improve fault tolerance.
• D1-4. Data Cleansing. The purpose of Data Cleansing is to ensure, in response to the results of
root cause analysis and solution development, the organization can access data sets that contain
no nonconformities capable of causing unacceptable disruption to the effectiveness and efficiency
of decision making using those data. Also, the nonconformities are corrected implementing
developed solutions and make a record of the corrections.
• D1-5. Force an appropriate level of human inspection. If performed by trained and experienced
technicians, visual inspection is used to monitor the state of industrial equipment and to identify
necessary repairs. There are also technologies used to assist with fault recognition or even to
automate inspections. Shop floor workers are made responsible for basic maintenance including
cleaning machines, visual inspection and initial detection of machine degradation.
• D1-6. Implement an automated alert system to warn about potential sensor data quality issues.
Having only human inspection can be a complex task for maintenance staff. It is necessary to
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 18 of 24

implement a system in which some key indicators are constantly reading if the sensors status
is correct or not. If a sensor is not working properly, the root cause can be due to a hardware,
network or software failure and affects to data quality. Furthermore, an automated data quality
procedure might identify anomalous spikes in the data and flag them. Even though, it is almost
always necessary the human supervision, intervention and inspection as stated in [45,46]; the
inclusion of automated quality is often an improvement, because it ensures consistency and
reduces human bias. Automated data quality procedures are also more efficient at handling the
vast quantities of data that are being generated by streaming sensor networks and reduces the
amount of human inspection required.
• D1-7. Schedule sensor maintenance to minimize data quality issues. Sensors require routine
maintenance and scheduled calibration that, in some cases, can be done only by the manufacturer.
Ideally, maintenance and repairs are scheduled to minimize data loss (e.g., snow-depth sensors
repaired during the summer) or staggered in such a way that data from a nearby sensor can be
used to fill gaps. In cases in which unscheduled maintenance is required, stocking replacement
parts on site ensures that any part of the network can be replaced immediately.

5.3. The Check Phase

The check phase consists of the data quality assurance, which measures data quality levels and
the methodology steps performance related to data nonconformities or other issues that have arisen as
a result of the data quality planning (see the Plan phase) or the data quality control (see the Do phase).
This measurement provides evidence by which to evaluate the impact of any identified poor levels of
data quality on the effectiveness and efficiency of business processes. On this phase is important to
address aspects like schedule sensor maintenance and repairs to minimize data loss, measurement and
evaluation of sensor data quality. Table 7 summarizes inputs, outputs and responsibility distribution
for this phase.

5.3.1. C1. Testing the Efficiency of the Corrective Actions

The purpose of Measurement of Data Quality is the Provision of Measurement Criteria, to generate
input for the Evaluation of Measurement Results. This step considers the following activities:

• C1-1. Monitoring and control of the enhanced data. According to the identified risk priorities,
monitor and measure conformity of data to the applicable specification. Monitoring and
measuring takes place either at intervals or continuously and in accordance with applicable work
instructions. This work instructions can be: perform range checks on numerical data, perform
domain checks on categorical data and perform slope and persistence checks on continuous data
streams. If data nonconformities are found, then correct the data when viable and distribute to
stakeholders a record of the viability and degree of success for each corrective action.
• C1-2. Definition of an interstice comparison plan. Create policies for comparing data with data
from related sensors. If no replicate sensors exist, interstice comparisons are useful, whereby data
from one location are compared with data from nearby identical sensors.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 19 of 24

Table 6. Inputs, outputs and RACIQ matrix for the Do phase. (R—Responsible (works on); A—Accountable, C—Consulted; I—Informed; Q—Quality Reviewer).

Step Act. Input Output CIO CDO DGM SCP DQ Steward DQ Steward SCP Arch

D1-1 • Meta-data specification A Q R

• Sensor flags specification
• Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments

D1-2 • SCP node placement plan update I A Q R

• Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments
• SCP node replication plan update

• Root causes for DQ issues related with SCP faults • SCP hardware updates I A Q R
• Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments • SCP software updates

• Root causes for DQ issues related with SCP faults

• Report with the effects of DQ issues on business processes • Implementation of data A
D1-3 I R C
• SCP node placement plan cleansing mechanisms Q
• SCP node replication plan
D1
D1-4 • Data quality enhancement plan • Human inspection plan I A Q R C
• DQ risk catalogue
C A
D1-5 • Mechanisms for data monitoring • Automated alert system I
Q R

• Root causes for DQ issues related with SCP faults

• Report with the effects of DQ issues on business processes
D1-6 • Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments • Sensor maintenance plan I A Q R
• SCP node placement plan
• SCP node replication plan

Table 7. Inputs, outputs and RACIQ matrix for the Check phase. (R—Responsible (works on); A—Accountable, C—Consulted; I—Informed; Q—Quality Reviewer).

Step Act. Input Output CIO CDO DGM SCP DQ Steward DQ Steward SCP Arch

• Data quality enhancement plan • Mechanisms for data

C1-1 • List of prioritized data quality requirements monitoring update I A R R R
C1 • DQ risk catalogue • DQ control mechanisms update

C1-2 • Specification of data lifecycle in SCP environments I A Q R

• Interstice comparison plan
• SCP node placement and replication plan

• Data Quality Strategy

C2 C2-1 • DQ risk catalogue • DQ Issues list I I A R Q
• Implementation of measurement methods
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 20 of 24

5.3.2. C2. Review of Data Quality Issues

The purpose of Review of Data Quality Issues is to identify the starting point for deciding to
measure data quality levels and process performance with the potential to generate opportunities to
improve data quality. The results of measurement and evaluation of data quality are analysed and
possible issues are identified. This step considers the following activities:
• C2-1. Issue analysis. Review non-solved nonconformities arising from Data Processing to identify
those that are possibly connected to the reported issue that has triggered the need for Data Quality
Assurance. This review creates a set of related nonconformities. This set is the basis for further
investigation through the measurement of data quality levels in SCP environments. Respond to
the reporting of unresolved data nonconformities from within Data Quality Control, indications
of the recurrence of types of nonconformity or other issues raised against the results of Data
Quality Planning or Data Quality Control.

5.4. The Act Phase

The Act phase consists of the data quality improvement that involves analysing the root causes of
data quality issues based on the assessment results derived from data quality assurance (see the Check
phase). To prevent future data nonconformities, the steps in this phase try to correct all the existing
nonconformities and also transforms SCP operations as appropriate. On this phase, it is important
to address aspects as analysis of root causes of sensor data problems, management of sensor data
problems, correction and prevention, make available ready access to replacement parts and anticipate
common repairs and maintain inventory replacement parts. Table 8 summarizes inputs, outputs and
responsibility distribution for this phase.

Table 8. Inputs, outputs and RACIQ matrix for the Act phase. (R—Responsible (works on);
A—Accountable, C—Consulted; I—Informed; Q—Quality Reviewer).

SCP DQ Steward
DQ Steward
SCP Arch
DGM
CDO
CIO

Step Act. Input Output

• Sensor maintenance plan

• SCP node placement plan
• Sensor calibration plan
• SCP node replication plan
• Replacement ready
A1-1 • Root causes for DQ issues I A C R
access strategy
related with SCP faults
A1 • Sensor maintenance plan
• Report with the effects of DQ
issues on business processes
A1-2 • Specification of data lifecycle I A C R
• Device replacement plan
in SCP environments

A1. Data Quality Issues Prevention

The purpose of Data Quality issues prevention results of Root Cause Analysis and Solution
Development is to increase the extent to which the organization achieves a systematic and systemic
approach to achieving data quality. This step tries to prevent issues on devices or, for example, to avoid
data loss when it can be predicted the repair or the maintenance of devices of the SCP environment. In
order to prevent the recurrence of each actual or the occurrence of each potential data nonconformity
or similar data nonconformities by refining and applying guidelines, rules and procedures. To achieve
this, the following activities should be conducted:
• A1-1. Make available ready access to replacement parts. Schedule routine calibration of
instruments and sensors based on manufacturer specifications. Maintaining additional calibrated
sensors of the same make/model can allow immediate replacement of sensors removed for
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 21 of 24

calibration to avoid data loss. Otherwise, sensor calibrations can be scheduled at non-critical
times or staggered such that a nearby sensor can be used as a proxy to fill gaps.
• A1-2. Update the strategy for node replacement. Controlled replacement is often pursued for
only a selected subset of the employed nodes with the goal of structuring the network topology
in a way that achieves the desired application requirements. In addition to coverage, the nodes’
positions affect numerous network performance metrics such as energy consumption, delay and
throughput. For example, large distances between nodes weaken the communication links, lower
the throughput and increase energy consumption. Additionally, it can anticipate some common
repairs and maintain inventory replacement parts. This means that sensors could be replaced
before failure where sensor lifetimes are known or can be estimated.

6. Conclusions
In this paper, we have tackled the challenges of data quality problems in SCP environments. Many
research and standardization efforts have been made in the DQ area over the last years, and some
interesting results have been already transferred to IoT as well. However, the approaches presented in
the literature have two main drawbacks. On the one hand, these proposals do not take into account the
nature of SCP environments and the concrete factors that affect the way in which DQ must be treated in
such context. On the other hand, these approaches do not consider existing DQ management standards
that have not been tailored yet for IoT and, more specifically, to SCP contexts. Given the importance of
institutionalizing best practices in SCP for DQ management, we consider it of paramount importance
to provide practitioners and organizations with techniques aligned with standards, reducing their
adaptation efforts and favouring systematic and holistic approaches to the problem. As a main
contribution, we have provided in this paper a Data Quality Management Methodology for Sensor
Data, named DAQUA-MASS, based on ISO 8000-61. The methodology is structured according to the
PDCA Cycle of continuous improvement. The methodology is composed by 7 steps divided in several
activities. Input and output products are already identified for each activity in the methodology. It is
noteworthy to highlight the identification of the various roles involved in the management of data
quality in sensor data.
So, the data quality model along with the methodology offer a unique framework to enable
designers of IoT projects including sensor networks and practitioners in charge of exploiting IoT
systems to assure that the business processes working over these systems can manage data with
adequate levels of quality. Once discarded data quality problems or identified data quality problems
root causes, it will be easier to focus the attention exclusively on sensor networks of IoT systems.
Working aligned to international open standards will enable organizations to speak the same language
and devote the required efforts only to the proper working of the IoT systems, preventing to be aware
of some other data quality concerns.
Future research lines are planned to be primarily focused on the empirical validation of this
methodology. It will be used by different organization in various SCP environments in order to
ensure its applicability in large scale. The mentioned case studies will allow us to provide different
specializations of the data quality model (or recommendation on how to tailor it) to different
organization depending on the domain. In parallel, other future research lines are in accordance
with some limitations of the scope considered in this paper. Thus, it is expected to be considered data
quality management issues and its implications in the processing and utilization layers apart from
the acquisition layer (see Figure 1). While simplified data analysis is being performed at the devices
in the acquisition layer to control the device, most of analysis, diagnosis and improvement of sensor
data are being performed in the processing layer. This will force to manage sensor data together with
general-purpose data to achieve a holistic data quality management in the processing layer.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 22 of 24

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.P.-C. and I.C.; Investigation, R.P.-C., A.G.C. and I.C.;
Writing-Original Draft Preparation, R.P.-C., A.G.C. and I.C.; Writing-Review & Editing, R.P.-C., A.G.C.; I.C.;
M.R., M.P., A.M., S.K. and D.L.; Supervision, I.C. and M.P.; Project Administration, R.P.-C. and I.C.; Funding
Acquisition, I.C., M.P., S.K., D.L.
Funding: This work was primarily funded by DQIoT project (Eureka program, E!11737; and CDTI
(Centro Para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial), INNO-20171086). Additionally, this work was partially
funded by SEQUOIA project (TIN2015-63502-C3-1-R and TIN2015-63502-C3-3-R) (MINECO/FEDER); GEMA
SBPLY/17/180501/000293, Consejería de Educación, Cultura y Deporte de la Dirección General de Universidades,
Investigación e Innovación de la JCCM); ECD project (Evaluación y Certificación de la Calidad de Datos)
(PTQ-16-08504) (Torres Quevedo Program, MINECO). Finally, it was also supported through a grant to Ricardo
Pérez-Castillo enjoys from JCCM within the initiatives for talent retention and return in line with RIS3 goals.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ashton, K. That ‘internet of things’ thing. RFID J. 2009, 22, 97–114.
2. Weber, R.H. Internet of things–governance quo vadis? Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2013, 29, 341–347. [CrossRef]
3. Hassanein, H.S.; Oteafy, S.M. Big Sensed Data Challenges in the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the
13th International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), Ottawa, ON, Canada,
5–7 June 2017.
4. Atzori, L.; Iera, A.; Morabito, G. The internet of things: A survey. Comput. Netw. 2010, 54, 2787–2805.
[CrossRef]
5. Zhang, W.; Zhang, Z.; Chao, H.C. Cooperative fog computing for dealing with big data in the internet
of vehicles: Architecture and hierarchical resource management. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 60–67.
[CrossRef]
6. Karkouch, A.; Mousannif, H.; Al Moatassime, H.; Noel, T. Data quality in internet of things: A state-of-the-art
survey. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2016, 73, 57–81. [CrossRef]
7. Merino, J.; Caballero, I.; Rivas, B.; Serrano, M.; Piattini, M. A data quality in use model for big data.
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2016, 63, 123–130. [CrossRef]
8. Jesus, G.; Casimiro, A.; Oliveira, A. A Survey on Data Quality for Dependable Monitoring in Wireless Sensor
Networks. Sensors 2017, 17, 2010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Rodríguez, C.C.G.; Servigne, S. Managing Sensor Data Uncertainty: A Data Quality Approach. Int. J. Agric.
Environ. Inf. Syst. 2014, 4, 35–54. [CrossRef]
10. Klein, A.; Hackenbroich, G.; Lehner, W. How to Screen a Data Stream-Quality-Driven Load Shedding in
Sensor Data Streams. 2009. Available online: http://mitiq.mit.edu/ICIQ/Documents/IQ%20Conference%
202009/Papers/3-A.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2018).
11. Mühlhäuser, M. Smart products: An introduction. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Ambient
Intelligence, Darmstadt, Germany, 7–10 November 2007; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 158–164.
12. Laney, D.B. Infonomics: How to Monetize, Manage, and Measure Information as an Asset for Competitive Advantage;
Routledge: London, UK, 2017.
13. ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 25000:2014. Systems and Software Engineering—Systems and Software Quality
Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—Guide to SQuaRE. 2014. Available online: https://www.iso.
org/standard/64764.html (accessed on 13 September 2018).
14. Qin, Z.; Han, Q.; Mehrotra, S.; Venkatasubramanian, N. Quality-aware sensor data management. In The Art
of Wireless Sensor Networks; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 429–464.
15. Campbell, J.L.; Rustad, L.E.; Porter, J.H.; Taylor, J.R.; Dereszynski, E.W.; Shanley, J.B.; Gries, C.; Henshaw, D.L.;
Martin, M.E.; Sheldon, W.M. Quantity is nothing without quality: Automated QA/QC for streaming
environmental sensor data. Bioscience 2013, 63, 574–585. [CrossRef]
16. Klein, A.; Lehner, W. Representing data quality in sensor data streaming environments. J. Date Inf. Qual.
2009, 1, 10. [CrossRef]
17. ISO. ISO 8000-61: Data Quality—Part 61: Data Quality Management: Process Reference Model. 2016.
Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/63086.html (accessed on 13 September 2018).
18. Cook, D.; Das, S.K. Smart Environments: Technology, Protocols and Applications; John Wiley Sons: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2004.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 23 of 24

19. Porter, M.E.; Heppelmann, J.E. How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Bus.
Rev. 2014, 92, 64–88.
20. Ostrower, D. Smart Connected Products: Killing Industries, Boosting Innovation. 2014. Available online:
https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/11/smart-connected-products (accessed on 13 September 2018).
21. Wuenderlich, N.V.; Heinonen, K.; Ostrom, A.L.; Patricio, L.; Sousa, R.; Voss, C.; Lemmink, J.G. “Futurizing”
smart service: implications for service researchers and managers. J. Serv. Mark. 2015, 29, 442–447. [CrossRef]
22. Allmendinger, G.; Lombreglia, R. Four strategies for the age of smart services. Harvard Bus. Rev. 2005, 83,
131.
23. Tilak, S.; Abu-Ghazaleh, N.B.; Heinzelman, W. A taxonomy of wireless micro-sensor network models. ACM
SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev. 2002, 6, 28–36. [CrossRef]
24. Barnaghi, P.; Bermudez-Edo, M.; Tönjes, R. Challenges for quality of data in smart cities. J. Date Inf. Qual.
2015, 6, 6. [CrossRef]
25. ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 25012: Software Engineering-Software Product Quality Requierements and Evaluation
(SQuaRE)—Data Quality Model. 2008. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/35736.html
(accessed on 13 September 2018).
26. Badawy, R.; Raykov, Y.P.; Evers, L.J.; Bloem, B.R.; Faber, M.J.; Zhan, A.; Claes, K.; Little, M.A. Automated
Quality Control for Sensor Based Symptom Measurement Performed Outside the Lab. Sensors 2018, 18, 1215.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Al-Ruithe, M.; Mthunzi, S.; Benkhelifa, E. Data governance for security in IoT & cloud converged
environments. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/ACS 13th International Conference of Computer Systems
and Applications (AICCSA), Agadir, Morocco, 29 November–2 December 2016.
28. Lee, Y.W.; Strong, D.M.; Kahn, B.K.; Wang, R.Y. AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment.
Inf. Manag. 2002, 40, 133–146. [CrossRef]
29. McGilvray, D. Executing Data Quality Projects: Ten Steps to Quality Data and Trusted Information (TM); Elsevier:
Burlington, VT, USA, 2008.
30. ISO. ISO/TS 8000-150:2011 Data Quality—Part 150: Master Data: Quality Management Framework. 2011.
Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/54579.html (accessed on 13 September 2018).
31. ISO. ISO 9001:2015 Quality Management Systems—Requirements, in ISO 9000 Family—Quality Management.
2015. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html (accessed on 13 September 2018).
32. Batini, C.; Cappiello, C.; Francalanci, C.; Maurino, A. Methodologies for data quality assessment and
improvement. ACM Comput. Surv. 2009, 41, 16. [CrossRef]
33. Woodall, P.; Oberhofer, M.; Borek, A. A classification of data quality assessment and improvement methods.
Int. J. Inf. Qual. 2014, 3, 298–321. [CrossRef]
34. Strong, D.M.; Lee, Y.W.; Wang, R.Y. Data quality in context. Commun. ACM 1997, 40, 103–110. [CrossRef]
35. Wang, R.Y. A product perspective on total data quality management. Commun. ACM 1998, 41, 58–65.
[CrossRef]
36. Srivannaboon, S. Achieving competitive advantage through the use of project management under the
plan-do-check-act concept. J. Gen. Manag. 2009, 34, 1–20.
37. Chen, P.Y.; Cheng, S.M.; Chen, K.C. Information fusion to defend intentional attack in internet of things.
IEEE Internet Things J. 2014, 1, 337–348. [CrossRef]
38. Blasch, E.; Steinberg, A.; Das, S.; Llinas, J.; Chong, C.; Kessler, O.; Waltz, E.; White, F. Revisiting the JDL
model for information Exploitation. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information
Fusion (FUSION), Istanbul, Turkey, 9–12 July 2013.
39. Pastorello, G.Z., Jr. Managing the Lifecycle of Sensor Data: From Production to Consumption. 2008. Available
online: https://lis-unicamp.github.io/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/tese_GZPastorelloJr.pdf (accessed on
13 September 2018).
40. Cerpa, A.; Estrin, D. ASCENT: Adaptive self-configuring sensor networks topologies. IEEE Trans. Mob.
Comput. 2004, 3, 272–285. [CrossRef]
41. Cheng, X.; Du, D.Z.; Wang, L.; Xu, B. Relay sensor placement in wireless sensor networks. Wirel. Netw. 2008,
14, 347–355. [CrossRef]
42. Dhillon, S.S.; Chakrabarty, K. Sensor placement for effective coverage and surveillance in distributed sensor
networks. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking, New Orleans, LA,
USA, 16–20 March 2003.
Sensors 2018, 18, 3105 24 of 24

43. Pan, J.; Cai, L.; Hou, Y.T.; Shi, Y.; Shen, S.X. Optimal Base-Station Locations in Two-Tiered Wireless Sensor
Networks. IEEE Trans. Mob. Comput. 2005, 4, 458–473. [CrossRef]
44. Wu, J.; Yang, S. SMART: A scan-based movement-assisted sensor deployment method in wireless sensor
networks. IEEE INFOCOM 2005, 4, 2313.
45. Peppler, R.A.; Long, C.; Sisterson, D.; Turner, D.; Bahrmann, C.; Christensen, S.W.; Doty, K.; Eagan, R.;
Halter, T.; Iveyh, M. An overview of ARM Program Climate Research Facility data quality assurance. Open
Atmos. Sci. J. 2008, 2, 192–216. [CrossRef]
46. Fiebrich, C.A.; Grimsley, D.L.; McPherson, R.A.; Kesler, K.A.; Essenberg, G.R. The value of routine site visits
in managing and maintaining quality data from the Oklahoma Mesonet. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2006, 23,
406–416. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).