This document introduces a formula for calculating the subjective value of information. It discusses that both data and information have value to businesses and individuals, but information requires context to be meaningful. The formula considers various criteria for evaluating information, such as its usability, age, importance, accuracy, and costs. Assigning values to these subjective aspects allows the overall value of a piece of information to be estimated for decision-making purposes. While information also has direct monetary costs and values, this formula aims to capture additional subjective dimensions that are important but harder to quantify.

1. 1
Calculating the Subjective Value of Information: A Formula
+ + ++
The Formula
Useability
Age of Information
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Interpretation Required
Criterion #1
Manipulation Required
Criterion #1
Timeliness
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Criterion #3
Importance
Strategic vs
Tactical
Criterion #1
End User
Criterion #1
Demand for
Information
Criterion #1
Dependency From
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Criterion #3
Information
Impact
Frequency of Use
Criterion #1
Dependency To
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Control of
Information
Ownership
Criterion #1
Truth
Agreement of Meaning
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Accuracy
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Auditable
Criterion #1
CostsCosts
Sensitivity
Criterion #1
+ + + ++
The Formula
Useability
Age of Information
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Interpretation Required
Criterion #1
Manipulation Required
Criterion #1
Timeliness
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Criterion #3
Importance
Strategic vs
Tactical
Criterion #1
End User
Criterion #1
Demand for
Information
Criterion #1
Dependency From
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Criterion #3
Information
Impact
Frequency of Use
Criterion #1
Dependency To
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Control of
Information
Ownership
Criterion #1
Truth
Agreement of Meaning
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Accuracy
Criterion #1
Criterion #2
Auditable
Criterion #1
Costs
Sensitivity
Criterion #1
+
This Paper is divided into four sections:
1. Introduction – introduces the basic concept and framework
2. Evaluation #76910 – Displays the results of evaluation #76910
3. Evaluation #76910 Evaluator’s Comments – Displays the evaluator’s notes for
each criterion and their associated parameters.
4. Formula Parameters Explained – A deeper dive into the rationale behind the
meaning of each parameter used in the formula.

2. 2
1.
SECTION 1 - Introduction
How does the Surfer value the next Wave?
About 100 yards off the beach a surfer surveys the ocean and its continuing waves.
The surfer is evaluating the waves for the one that will provide the best ride. This is a tricky
exercise. The waves are not fully formed and are ever changing. The entire setting of this
water environment has to be taken into consideration. The strength, height, and direction
of the oncoming wave are all parameters in the surfer’s calculations. This assessment
becomes even more complex when the experiences of past waves is added to the mix of
evaluation criteria.
While sitting on their board the surfer can ignore or pass on many waves before
trying to ride one. This can be a frustrating exercise as waves that were determined to be
insignificant became high riders. The missed excitement can sometimes cloud the decision
of evaluating the next series of waves. To keep these missed opportunities to a lesser
number, the surfer must have some type of discipline in her determination of the wave’s
potential. This is a routine of assigning a value to each aspect of the wave into some form of
a calculation. However, there are other characteristics to consider beside the wave’s
potential.
The strength and direction of the wind, other surfers in the neighborhood, and the
surfer’s self-evaluation of her own skill level will weigh on the decision to paddle or pass on
the approaching wave. A beginner may easily know which wave to pass on but the
intermediate surfer will have the greatest challenge in determining success and disaster.
All of these conditions and experiences are considered by the surfer while the oncoming
waves are increasing in strength and speed to a decision point.
What the surfer is assessing is information. This information comes in various forms
as the surfer remembers the results of past waves, the measurement of future waves, and
the general environmental factors. All of this information is placed in a framework of
perspective. This framework is made up of the expectations or purpose of the coming wave
in terms of the surfer. The waves may have different meanings or purposes to other surfers
in the area. This framing of parameters in the surfer’s calculation is the scope of the
perceptive. Each of these factors are used to assign a combined value to the wave in the

3. 3
context of the surfer’s expectation or scope of perspective. The valuation process will
continue until the surfer choses the wave to ride.
There is no difference whether you are a surfer assessing wave information or a business
person assessing the value of their information. Each person or project must place a value
on each piece of information in order to arrive at a usable determination. Whether the
surfer passes on a great wave or the business person ignores the alerts buried in the
reports, the process is the same.
What is Information?
One important requirement that the surfer has for her information is usability. For
example, while the depth of the ocean could be a factor in the determinations, the
temperature of the ocean is probably not a consideration factor. There is a vast amount of
data that is available to a business person; however, much of this data is a distraction. The
main point for the business person to remember is that data is not information.
Information is composed of data but data is not information. A single number or character
is not information.
So, what is Data? Data cannot be touched nor smelled. It can be seen. Data can be created. It
can be destroyed and changed once it is created. Data can be used as a means of exchange
and it can be sold.
14
This is data but not information. If I state that it is actually a number and not just a
character, then it may seem more like information but it is still data. If the “14” as a number
or character is placed in one cell of an otherwise empty spreadsheet, then it is still a single
element of data. When a column label is added to the column the cell resides in, then the
column label and the cell value became information. If the cell’s associated row label were
added then the three elements (Row label, Column label, and cell value) would provide a
more specific example of information. This process has then created a very simple example

4. 4
of information. If we placed “14” on a blank canvas which is then displayed in a gallery,
then we could also state that the image is information and perhaps abstract art.
Can Information Really Have a Subjective Value?
Then in the business world, one asks the question, what is the value of the Information?
How many times have you heard the phrase “Information or Data is an Asset”? The
Enterprise stores information, hires employees to use information, has processes that
create information, cleanse information, analyze information, communicate information,
and turns data into information. It seems that Information can be considered an asset just
as a building is an asset. Why does an Enterprise not have a formal process to establish the
value of information? Perhaps the Enterprise does.
From an Information Technology perspective, there are financial costs in terms of
programs, hardware, and networks that support the availability and use of information
across the enterprise. It is these financial costs that are used to assign a value to the
information. From a Business perspective, there may even be some cases where the option
of creating revenue from information exists. The sale amount would provide the retail
value of the information. However, the usual value of information comes from its use and
need within the company.
The report that goes to the CEO has a value in that the information is significant to the CEO.
The same report to a mid-tier manager may be of less importance. Regardless of the
whether the report goes to the CEO or the mid-tier manager, if the report is not available
when needed, then its value is lowered. Perhaps a worse situation is when the information
is available but it is “old”. The term “Yesterday’s News” implies that the news concerning an
event occurring yesterday has less value when presented today.
The company should be careful in evaluating the information’s value based solely on its
current use in this report. Sometimes past events or past news stories are used to enhance
or emphasize current information. This is often the case in media’s anniversary edition
issues and congressional hearings. The age of the information is just one subjective area of
valuation concerning information.
Today decisions are usually based on information. More importantly information has the
ability to focus attention from individuals, businesses, schools, governments, etc. Focus
attention is subjective in its very nature. By assigning values to the subjective aspects of
information, the value can be used to establish a basis for calculations. For example, one

5. 5
could calculate the value of information in terms of how many people or processes use or
touch a specific piece of information. Therefore, information that is requested or received
often has more value than abandoned information which is rarely used.
Calculating the subjective value of information is different than its cash value. The cost of
information in terms of its storage cost, the computer time that is required to access the
information, and others can be calculated in monetary terms. Likewise, the revenue from
the sale of the information is also in monetary terms. The subjective values of information
are just as important or more important than the information’s monetary cost and revenue.
It can be argued that the cost of information would be zero if there did not exist a highly
subjective value requirement from the business. If information has a low or zero subject
value to the business, then there would be no reason to absorb the cost for information
creation or maintenance.
If calculating the value of information involves the subjective valuation as well as regular
monetary valuation, then how do we bring all of these components together for a specific
estimate? This is very much akin to the combining apples and oranges in some recipe. Do
the apples equal, lessen, or enhance the value of this bunch of oranges? It requires some
type of common denominator measurement to be established. This component must be
able to equate the apples (currency) with the oranges (subjective). It is the equalization of
components which will allow the business to assign a more precise value. The solution is
Token Credits.
How Star Trek Helps US
When Captain Kirk or a crew member from the Enterprise orders a drink in a galaxy bar,
they pay for the drink in terms of credits or tokens. This object represents a common
exchange currency without actually being a currency. The currency being exchanged for
credits before the request for a drink is made. Therefore, the bar tender establishes a value
of the cocktail regardless of the drinker’s home currency. All the other buyers of the same
drink know that they paid the same amount for the drink even if they lost money in the
currency exchange.
The company can use this same technique to establish a common value in determining the
value of information while incorporating its monetary and subjective aspects. The
subjective value of information can equate to a number of credits. The monetary value of
the information can be established by using a simple exchange ratio between one currency
unit and one credit. An example could be one currency unit = 2 credits. This would be

6. 6
determined at the beginning of a valuation exercise and not changed during the entire
exercise.
Determining Subjective Information Valuations
There is only one situation where Information loses its total value. When it is concluded
that not one process will ever use the information, then the information has zero value
(Information supports Processes and Processes validate Information). If we are unable to
confirm this state of nonuse, then the information will always have some value. Assigning a
value to information based solely on its use could easily miss the complex makeup of the
information’s value. The makeup of the information’s subjective value in truth, usability,
importance, impact, and control is what this formula addresses.
For example, if information is classified as “current” such as a daily or morning report and
the individual elements within this report are not updated daily, then the information in
general could be depicted as not accurate or at worst erroneous. The information, such as a
report, is then devalued and perhaps discarded. If the report is refreshed with current data
for all of its information components, then it is assumed that the report will have achieved
its normal value for that point in time. However, that may not be the case. The trust in the
report has been diminished and may never be returned to that original value level. Trust is
one the subjective parameter that assigns a value to information whether it is an individual
component or the information as a whole.
If the report was discarded, did the subjective value drop to zero? Were the information
elements assembled in the rejected report now also considered to have zero value? Did the
fact that the report actually arrived at the CEO’s desk, assign some level of value to the
report? Can the individual components be measured without consideration of the report’s
overall value? Logically these types of interactions are very hard to represent in a
predicable format. This is why the formula uses a framework of parameters to represent
the major subjective factors in subjective value evaluation.
To assist the calculation of the information’s subjective value, the formula divides the major
factors into parameters. Each evaluator team must create one of more criterion for each
parameter. Based on the evaluator team’s judgement, each of the candidate information
objects are awarded a number of credits for each criterion. All of these evaluations are
dependent on the established Scope of Perspective. In the document, Evaluation #76910,
the results of the formula against three company information objects.

7. 7

8. 8
SECTION 2 - Evaluation #76910
The Subjective Value of the following Information Objects:
 Dashboard for 2000 Division Store Managers – this information provides a review of ongoing
changes in the inventory (coming in and being sold) and the margin of sales on a part of the day
update. This report is sourced from one transactional system and the account system.
 Corporate Office Operating Report – this information is focused on weekly results of sales,
product costs, labor costs, finance cost, and various other subject areas that are of interest to
the COO. This report is extracted from many different sources and aggregated at the weekly
level.
 Big Data Distribution Pattern – this information would reveal distribution trouble spots. The
scope of the data would involve resources (raw material) and their development through the
manufacturing process and further to the selling and receipt of the finished products. The data
would be generated from sensors embedded in all production process and customer/ vendor
feedback through available media such as email, voice response, and various social media
platforms.
The Results:
Information
Objects
Dashboard COO
Production
Analysis
Parameter
Group
Parameter Parameter' s Criteria
MAX
VALUE
(Credits)
COSTS
(converted to
Credits)
200 150 700
TRUTH
Agreement of
Meaning
100
common terms 50 50 50 5
different versions 50 45 50 50
Accuracy 100
actual matches
expected
100 80 90 10
Auditable 100
direct sourcing 40 40 15 40

9. 9
transformation
traceable
40 40 35 40
zero missing
connections
20 20 10 20
Total TRUTH
Credit
300 275 250 165
USEABILITY
Interpretation
Required
100
Understandable
Language
50 50 50 5
Understandable
Acronyms
25 10 25 5
Can the Information
be viewed
25 20 25 25
Age of the
Information
100
Is all the information
current
70 70 60 70
Does the information
have long time value
30 15 15 25
Manipulation
Required
100
Are further actions
on the information
required to achieve
its understanding
100 75 35 5
Timeliness 100
Is the Information
available when it is
expected
100 90 80 100
Total USABILITY
Credit
400 330 290 235
IMPORTANCE End User 100
Is information
designed for a
specific position
50 50 50 15
Is the number of End
Users large
50 50 10 50

10. 10
Demand for
Information
200
Is the Information
requested
75 75 75 75
Is support funding
available (does
somebody want to
pay for it)
50 50 50 25
Does the Information
exist
75 75 50 75
Strategic vs.
Tactical
100
Does the Information
directly support a
Tactical Goal
40 40 40 10
Does the Information
directly support a
Strategic Goal
40 0 10 40
Does the Informaiton
indirectly support a
Tactical or Strategic
Goal
20 20 20 20
Total
IMPORTANCE
Credit
400 360 305 310
INFORMAITON
IMPACT
Frequency of
Use
200
How many times is
the Information
touched (read,
copied, etc.)
100 100 25 25
Is the touching group
not part of the
primary group/
person
25 25 25 5
Is the access
frequency consistent
75 75 30 10
Dependency
To
200
Is the critical
dependency
percentage high
80 10 10 60

11. 11
How many other
information objects
are dependent (non-
critical) on this
information
80 10 10 40
Are there processes
that depend on this
information
40 40 5 40
Dependency
From (could
be Negative)
150
What is percentage
of dependency from
other information
objects
75 0 50 0
Is the dependency
critical to the
information's value
50 0 30 0
Does the dependency
enhance the
information's value
25 25 0 25
Total
INFORMATION
IMPACT Credit
550 285 185 205
CONTROL OF
INFORMAITON
Ownership 100
Does the information
object create and
maintain the
information
75 0 0 0
Is the information
shared
25 25 0 25
Sensitivity 100
Can the information
be shared outside
the enterprise
50 50 50 50
Can the information
be shared outside
the perspective
scope
50 35 0 0
Total CONTROL
OF
200 110 50 75

12. 12
INFORMATION
Credit
TOTAL VALUE
CREDITS
WITHOUT
COST
1850 1360 1080 990
TOTAL VALUE
CREDITS
WITH COST 0 1560 1230 1690

13. 13
SECTION 3 - #76910 – Evaluator’s Comments
Objects Evaluated:
1. Dashboard for 2000 Division Store Managers
2. Corporate Office Operating Report
3. Big Data Distribution Pattern
Scope of Perspective:
The Scope of Perspective during this evaluation was set at the enterprise level. All of the
evaluated objects have been built, installed, and operational for the last six months.
Findings:
1. Parameter – Agreement of Meaning
Criterion - Common Terms – Both the Dashboard and the COO Report utilized common
company terms in representing their information. Production Analysis’s (Big Data) terms were
mostly unfamiliar or were used in collaboration with common terms such that the information
was not easily understood. Therefore, both the Dashboard and the COO Report were awarded
the maximum credits for this criterion, whereas the Production Analysis was awarded the bare
minimum.
Criterion - Different Version – The COO report and the Production Analysis were represented
with only one version. The Dashboard has two versions currently in use as the current version of
the information object had not been installed to all locations. The Dashboard was lightly
penalized as the difference between the two versions was minor.
2. Parameter – Accuracy
Criterion - Actual Versus Expected – Both the Dashboard and the COO Report information
differed from the test results which were compiled manually from the source information. The
Dashboard had less accuracy than the COO Report do to some unavailable data from one of its
source system. This absence of data resulted in one piece of the Dashboard information to be
blank in their presentation screen. The Production Analysis object by its very nature and
purpose did not lend itself to having any expected results, therefore, it received a minimum
number of credits.
3. Parameter - Auditable

14. 14
Criterion – Direct Sourcing – Both the Dashboard and the Production Analysis have direct feeds
from their various information sources with zero to very little integration activities. The COO
Report has considerable integration activities, as well as, some complex aggregation processes.
Criterion – Transformation Traceable – The Dashboard’s acquisition of the source information is
straightforward and easily traceable. The COO Report has some minor gaps in the
transformation logic that at times leads to inaccurate results. The Production Analysis basically
has zero transformation processes with the exception of some data type switches. It should be
noted that the Production Analysis pattern recognition process is untraceable except for the
data scientist that develop the pattern algorithms.
Criterion – Zero Missing Connections – The comments made in the Transformation Traceable
criterion apply exactly to this criterion.
4. Parameter – Interpretation Required
Criterion – Understandable Language – The Dashboard, the COO Report, and the Production
Analysis all use the English language which is the most common language with the Scope of
Perspective. Therefore, full credit amounts were awarded to each of the information objects.
Criterion – Understandable Acronyms – The COO Report has no acronyms and it received full
credit amounts. Many of the Dashboard’s acronyms are unfamiliar to the community within the
Scope of Perspectives. This may have been a trade off to the limited space available on the
Dashboard’s one display page. The Production Analysis’s acronyms were mostly not understood
by the common user and would require translation.
Criterion – Can the Information be Viewed – Both the COO report and the Production Analysis
object readily display all their information. In a few cases the Dashboard has provided the result
of two fields being combined without displaying the fields individually.
5. Parameter – Age of the Information
Criterion – Is All the Information Current – Both the Dashboard and the Production Analysis
report acquire their data from current information sources. Due to its integration and
aggregation processes, not all of the COO Report information is current.
Criterion – Does the Information Have Long Time Value – By their very nature the Dashboard
and the COO report have very little if any long-time value. The COO report may have some value
if a series of past reports are compared. The Production Analysis has some significant value in
that its pattern results could establish a benchmark comparison for future results.
6. Parameter – Manipulation Required
Criterion - Are further actions on the information required to achieve its understanding – Being
as the Scope of Perspective is the enterprise, the Dashboard has the greatest ability to represent
its information across the enterprise with no manipulation required. Certain labels and concepts

15. 15
are manager specific and so the Dashboard did not receive all available credits. The COO Report
was specifically designed for the COO position, therefore, most of the information in the object
would not be readily understood by most of the enterprise. Basically, the Production Analysis
would be required to convert the information object’s findings into some form that most of the
enterprise would understand.
7. Parameter – Timeliness
Criterion – Is the Information available when it is expected – Latency in the Dashboard’s
processing reflects a less than maximum valuation score. Some information in the COO Report’s
integration and aggregation processes cause some delays in the final output of the information’s
object. Since there seems to be no SLA for the Production Analysis, it received the maximum
number of credits.
8. Parameter – End User
Criterion – Is the Information Designed for a Specific Position – Both the Dashboard (for
managers) and the COO Report (for the COO) have been created directly for specific positions.
With exception of the Data Scientist position, The Production Analysis does not relate to a
specific position.
Criterion – Is the number of End Users large – In this evaluation the concept of large will
approximate any number of End Users that exceed 100. Given this condition, only the COO
Report failed to receive the maximum credits available.
9. Parameter – Demand for Information
Criterion – Is the information requested – On a consistent basis all of the information object
(Dashboard, COO Report, and Production Analysis) are requested.
Criterion – Is support funding available – Since all of the information objects are operational, it is
assumed that funding was available. The evaluation team extended this criterion to include the
prospect of funding for future development or enhancements. Both Dashboard and the COO
Report will receive further funding, however, funding for the Production Analysis is not certain.
Criterion – Does the information Exist – Both the Dashboard and the Production Analysis acquire
data that is presently available. Questions about the arrangement of this information can
expose the nonexistence a of desired frameworks but the support information sources are
consistent and stable. The COO Report has some areas lacking information because the actual
source does not exist in the computing systems.
10. Parameter – Strategic vs. Tactical
Criterion – Does the information directly support a Tactical Goal – Both the Dashboard and the
COO Report information support Tactical Goals. While it could be argued that the pattern results

16. 16
from the Production Analysis information will benefit many Tactical Goal endeavors, its basic
design does not support any specific Tactical Goal.
Criterion - Does the information directly support a Strategic Goal – The Dashboard information
is entirely focused on the tactical aspects. The COO Report information in a limited way supports
some Strategic Goals. The Production Analysis information owes its existence to the support of
Strategic Goals.
Criterion – Does the information indirectly support a Tactical or Strategic Goal – All of the
information objects support both tactical and strategic goals.
11. Parameter - Frequency of Use
Criterion – How many times is the information touched (read, copied, etc.) – The Dashboard
information is accessed almost constantly. The COO Report information is accessed at least once
per week and occasionally more times during the week. The Production Analysis is accessed a
small number of times.
Criterion – Is the touching group not part of the primary group/ person – The Dashboard
information and the COO Report information were created for the use of a very specific group
and one person. It appears that this information is not shared outside of the designed audience.
The Production Analysis is accessed by a very small set of users and is definitely not shared with
other groups. In all these cases the information is not shared outside their internal circle,
therefore, the valuations are low.
Criterion – Is the access frequency consistent – The Dashboard information is accessed
constantly. The COO Report is accessed consistently but only a few times per week. The
Production Analysis is accessed frequently after its creation but is dormant much of the time
afterward.
12. Parameter - Dependency To
Criterion – Is the critical dependency percentage high – Other information for the most part are
not critically dependent on the Dashboard information. There is even less critical dependency
on the COO Report. There are many other information objects that are dependent on the
Production Analysis’s information. Most of these dependencies are of a critical nature.
Criterion - How many other information objects are dependent (non-critical) on this
information – Both the Dashboard information and the COO Report information have a small

17. 17
count of other information objects dependent on them. The Production Analysis has many other
information objects that rely on its information.
Criterion – Are there processes that depend on this information – Both the Dashboard
information and the Production Analysis information have several processes that are dependent
on their information. The COO Report has one process that depends on its information.
13. Parameter – Dependency From
Criterion – What is percentage of dependency from other information objects – Both the
Dashboard information and the Production Analysis information rely heavily on other
information objects. The COO Report has some dependencies but they have a somewhat muted
importance by its integration and aggregation process.
Criterion – Is the dependency critical to the information’s value – the other information object
dependencies that are associated with the Dashboard information and the Production Analysis
information are almost all critical. Only a few of the dependencies associated with the COO
Report are critical.
Criterion – Does the dependency enhance the information’s value – The value of the COO
Report information and the Production Analysis information do not receive any extra value from
the information objects that they dependent on. The Dashboard information does receive extra
value from some of its source information objects, especially those sources that provide real
time metrics from the production line.
14. Parameter – Ownership
Criterion – Does the information object create and maintain the information – None of the
information objects being evaluated either creates or maintains their source data.
Criterion – Is the information shared – Both the Dashboard information and the Production
Analysis information is shared. It should be noted that at this early stage of its operational
history the Production Analysis information has a lesser broadcast population than the
Dashboard information. The COO Report is not shared.
15. Parameter – Sensitivity
Criterion – Can the information be shared outside the enterprise – All of the information objects
are prevented from sharing their information outside the enterprise. It has been determined

18. 18
that all the information objects are in compliance with this company requirement. Therefore, all
the information objects were awarded maximum credits.
Criterion – Can the information be shared outside the Scope of Perspective – Group restrictions
prevent the COO Report information and the Production Analysis information from sharing any
information outside of their specific organizational areas. However, the Dashboard is available
to some organizations outside of the Scope of Perspective. The evaluators have stated this
ability is considered a positive value and appropriate credits were awarded.

19. 19
SECTION 4 – Formula Parameters Explained
Parameter: Agreement in Meaning
In the valuation formula Truth is a group of parameters. This group breaks down into three
parameters all of which are subjective in nature. The initial parameter is Agreement in
Meaning. The End Users should have a basic understanding of what the data from the
information object means. An example where this agreement in meaning comes into play; can
be as simple as an input field (box) on an application screen. The input field may have a label
such as “Cost”. If the person entering data into this field is not aware of the common meaning
or calculation of what cost is, then the information may not be truthful.
A business colleague invites you to an art gallery opening. She knows that you are collector of
art. The invite is sent through an email (Information) with the name of the gallery and time of
the opening. What the invite or attached information does not mention is that this show is very
focused on abstract art. Being highly interested in newly discovered art, you show up at the
gallery and leave promptly. The cause of this sudden departure was that the only style that you
consider “art” is representational. If the email would have mentioned the style of the art, then
the email (information) would have been more useful and truthful. As it is, the email is a
disagreement in the meaning of Art.
Besides Art and emails about art, agreement in meaning can be recognized in terms of reports.
When presented with information in the form of a report, the receiver might very well ask what
the purpose of the report is. The answer will determine the level of agreement in meaning and
subsequently have an effect on the truth of the information that the report represents. Of
course, agreeing on the meaning is just the first step in determining the truth of the
information. The accuracy of the information may also play a role in the truth of the
information.
Parameter: Accuracy

20. 20
Accuracy is a subjective parameter but it has the ability to be more objective than Agreement in
Meaning Parameter. A definition of Accuracy could be the ability to be precise and without
errors. So the information in whatever form (report, picture, audio recording, etc.) could be
considered accurate, if it is precise and without errors. This assumption is acceptable for an
academic environment but in the messy world of business, there is often the need or ability to
be accurate within a range. This introduces us into the framework of accuracy as being a match
between expects results versus actual results in the form of information.
A group of farmers in the states of Minnesota, Iowa, and North Dakota had made predictions
about the tonnage of corn that would be harvested that year. This was based on a report
coming from various sources. The information will be the basis of the farm group’s commodity
future buying as a hedge against a reduction in crop production or price. The actual harvest that
year was 15 % less that the predicted amount. Since accuracy is supposed to be precise based
on our definition, it would seem that the farm group would discount the report as being
inaccurate and not trust worthy (truthful). However, the farm group’s past experience weighed
in on the value of the results. Their experience informed them that the margin of difference
was “accurate enough”. Therefore, this group had determined the report was truthful and
could be trusted.
Information in the form of reports is not the only form that information is presented. An image
can be a conveyer of information in the form of a photograph, a painting, a blueprint, etc. Just
as a report is qualified in terms of its truth in numbers, an image such as a photograph can be
assessed to its level of accuracy. A photograph in raw may not be as acceptable as one that
gone through a Photoshop process. Photoshop may enhance the final product, but there is an
element of deception in this process. The group valuating the information will need to
remember the Scope of Perspective when evaluating the deception problem. For example,
“touching up” a photograph is performed so frequently in the Fashion and Entertainment
environments that it is generally assumed some air brushing has always been applied. This
assumption allows the group to not lower the subjective value of the information or image.
Other evaluations may reduce the image’s value, if this Photoshop process is used. Photo
journalism is high vulnerable if their image is change in some way other than its original form. If
the users of this information believe that the photo image in a newspaper has been doctored,
then the trust in that specific image can be deemed as untrustworthy and of less value. The
lower limit of value may actually be lowered to zero. In addition, images that may be published
later may suffer the same valuation level simply by association with the publisher.
Many information can be measured and compared against existing results or expected results.
All of these activities culminate in the information being validated. The validation may lend
itself to the information being considered as accurate. However, accuracy is often in the

21. 21
opinion of someone whose criteria for accuracy is not based on measurements or comparisons.
The actual users of the information are the final determining factor in declaring information as
accurate.
The users of the information may be relatively confident that the information is accurate but to
be certain the information may have to presented in a certain way. For example, a user given
the same information that is used every day may declare the information to be deficient when
the information is presented in a different report format. Even though the data is considered
accurate, the “information” is perceived as inaccurate. The perception of information being
accurate is just as important as the comparison results from the replaced information.
Of course, this type of situation is not as frequent in discipline application such as scientific
endeavors. There are countless examples of scientific studies presenting their empirical data
only to receive remarks from colleagues that their method is faulty and therefore their
conclusions are faulty. All this means that their data in not valued because it was under
suspicion. If the data has been accurately compiled but the conclusions from the data are
considered wrong, then the world does not “believe” in the information. This condition renders
the data as not accurate by its association with the presentation.
Comparing information from a new system with data from older system is a major way of the
business community to determine if the information is accurate or another way of saying that it
is validated. However, there may still be doubts especially when it comes to certifying that the
information is correct. Another way of determining the accuracy is auditing the data and the
process which creates the information.
Parameter: Auditable
Another parameter that focuses on Truth is Auditability. Nothing establishes the TRUTH of
information - more than its ability to have unequivocal references back to Information which
has a high degree of accuracy acceptance. Although the context of President Reagan’s
philosophy of “Trust But Verify” had a very serious and critical implication, the concept in the
valuing of information is very appropriate. If a report has the ability to track its results or
conclusions back to a source which stands in high regard, then the report and its information
could in the eyes of its users have high credibility. Of course, this coupling can have an
unintended effect on the information’s value. If its source loses its value, then the report may
also lose a significant portion of its value by association.
Auditable information is information that can reveal all the processes and touch points in those
processes that are involved in the final result set of data. One major key point in determining a

22. 22
score of the Auditable Parameter is reflected in the creation process’s repeatability. This aspect
has more to do with an outside observer’s ability to determine if the process has missed a step
or short circuited the process. Another major point of auditing is to show how the data got
from here to there. It needs to focus on the business rules, assumptions, etc. that are used in
the movement or transformation of the data along the process path. Their business rules
should be easily available and understandable. The business rules should be in business terms
and refer or reference business understanding. If need be the information should have the
ability to reflect how, where, and under what conditions the business rules are applied. The end
result should keep in focus that information is created and maintained because of a business
requirement. If there is not a business requirement, then why is the data created and
maintained?
In some cases, the tracing can be straight forwarded. A photograph could be traced back to its
original SD card which contains the various metrics of the photograph at the exact time of the
shoot. So the exposure settings, time, date, etc. can all be verified. The time difference alone
could provide enough confidence in terms of a photo running in a newspaper just after the
image was captured. Other photo images may have a different burden of proof in their
auditability verification. Many times, if information can be traced back to its creator all
subsequent auditability questions will become unneeded and perhaps irrelevant.
This back testing of the information’s value can sometimes become very complex even if the
yellow brick road finally leads to the Oz wizard. If a report or pieces of a report’s information is
based from other reports which are not the creator of its information, then in the mind of the
evaluator a manipulation process may be involved which can tarnish the information’s value. To
be certain of authenticity of the information, an examination of each step or process touching
the information’s formation would require a review. That type of extensive tracing would
normally require a justification of effort. If the information value is important enough, the
auditability effort may indeed be justified.
A high score on an audit ability parameter implies that there are no “black box processes”.
Those are type of processes that data goes into and somehow magically is formed inside the
process and produced as an output of the process. Sometimes this is identified as propriety
intellectual property which means that the inside process is not available for inspection. In
other situations, the process is available but not understandable. For example, a spreadsheet
may be the source of information. Data is either entered into or imported into the spreadsheet.
The spreadsheet has a series of macros which combine, manipulate, etc. the data into a series
of data points which are visible. This information may seem accurate but not auditable if an
observer cannot understand the macro formula. This by no means is meant to infer that
spreadsheets as a source are incorrect.

23. 23
Many times, the person that compiles information is a recognized subject matter expert. The
reputation that follows this person’s information is an enhancement to its validity. Regardless,
if the transformation of the data is not understood, then the information cannot be classified as
totally auditable. This particular parameter is one of the more difficult parameter to score as it
may take a considerable effort to determine its level of compliance.
Parameter: Interpretation Required
Part of assigning a value of the usability of information is if it is understandable in its current
form. If information is packaged, formatted, and presented in a form that every user (Scope of
Perspective) can understand the information, then there is no need for interpretation. An
extreme example of confusion would be a Power Point presentation that is composed in the
Russian language but the intended audience’s native language is Spanish. Except for the “pretty
pictures” in the slides, the value of the information would be determined to be of low value.
Another example which is less dramatic, would be the use of abbreviations. Chart presentations
use abbreviations frequently as they are quite useful. In days of old, legends use to be a
standard part of these presentations. Today – not so much. If the audience does not have a
reference legend, they have to guess or interpret the meaning of the abbreviations. These
cases, is the value of the Chart diminished? It depends on the makeup of the audience or the
“Scope of Perspective”.
A presentation of Economic Information to a gathering of economist would not have to explain
the abbreviation “GDP”. However, the same Chart might not have the same reaction when it is
presented to an assembly of production worker supervisors. Before this last group could absorb
the Chart’s information, they would have to first interpret the abbreviations. How would the
Chart’s information be valued by this group? If a legend had been added to the Chart, would
that enhance its value? It would probably increase the value of the Chart by the production
workers. However, the economist group might degrade the information’s assigned value
because of its “unsophisticated” inclusion of a legend.
There are many other aspects of the interpretation for information such as font size, electronic
versus printed material, and video versus a single picture. The message of a tragic video may
have less impact and less value than a single picture of the event. Watching a video of someone
igniting themselves might have less of an impact than a single picture that is the close-up of the
victim’s face with textual words off to the side. The information’s value in this case (Scope of
Perspective) is the creator – not the distributor. The underlining “data” was the same. The
single picture was just one frame in the video.

24. 24
Interpretation and manipulation of information can be considered closely related while
assigning values. The processes are different yet it seems that the manipulating information
process might follow interpreting the information process.
Parameter: Manipulation of Information
There are times when information by itself or in its current form does not convey its true value.
For example, the raw data of a scientific experiment or study may not be valued as much to the
general audience as a visual presentation of its findings. TED presentations are a frequent
example of this situation.
Manipulation is not the same as interpretation. It means that information needs to be re-
configured, disassociated, or associated with other information to be usable. This means that
the value of the information by “itself” was not significant to stand alone. This will influence the
value of that information. Adding other information to an existing information object can be an
enhancement. For example, Profit/ Loss information is presented to a CEO from two different
sources. The information from each of the sources is highly valued as to their audibility and
accuracy. The information required no interpretation. The resulting figures are an extremely
close match. Presented separately, the information would achieve a certain level of value per
its Scope of Perspective audience. However, combining the separate information assets
together into one information may have exploded the information’s value upward. Arriving at
the same conclusions from two different sources allows additional trust and confidence in both
information assets. Presenting the information together, which is manipulating the information,
increased its value to the CEO.
There are many examples of manipulating information that decreases the value of the
information. The scientific experiment could be a very simple example. The data and
conclusions of the findings are combined into a report/paper. At this point none of the data is
changed or manipulated. Therefore, the initial value of the experiment’s “data” flows to the
report/ paper which is an information asset. The problem arises when some of the
experiment’s data are omitted from the report/paper. Once this fact is discovered the
report/paper’s information value is diminished. Additionally, the experiment’s data
(information) may also be diminished by association. Thus the manipulation of information can
have a negative effect.
Another example can reflect both a positive and negative value assessment of a specific type of
information. A magazine has finished with a photo shoot for an advertisement. The raw photo
has been valued high by the production crew as to its auditability and accuracy. The photo

25. 25
stands alone without the need for interpretation. However, the editors and advertisers are not
completely satisfied with the photo. The raw photo as information to the advertiser is not of
high value. The photo is brought into Photoshop software and certain aspects are air brushed
to produce the final image. The advertisers now value the new, manipulated information with a
higher value than before. Once the image is release during the advertising campaign, the
manipulation is unexpectedly disclosed and critics value the information (image) as having a
low value.
This might have been a concern to the advertisers except that the public (target audience)
rated the advertisement as extremely high just as the advertisers did. The information (image)
in its release garnered both high and low values. The difference between the two assessments
was the audience or Scope of Perspective.
Manipulation of Information should be carefully considered within the value of other
parameters. If some information is scored (valued) low on accuracy and audibility, then this
information is joined or associated with another piece of information. The newly formed
information may be hindered in its valuation by its association with the low scoring
information. It is like putting lipstick and make-up on a pig assuming the pig’s normal
appearance is not highly valued.
Parameter: Age of Information
The age of information can decrease or increase the value of the information. If you have a
report (say an Excel file) which is reviewed daily, then day old information within this file would
reduce the value of this report. Yet it would not be considered worthless information. The
situation becomes more complex when the information object is a combination of several
sources. Even though the report is expected to be current not all of the data is current. For
example, some of the data in the report is constant such as the 2010 population census for a
specific area. This stable data is combined with the daily sales figures for a series of retail stores
located within this same area. This report bases several calculations on these two pieces of
information.
The effect of this situation reveals that the report is not completely current and thus
inaccurate. Its value is lowered. Yet, the receiving information (report) is not at fault except for
its use of the aged information. If the report would have had an additional data element or
label which reflected the age of the combined information, then the value of the information
might not have suffered a lowering of its value.

26. 26
Another misconception is that older information is of less value than current information. In
most uses of information, this attitude may be correct, however, this assumption can be
disastrous in other situations. For example, there is one figure in a file that is almost one-year-
old and has been used in almost the same time. Although not considered useless, maintenance
personnel may have this file scheduled for deep archive or worse deleted entirely. The problem
with removing this file is that it documents the accounting closing figures for inventory of the
previous year. This means that inventory calculations of the current year will be highly
dependent on the closing figures from the previous year. Therefore, in specific Scope of
Perspective areas this infrequently used file has an associated high value.
Parameter: Timeliness
The Age of Information is not the same as the Timeliness of Information. If information is
expected to be present at a specific point in time, then its value may increase or decrease as its
time of availability is observed. One may review this as a process problem or process status but
really it is whether the information is present or not. Information expected but not present is
not really usable.
One example involves airline travel. From the traveler’s point of concern (Scope of Perspective)
the status of their flight departing on time, delayed, or cancelled is quite important. Whether
the information is conveyed with a large overhead or a phone app update, the timeless of this
information is of high value. If your flight is scheduled to depart in 40 minutes with a tight
connection at the next airport, then the lack of a timely status update increases the pressure on
an alternative decision. Does the traveler continue to wait hopefully on the original flight or
does she beat the crowd to the customer service desk to find an alternative flight to the final
destination?
Announcing the cancellation of the flight at the schedule time of departure allows the
information to have an almost zero value to the travelers. Subsequently after the passengers
have board the airplane the value of the boarding information is of less importance. However,
the departure time information is still of high value to those individuals that have connecting
flights.
A different example of timeliness of information comes from space shuttle launches. In days of
past, each launch had three CPUs that continuously monitored the critical status of the launch
systems. These devices were highly dependent not only on the accuracy of their information
feeds but the timeliness of the information. Each system had the ability to stop the launch
seconds before the ignition event was started. It is assumed that the CPU feed information is

27. 27
always accurate. The critical factor is the timeliness of the information. If there is any delay
(fractions of a second) with the data feed, then it may not be able to terminate the launch.
Parameter: End User
The valuation of Information is incomplete unless the valuation calculations considers the END
USER of the Information. For example, the captured performance metrics of a machine in the
production line may have significant value to the line supervisor. However, to the COO the
information might be supportive but not necessarily informative. Assigning the value of
information to an END USER can be tricky because the person performing the valuation is most
likely “not” the END USER.
The criteria used in the END USER parameter should focus on the functions of the End User’s
position. Does the information directly affect the functionality of the End User’s position? Can a
commercial pilot fly a plane when a flight plan has not been submitted? Can a court issue a
judgement if there is no paper trail?
Another aspect of END USER valuation would be whether the information is usable for the
specific position that the End User performs. Information provided to an End User during an
action event normally are short and to the point. Audible information between mass
transportation vehicles (airplanes, trains, etc.) and their controllers are examples. After landing
his plane, receiving taxi instructions in a one-page PDF would be of less value than the cryptic
series of pathway instructions which are normally provided by ground control.
Parameter: Demand for Information
The Demand for Information is different than the Frequency of Use. Demand establishes the
actual need or lack of need for Information. If a set of Information is considered to be obsolete,
then there may no demand for the information. In such a scenario, the parameter’s assigned
value would be quite low or perhaps zero. Likewise, if there are many requests for that set of
Information, then the Demand is high and the valuation would also be high.
There may be some special situations where the assignment of the valuations could be tricky.
There could be a significantly large number of request for some specific information. The

28. 28
problem is that the requested information does not actually exist with the company’s system.
Can non-existent Information be assigned a value? In addition, there are times when a Demand
should be qualified before assigning a value designation. The Information Demand from an
internal organization or individual might be more on the curious side rather than a serious
need. Inserting some parameter criterion such as “is funding available for the acquisition of the
Information” might flush out the motivation behind the request. The response to this criterion
could provide more credit to the overall valuation of the Demand for Information.
Parameter: Strategic vs Tactical
When assigning value to Information, there are times that an evaluator must take into account
the big picture. Does the Information support a Tactical goal or perhaps a Strategic goal? In
many cases the Information can support both Tactical and Strategic? It is up to the evaluators
to assign the value in direct proportion to how directly the Information supports a goal. In
addition, it should not be assumed that supporting a Tactical goal is less valuable then
supporting a Strategic goal. The valuation will depend in the evaluation’s Scope of Perspective.
Parameter: Frequency of Use
One of the clearest indicator which indicate the value of Information is how often it is used. The
number of uses or “touches” will emphasizes the Information’s importance. However, this
calculation could be deceptive. One piece of Information may be quite valuable to a specific
segment of the company. The value shows a high frequency in that it is used hundreds of times
each day. The record revels that the total number of touches from the group’s accounts for 98
percent of its use. The deceptions come in to play, if the Scope of Perspective is the enterprise
and not that specific group. Therefore, there should be more evaluation criteria that reflects
the frequency of use valuation. For example, is the pattern of touching (number of accesses)
consistent over a certain time period? This indicates if the Information is a fad or a fundamental
and consistent need for this Information.
Parameter: Dependency To
Just as clusters of data together form Information, there are times when various Information
joins with other Information sets to form a new Information. This new Information is
dependent on its parts. For example, a report may be comprised of two pieces of Information.

29. 29
There is one major source and a minor one that provides the missing Information for a critical
calculation within the report. The report would be useless and of no value without this minor
fragment.
The fact that this new Information like a report, absolutely requires the minor Information
raises the value of the minor Information. This dependency value can be calculated by the
number of other Information (reports, dashboard, etc.) is dependent and the minor
Information. Another criterion is the percentage of dependency that is found in the dependent
Information. If the minor information is used only as an add-on summary of data, then its value
would be less.
Parameter: Dependency From
This parameter is the only valuation section that can be assigned a negative number. Whereas
the minor Information in the Dependency To parameter may gain value from the dependency
parameter – Information applicable to the Dependency From parameter generally loses value.
The negative value amount will increase, the more critical the Information dependency is.
Information that has no dependency would display zero values for this parameter. However,
some situations of dependency actually increase the subjective value. When a dependent
information object is universally considered to be of high value, then that assessed value may
increase the value score of the receiving or dependent information object.

30. 30
Parameter: Ownership
So, what is ownership? Ownership of information can be characterized as to when the person
or the organization creates or maintains the information for users. In general, the subjective
value of information that is maintained by its original creator increases. This direct connection
without intermediaries also can enhances the auditability and accuracy values. The other aspect
of Ownership is in the control of information. The Owner has the right to manage access to
their information.
If access is given freely to any organization or person without limitations, then the control of
access is not a factor when considering the Ownership value of the information. In some cases,
the information owner restricts access to the information. If the information is in high demand,
then the control of the information can morph into a Chiefdom characterization. Since
information as an asset has value, a Chiefdom that has amassed control of a large amount of
information could be considered “rich”. Those Persons or Organizations which have little or no
control of data are considered to be “poor”. The poor could also include the actual owner of
the data if they have relinquished most of their control of the information. Whether such a
situation is perceived as a positive value, would be determined by the evaluators and their
designed criteria for this parameter.
Often times an organization’s process of allowing information access is observed to be the
Owner. In many of these cases, a specific Information Technology person, who can provide
access to information, is identified as the Owner.
The true Owner is expecting the Information Technology personnel to become the Custodian of
their information. The Custodian has the responsibility to design, implement, and maintain the
infrastructure or system where the information is stored for the Owner. Often these custodian
responsibilities include maintaining the request system that controls access to the information.
The responsibility is not Ownership but it sure appears to be.
Parameter: Sensitivity
It might be said that the best locations for surfing would be kept for the few in a group and not
shared with the other surfers. If this were true, then the information that the group withheld
would be considered sensitive. The information would also be considered valuable within and
perhaps outside of the group. Once the secret or information was leaked, then its value would
be less valuable as it would be more available. This reduction of the information’s value is due

31. 31
to the breakdown of security. What was once a hidden or closely guarded piece of information
now has a wider audience.
Of course, in the business world the sensitivity of information can come in many forms. The
unexpected release of financial information can have major impacts on a business and reduce
the value. However, the day or hour after the release of the information, the value of that
information is less. This concept can be factual only within a certain Scope of Perspective. In
another perspective the availability of information within an ever expanding audience might
well increase the information’s value.
Often the aspect of sensitivity is less concerned with the release or sharing of some information
outside the business than within it. One department may have to report its numbers in a series
of informational reports but it does not want to share that information with other
departments. This impacts the value of the information in terms of being sensitive. This concept
is applied at the basic level in applications where all departments have access to a reporting
application but not all that information is available for viewing or reporting. The Omaha
Department Store’s monthly sales are not available for review by the Denver Department Store.
However, it could be available for the manager that supervises both the Omaha and Denver
stores.
There is another aspect of the Sensitivity in its relationship to its age. Many classified
documents are released after a 20-year period. It is assumed that after 20 years of non-
availability the information no longer is sensitive, at least from the government’s perspective.
This release of information reflects that the information has zero or near zero value. Perhaps
there are many historians that would be interested in this information which would provide low
values instead of zero. In terms of business there may be many pieces of information that are
still sensitive and therefore valuable even after long periods of time. Examples are discovered
when businesses are very busy shredding documents in the late night hours.
The value of sensitive information can also be taken from the release of sensitive information in
the act itself. Perhaps we can assume that all the documents that Edward Snowden released
were not necessary sensitive. However, the channel in which those documents were
transmitted was super sensitive. Therefore, a document that was normally considered less than
sensitive, is now considered sensitive because of its association with the release process. Its
value has increased because of this association. All of the documents in the Snowden’s release
may have lost some of their value, at least from the government’s perspective. Yet from the
media outlet perspective, the values of those documents are of high value after the release.

32. 32
The surfers that have so carefully retained the sensitivity of the special location for surfing will
be surprised at the drop of the value of their information when they discover their location is
included in the “the best surfing spots” map being sold at the local filling station.