Skip to main content

Data Engineers Spend 2 Days Per Week Firefighting Bad Data

Data professionals are spending 40% of their time evaluating or checking data quality and that poor data quality impacts 26% of their companies' revenue, according to The State of Data Quality 2022, a report commissioned by Monte Carlo and conducted by Wakefield Research.

The survey found that 75% of participants take four or more hours to detect a data quality incident and about half said it takes an average of nine hours to resolve the issue once identified. Worse, 58% said the total number of incidents has increased somewhat or greatly over the past year, often as a result of more complex pipelines, bigger data teams, greater volumes of data, and other factors.

Today, the average organization experiences about 61 data-related incidents per month, each of which takes an average of 13 hours to identify and resolve. This adds up to an average of about 793 hours per month, per company.

However, 61 incidents only represents the number of incidents known to respondents.

"In the mid-2010s, organizations were shocked to learn that their data scientists were spending about 60% of their time just getting data ready for analysis," said Barr Moses, Monte Carlo CEO and co-founder. "Now, even with more mature data organizations and advanced stacks, data teams are still wasting 40% of their time troubleshooting data downtime. Not only is this wasting valuable engineering time, but it's also costing precious revenue and diverting attention away from initiatives that move the needle for the business. These results validate that data reliability is one of the biggest and most urgent problems facing today's data and analytics leaders."

Nearly half of respondent organizations measure data quality most often by the number of customer complaints their company receives, highlighting the ad hoc - and reputation damaging - nature of this important element of modern data strategy.

The Cost of Data Downtime

"Garbage in, garbage out" aptly describes the impact data quality has on data analytics and machine learning. If the data is unreliable, so are the insights derived from it.

In fact, on average, respondents said bad data impacts 26% of their revenue. This validates and supplements other industry studies that have uncovered the high cost of bad data. For example, Gartner estimates poor data quality costs organizations an average $12.9 million every year.

Nearly half said business stakeholders are impacted by issues the data team doesn't catch most of the time, or all the time.

In fact, according to the survey, respondents that conducted at least three different types of data tests for distribution, schema, volume, null or freshness anomalies at least once a week suffered fewer data incidents (46) on average than respondents with a less rigorous testing regime (61). However, testing alone was insufficient and stronger testing did not have a significant correlation with reducing the level of impact on revenue or stakeholders.

"Testing helps reduce data incidents, but no human being is capable of anticipating and writing a test for every way data pipelines can break. And if they could, it wouldn't be possible to scale across their always changing environment," said Lior Gavish, Monte Carlo CTO and co-founder. "Machine learning-powered anomaly monitoring and alerting through data observability can help teams close these coverage gaps and save data engineers' time."

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...

Data Engineers Spend 2 Days Per Week Firefighting Bad Data

Data professionals are spending 40% of their time evaluating or checking data quality and that poor data quality impacts 26% of their companies' revenue, according to The State of Data Quality 2022, a report commissioned by Monte Carlo and conducted by Wakefield Research.

The survey found that 75% of participants take four or more hours to detect a data quality incident and about half said it takes an average of nine hours to resolve the issue once identified. Worse, 58% said the total number of incidents has increased somewhat or greatly over the past year, often as a result of more complex pipelines, bigger data teams, greater volumes of data, and other factors.

Today, the average organization experiences about 61 data-related incidents per month, each of which takes an average of 13 hours to identify and resolve. This adds up to an average of about 793 hours per month, per company.

However, 61 incidents only represents the number of incidents known to respondents.

"In the mid-2010s, organizations were shocked to learn that their data scientists were spending about 60% of their time just getting data ready for analysis," said Barr Moses, Monte Carlo CEO and co-founder. "Now, even with more mature data organizations and advanced stacks, data teams are still wasting 40% of their time troubleshooting data downtime. Not only is this wasting valuable engineering time, but it's also costing precious revenue and diverting attention away from initiatives that move the needle for the business. These results validate that data reliability is one of the biggest and most urgent problems facing today's data and analytics leaders."

Nearly half of respondent organizations measure data quality most often by the number of customer complaints their company receives, highlighting the ad hoc - and reputation damaging - nature of this important element of modern data strategy.

The Cost of Data Downtime

"Garbage in, garbage out" aptly describes the impact data quality has on data analytics and machine learning. If the data is unreliable, so are the insights derived from it.

In fact, on average, respondents said bad data impacts 26% of their revenue. This validates and supplements other industry studies that have uncovered the high cost of bad data. For example, Gartner estimates poor data quality costs organizations an average $12.9 million every year.

Nearly half said business stakeholders are impacted by issues the data team doesn't catch most of the time, or all the time.

In fact, according to the survey, respondents that conducted at least three different types of data tests for distribution, schema, volume, null or freshness anomalies at least once a week suffered fewer data incidents (46) on average than respondents with a less rigorous testing regime (61). However, testing alone was insufficient and stronger testing did not have a significant correlation with reducing the level of impact on revenue or stakeholders.

"Testing helps reduce data incidents, but no human being is capable of anticipating and writing a test for every way data pipelines can break. And if they could, it wouldn't be possible to scale across their always changing environment," said Lior Gavish, Monte Carlo CTO and co-founder. "Machine learning-powered anomaly monitoring and alerting through data observability can help teams close these coverage gaps and save data engineers' time."

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...