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

AI observability serves several roles across an organization. AI engineers use it to build, evaluate, and improve AI systems. SREs use it to operate those systems reliably and efficiently in production, including managing their cost. Leaders need it to connect AI behavior and operational performance to business outcomes. The common need is a clear understanding of whether AI systems are delivering the intended result ...

Part 4 outlines the challenges enterprise face when adopting AI observability. The main challenge is that AI complexity compounds at every stage of maturity. LLM-based applications introduce new behavior, dependencies, and quality considerations, while Agentic AI adds further failure modes as systems make decisions and take actions ...

Part 3 reports on the current state of AI observability. Most experts agree: enterprises are moving faster with AI than they are with the operational discipline needed to run it safely ...

When discussing AI Observability, one of the first questions that arises: Is this just an extension of traditional observability or is this a whole new type of tool? Part 2 compares traditional observability with AI observability ...

In this extensive 14-part series that will post over the next three weeks, experts across observability and AI will provide insight and opinions on the need for AI Observability, the challenges, the benefits, the current state, and predictions for the future ...

Amid rising complexity, organizations are moving quickly toward agent-driven operations: AgenticOps, according to The Impact of Agentic AI on Network Operations, a new report from Cisco ...

AI, automation, and enterprise software give organizations an extraordinary amount of leverage. Work that once required hours can happen in minutes. Information buried across systems can be analyzed almost instantly. Complex workflows can be coordinated across teams with far less manual intervention. That leverage creates a temptation to start with the technology ...

Everyone wants to talk about models. Compute clusters. Benchmark scores that climb a fraction of a point and make headlines anyway. It's an easy conversation to have because it's measurable. But it's also increasingly beside the point ...

For more than a decade, the default infrastructure play has been simple. Move more workloads to the cloud, retire on-premises gear and treat the data center as a cost to shrink. That logic held while public cloud offered near-limitless capacity at predictable prices, and AI demand is now testing both halves of that assumption ...

Most enterprise IT leaders can tell you exactly how many applications are running across their organization. They can surface a dashboard showing telecom spend by region, pull a report on SaaS license utilization, or call up a real-time view of mobile device inventory. The data is there, and IT leaders have largely delivered on the promise of visibility. Yet, in most organizations, that visibility has not translated into business value ...

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

AI observability serves several roles across an organization. AI engineers use it to build, evaluate, and improve AI systems. SREs use it to operate those systems reliably and efficiently in production, including managing their cost. Leaders need it to connect AI behavior and operational performance to business outcomes. The common need is a clear understanding of whether AI systems are delivering the intended result ...

Part 4 outlines the challenges enterprise face when adopting AI observability. The main challenge is that AI complexity compounds at every stage of maturity. LLM-based applications introduce new behavior, dependencies, and quality considerations, while Agentic AI adds further failure modes as systems make decisions and take actions ...

Part 3 reports on the current state of AI observability. Most experts agree: enterprises are moving faster with AI than they are with the operational discipline needed to run it safely ...

When discussing AI Observability, one of the first questions that arises: Is this just an extension of traditional observability or is this a whole new type of tool? Part 2 compares traditional observability with AI observability ...

In this extensive 14-part series that will post over the next three weeks, experts across observability and AI will provide insight and opinions on the need for AI Observability, the challenges, the benefits, the current state, and predictions for the future ...

Amid rising complexity, organizations are moving quickly toward agent-driven operations: AgenticOps, according to The Impact of Agentic AI on Network Operations, a new report from Cisco ...

AI, automation, and enterprise software give organizations an extraordinary amount of leverage. Work that once required hours can happen in minutes. Information buried across systems can be analyzed almost instantly. Complex workflows can be coordinated across teams with far less manual intervention. That leverage creates a temptation to start with the technology ...

Everyone wants to talk about models. Compute clusters. Benchmark scores that climb a fraction of a point and make headlines anyway. It's an easy conversation to have because it's measurable. But it's also increasingly beside the point ...

For more than a decade, the default infrastructure play has been simple. Move more workloads to the cloud, retire on-premises gear and treat the data center as a cost to shrink. That logic held while public cloud offered near-limitless capacity at predictable prices, and AI demand is now testing both halves of that assumption ...

Most enterprise IT leaders can tell you exactly how many applications are running across their organization. They can surface a dashboard showing telecom spend by region, pull a report on SaaS license utilization, or call up a real-time view of mobile device inventory. The data is there, and IT leaders have largely delivered on the promise of visibility. Yet, in most organizations, that visibility has not translated into business value ...