The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)

Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018

Data Quality Management Maturity Model: A Case

Study in BPS-Statistics of Kaur Regency, Bengkulu
Province, 2017
Rela Sabtiana
Faculty of Computer Science
Kampus UI, Depok, 16411
Universitas Indonesia
Jawa Barat, Indonesia
rela.sabtiana71@ui.ac.id
Satrio Baskoro Yudhoatmojo Achmad Nizar Hidayanto
Faculty of Computer Science Faculty of Computer Science
Kampus UI, Depok, 16411 Kampus UI, Depok, 16411
Universitas Indonesia Universitas Indonesia
Jawa Barat, Indonesia Jawa Barat, Indonesia
satrio.baskoro@cs.ui.ac.id nizar@cs.ui.ac.id

BPS-Statistics of Kaur Regency is one of the representative

Abstract- Data are widely used in an organization not only for
operation but also for strategic level use. Poor data quality can
have negative impact for an organization such as poor decision
making and planning. Therefore, data quality management
becomes an issue growing today not only to the academic but also
professional communities. Based on this issue, this paper presents
and analyzes a case study developed in a governmental agency,
BPS-Statistics of Kaur Regency. For analysis, a data quality
maturity model is used to measure the implementation of data
quality management in the organization. The results show that
for the dimension of ‘Data quality expectations’ is at a maturity
of 4.25. ‘Data quality protocol’ is at a maturity of 3.50. ‘Policies’
reaches a maturity of 3.67. ‘Data quality protocol’ and ‘Data
standard’ are at a maturity of 4.42. ‘Data governance’ is at a
maturity of 3.00. ‘Technology’ is at a maturity 3.17.
‘Performance management’ is at a maturity of 3.33. However,
this also implies that implementing these particular dimensions
will lead to a direct increase in overall maturity.
Keywords—data quality; data quality management; maturity
model; data quality maturity model
I. INTRODUCTION
Data quality management (DQM) becomes an issue to the
academic and professional communities. It is related to the
poor data quality that means inaccurate information which
could harm the organization and waste resources. Mainly it
could affect the relationship with its customer [1]. Data quality
is synonymous with information quality since poor data quality
results in inaccurate information and poor business
performance [2]. Furthermore, [3] stated two most common
problems caused by poor data quality. The first one is about
extra time required to reconcile data. The second one is about
loss of reliability in the system or application because of
existing errors.
BPS-Statistics is a governmental agency that has duty to
provide data by conducting censuses and surveys [4]. BPS-
Statistics conducts statistical researches up to smaller area.
offices under BPS-Statistics of the Republic of Indonesia that
has the core duty to conduct statistical researches in the
regency area by collecting data directly to the respondents.
[5] stated that one of the mission of BPS-Statistics is
“Providing quality statistical data through statistical activities
that are integrated and national or international standards.”
Apparently, in the effort to realize the mission, BPS-Statistics
of Kaur Regency identified some problems both internal and
external. One of the problem that stated in the document of [6]
was the quality of data generated by BPS-Statistics of Kaur
Regency was not yet optimal. In [7] was stated that the target
of the percentage of customers who were satisfied with the data
quality was 84 percent but [8] stated that the realization until
the end of the year was 79 percent. It shows that there is a gap
of six percent between the target and realization. It also gives a
meaning that there is a problem concern about data quality.
[9] identified four clusters for critical success factors of data
quality: (1) data quality management; (2) people and
assessment; (3) environmental and personnel; and (3)
organizational factors. Based on the issue above, in this
research we focus on one of the clusters namely data quality
management. A maturity model for data quality management is
measured which aims to create evaluation for the organization.
The model creates points of discussion for organization and
may guide organization in making plans for improving data
quality management. As we know that data quality maturity
model has never been measured before. Therefore, from this
study we expect to give a contribution for the organization
specifically to evaluate and improve its data quality
management. Generally, we expect this study could be a base
for other BPS-Statistics offices in Indonesia to evaluate their
data quality management. Finally, we expect this study could
make contribution for another research in data quality
management.
In this research, the following central research question is
treated:
 The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)
Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018

“How good is the implementation of a maturity model for characteristics such accuracy, completeness, consistency,
determining the state of data quality management in the currency etc.
organization?”
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section B. Data Quality Maturity Model
II presents related works. Section III presents a literature Some different types of maturity models are introduced by
review, which is focused on the data quality and data quality many researchers right after the introduction of Capability
maturity model. In Section IV, methodology is briefly Maturity Model (CMM) proposed by [10], The CMM is about
introduced. Section V shows the results and discussions. prioritizing improvement effort for organization and how to
Section VI presents conclusions and future works. continue improvement. The CMM has five different maturity
levels, as it is known that each level determines the
II. RELATED WORKS accomplishment of a different component in a software
process. The result is the increasing of organization process
From the literatures, we found limited studies that capability.
concentrate on the measuring the data quality management Based on the CMM, [11] developed a maturity model. This
maturity model. We identified some different way used by the maturity model focuses on data quality management. Next,
researchers to measure the data quality maturity especially in [19] developed a maturity model especially for Information
the level of maturity and framework. [10] developed a basis Quality Maturity Capability Maturity Model (ICM-CMM)
for maturity model. From his study, [11] adopted it became based on [10]. [13] also developed a maturity model patterned
four maturity level for their study of data quality management. after CMM but it was for data quality management.
[12] conducted a research of data quality management for Furthermore, [15] had created a checklist of design
enterprise. [13] developed a framework of data quality principles which can be used by researchers who are involved
management. It consists of five maturity level adopted from in the design of a maturity model. For example, it was found
[10]. [14] developed a maturity model adopted from [15] that [14] used the checklist in the development of the maturity
design principles that consist of five maturity levels for small model.
firm. After completed the literature studies, we used Hence, maturity model cannot be separated from maturity
framework by [13] in our research. The reason for using this is level. Maturity level is about the level reached in the
that the framework focuses on data quality management for organization. Therefore, skipping a maturity level is not
practitioner. Compare to the other framework, as it has been advised, because each maturity level lays the foundation for
described above, it is known that [12]’s framework is not achieving the next and is therefore counterproductive [14].
relevant to use since it is purposed to evaluate an enterprise From the literatures we got a comparison of existing maturity
and [14]’s framework is used to evaluate small firm. levels in data quality management developed by researchers as
III. LITERATURE REVIEW shown in Table I.
TABLE I.
A. Data Quality A COMPARISON OF EXISTING DATA QUALITY MATURITY LEVEL
Some experts and researchers have defined the concept of Maturity Paulk, Curtis, Ryu, Park, Loshin, Kirikoglu,
data quality. Therefore, there are many definitions of data Level Chrissis, and and Park, 2013 2017
Weber, 1993 2006
quality. For example, [16] defined the data quality based on 1 Initial Initial Initial Person
two related factors. The first factor is how well it meets the dependent and
expectations of data consumers (how well it is able to serve the basic
purposes of its intended use or uses) and the second factor is 2 Repeatable Defined Repeatable Policies,
standards and
how well it represents the objects, events, and concepts it is procedures
created to represent. 3 Defined Managed Defined Defined and
The judgment of data quality depends on the data consumers stable
was proposed by [17]. They also mentioned some data quality 4 Managed Optimized Managed Managed and
challenges. First, there are many types of data sources that standardized
5 Optimized - Optimized Continues
bring different data types and complex structures, this causes improvement
difficulty with data integration between different systems. The
second, the amount of data within systems has a lot of volume, In this paper, we use the framework developed by [13]. This
therefore it is difficult to judge the quality in a given time. The framework consists of eight dimensions to measure the
third, data within firms change very fast and thus the implementation of data quality maturity model namely (1) data
‘timeliness’ of data is very short. This may cause outdated or quality expectation, (2) data quality dimensions, (3) policies,
invalid information. (4) data quality protocols, (5) governance, (6) data standards,
In addition, some literatures [2][18] also mention some (7) technology, and (8) performance management.
dimensions that could provide an overview of the data quality
The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)
Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018

IV. RESEARCH METHODS V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Questionnaire The results of our case study are elaborated in this section.
In order to respond to our research question, an unsupervised From the analysis, we got that the total percentage of
survey was conducted, which was generated to ask respondents implemented characterizations versus not implemented ones is
to give their opinion of data quality issues and maturity model. approximately 75% already. From the 111 defined
The questionnaires were divided into two parts. The first characterizations, BPS-statistics implements 83 (74.8%).
questionnaire was made up of a total of nine questions related Finally, Table IV shows an overall tendency to be seen from
to the data quality from the respondent perspective to identify more implemented characterizations towards not implemented
the issue in the organization. We used open questions. And the ones throughout the rise of maturity levels.
last one, which was a maturity model aspect, we used a
TABLE IV.
questionnaire adopted from [13] to collect data. The IMPLEMENTED VERSUS NOT IMPLEMENTED DQM CHARACTERIZATIONS PER MATURITY LEVEL
questionnaire was made up of a total of 111 questions related Maturity Level Total Implemented Not Implemented
to data quality to identify the maturity model in the 1 20 (100%) 17 (85.0%) 3 (15.0%)
organization. The questionnaire was divided into eight parts as 2 22 (100%) 21 (95.5%) 1 (4.5%)
shown in the Table II below. 3 23 (100%) 15 (65.2%) 8 (34.8%)
4 28 (100%) 16 (57.1%) 12 (42.9%)
TABLE II. 5 18 (100%) 14 (77.8%) 4 (22.2%)
QUESTIONNAIRE CATEGORIES AND NUMBER OF QUESTIONS Total 111 (100%) 83 (74.8%) 28 (25.2%)
Part Questionnaire Categories Number of Questions
1 Data quality expectations 16 Summarizing the results, the single maturity levels are as
2 Data quality dimensions 12 shown in Table V. For the dimension of ‘Data quality
3 Policies 13 expectations’ is at a maturity of 4.25. ‘Data quality protocol’ is
4 Data quality protocols 16
5 Data governance 14
at a maturity of 3.50. ‘Policies’ reaches a maturity of 3.67.
6 Data standards 15 ‘Data quality protocol’ and ‘Data standard’ are at a maturity of
7 Technology 12 4.42. ‘Data governance’ is at a maturity of 3.00. ‘Technology’
8 Performance management 13 is at a maturity 3.17. ‘Performance management’ is at a
Total 111 maturity of 3.33. However, this also implies that implementing
these particular dimensions will lead to a direct increase in
We used closed questions. From first to eighth part, the scale
overall maturity.
of 0 to 1 was used to answer the questions. The scale was as
follows in Table III. TABLE V.
SUMMARY OF MATURITY LEVEL
TABLE III. Dimensions Maturity Score Description
THE SCALE OF ANSWER AND DESCRIPTION Data quality expectations 4.25 Managed but Optimized
Scale Description Data quality dimensions 3.50 Defined but Managed
0 Not implemented Policies 3.67 Defined but Managed
1 Implemented Data quality protocols 4.42 Managed but Optimized
Data governance 3.00 Defined
B. Data Collection Procedure Data standards 4.42 Managed but Optimized
The questionnaire was given to a heterogeneous subject Technology 3.17 Defined but Managed
Performance management 3.33 Defined but Managed
matter exist in the organization. There was a total of five
subject matters to be the samples of this research, one subject The ‘Data quality protocols’, ‘Data governance’, and
matter related to data processing and four technical subject ‘Performance management’ value are low because some
matters. The survey was sent out by e-mail and/or online form. characterizations are not implemented yet at BPS-Statistics of
In both cases, respondents were asked to read the instructions Kaur Regency. However, each dimension has its
slowly and carefully. From the questionnaires sent out that characterization. The result from eight dimensions of data
were answered, a total three questionnaires collected for data quality management maturity model in BPS-Statistics of Kaur
quality issues and one questionnaires collected for maturity Regency is shown in Fig. 1 below.
model. A total of one questionnaire was therefore processed
and analyzed for measuring maturity model.

C. Tool
The data collected was processed and analyzed using
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
 The 6th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM 2018)
Fig. 1. Dimensions of DQM
The three biggest gaps are in ‘Performance management’
‘Technology’ and ‘Data governance’ dimensions. And the
smallest gap is in ‘Data quality protocol’ and ‘Data standard’
dimensions. It can be implied that the implementation of both
dimensions is already well enough. But it is still lack in data
governance, technology, and performance management.
The figure above show that a gap occurs in each dimension.
It means that BPS-Statistics needs to increase all maturity
dimension characterizations value to enhance the level of
maturity.
From these results, it can be discussed that the organization
focused more on data standards, data quality protocols, and
data quality expectations. However, the organization is still
lack in many areas such as there is no service level agreement
of data quality, monitoring of data quality validity,
standardized procedures for using data quality tools for data
quality assessment and improvement in place, reward to the
employees, framework to analyze the business effects, audit
related to data quality dimensions, etc. The important thing
from this result is those lack areas are able to be a base for
making data quality strategy in order to enhance the data
quality for the organization.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
A. Conclusion
The conclusion that can be drawn from this research is the
level of maturity of data quality in the BPS-Statistics of Kaur
Regency is at level 3.00 to 4.42 for single maturity dimension.
In order to increase the maturity level, the organization needs
to improve all areas but more specifically in Performance
Management, Technology, and Data governance.
B. Limitations and future works
This research had some limitations. First, this research was
only done in one office in one regency. Second, the collecting
data method used questionnaire without direct interview and
observation. Future researchers might explore wider coverage
all over regencies in Indonesia and more respondents. Also,
Inna Parapat Hotel – Medan, August 7-9, 2018
this kind of research can be conducted in another
governmental institution.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We gratefully thank the Universitas Indonesia for the
International Publication Grants for Student Thesis for
financial support with grant number
1891/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Lucas, “Corporate Data Quality Management: from Theory to
Practice,” 5th Iber. Conf. Inf. Syst. Technol., 2010.
[2] DAMA International, The DAMA Guide to The Data Management
Body of Knowledge (DAMA-DMBOK Guide). 2009.
[3] W. W. Eckerson, “Data Quality and the Bottom Line,” Data Wareh.
Inst., pp. 1–32, 2002.
[4] BPS-Statistics, “Act of Republic of Indonesia Number 16 Year 1997
about Statistics,” 1997.
[5] BPS-Statistics, “Strategic Planning of BPS-Statistics of Kaur
Regency,” 2015.
[6] BPS-Statistics, “Review of Strategic Planning of Kaur Regency,”
2017.
[7] BPS-Statistics, “Performance Agreement of BPS-Statistics of Kaur
Regency,” 2017.
[8] BPS-Statistics, “Performance Report of BPS-Statistics of Kaur
Regency,” 2018.
[9] H. Xu, “Data Quality Issues for Accounting Information Systems’
Implementation: Systems, Stakeholders, and Organizational Factors,”
J. Technol. Res., pp. 1–11, 2010.
[10] M. C. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. B. Chrissis, and C. V Weber, “Capability
Maturity Model for Software , Version 1 . 1 Software Engineering
Institute,” no. February, 1993.
[11] K. Ryu, J. Park, and J. Park, “A Data Quality Management Maturity
Model,” vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 191–204, 2006.
[12] M. Ofner, B. Otto, and H. Österle, “A Maturity Model for Enterprise
Data Quality Management.” Enterprise Modelling and Information
Systems Architectures vol.8, December 2013.
[13] D. Loshin, The Practitioner Guide to Data Quality Improvement,
USA: Elsevier, 2011.
[14] O. Kirikoglu, “A Maturity Model for Improving Data Quality
Management,” University of Twente, 2017.
[15] J. Pöppelbuß and M. Röglinger, “What Makes a Useful Maturity
Model? A Framework of General Design Principles for Maturity
Models and Its Demonstration in Business Process Management,”
Ecis, vol. 4801, p. Paper28, 2011.
[16] L. Sebastian-coleman, Measuring Data Quality for Ongoing
Improvement: A Data Quality Assessment Framework Appendix E:
Quality Improvement and Data Quality, no. c. 2013.
[17] L. Cai and Y. Zhu, “The Challenges of Data Quality and Data Quality
Assessment in the Big Data Era,” Data Sci. J., vol. 14, pp. 1–10,
2015.
[18] I. Kirchen, D. Schutz, J. Folmer, and B. Vogel-Heuser, “Metrics for
the Evaluation of Data Quality of Signal Data in Industrial
Processes,” 2017 IEEE 15th Int. Conf. Ind. Informatics, pp. 819–826,
2017.
[19] Saša Baškarada, “Information Quality Management Capability
Maturity Model,” University of South Australia, 2009.