Systematic review defines a data quality taxonomy using 100+ metrics in data monetisation, suggesting strategic impact across key performance indicators.
This chapter presents a comprehensive taxonomy for assessing data quality in the context of data monetisation, developed through a systematic literature review. Organising over one hundred metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) into four subclusters (Fundamental, Contextual, Resolution, and Specialised) within the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) framework, the taxonomy integrates both universal and domain-specific quality dimensions. By positioning data quality as a strategic connector across the BSC's Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning & Growth perspectives, it demonstrates how quality metrics underpin valuation accuracy, customer trust, operational efficiency, and innovation capacity. The framework's interconnected "metrics layer" ensures that improvements in one dimension cascade into others, maximising strategic impact. This holistic approach bridges the gap between granular technical assessment and high-level decision-making, offering practitioners, data stewards, and strategists a scalable, evidence-based reference for aligning data quality management with sustainable value creation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vyhmeister et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: