Why do we treat data management differently?
A recent post on ASAE's community read: "Looking for recommendations for assistance with understanding how we can use our AMS more efficiently and effectively. Small international association, no in-house IT, and our staff AMS admin has left. Any suggestions?"
On the surface there is nothing wrong with this request. But it struck me: would an association make the same request around accounting or membership or marketing or legislative affairs? If the accounting staff person had left, would they be searching for assistance on "how to understand" accounting? Of course not.
So why do we continue to treat data management this way, as some sort of add-on or afterthought? Why is data management treated as though it doesn't require the same kind of discipline and knowledge as the other areas in association management?
I would suggest that those associations who have the most success with managing their data are those that have internalized the idea that data management is a discipline on par with other areas of the association, and those associations are applying their resources appropriately to improving data management.
So how does your association view data management? As a real discipline, or as an afterthought?
Wes's Wednesday Wisdom Archives
“Working with you is like going to therapy.” I was working with a client last …