Diagnostic and Functional Dependencies of Credibility

Introduction In operations, actionable credibility is the critical level (percentile) of credibility which triggers a state transition in operations--compels to react. Depending on the relevance and significant materiality of the received information of uncertain credibility, when it exceeds the threshold percentile, it compels decision-makers to act, cease to act, and/or change the manner of acting. Actionable credibility is the most complex direct primary universal quality requirement of information values. In the empirical survey-based study by Wang and Strong (1996) about how data users perceive quality, BELIEVABILITY (here labeled credibility) of data was ranked the highest. As most of similar research, it ignores the multidimensional aspects of credibility and its complex diagnostic and functional dependencies on pertinent indirect quality attributes. The latter are treated on equal footing with the direct primary and direct secondary quality requirements, as defined in the impact-focused universal taxonomy of operation quality requirements (Gackowski, 2004). This paper identifies and describes these interdependencies. It demonstrates how empirical studies that ignore them produce unreliable results. In research, to attain more than situation-specific practical improvements in quality, one needs to identify the qualitative dependencies first. Before embarking on quantitative studies, a qualitative model of diagnostic and functional dependencies of credibility on indirect quality attributes (for brevity later called qualities) of information should be developed. This paper: * Identifies the factors that affect credibility in informing * Defines credibility of values as a function of many indirect quality attributes * Maps the identified diagnostic and functional dependencies of credibility into entityrelationship (ER) diagrams, which * Suggest, a logical economic sequence of examining the qualities affecting credibility For focused reading, key terms in paragraphs are in bold font, emphasis in italics, highest emphasis underlined, definitions in bold italics, and the labels used by Wang and Strong (1996) in ALL CAPS. Credibility of Data/Information Values in Literature Operation quality requires a rigorous distinction between data and information values, which otherwise may not be required. Decision makers and/or acting agents already know some aspects of the situation. Then, data values represent known aspects of reality that are given, or assumed true. To the contrary, information values represent unknown things, events, and states of the environment that need to be gathered. Of course, once they have been gathered (collected, acquired) and recognized as valid, they become data values for the entities informed (clients/users). Information values always change the decision situation itself, and/or the actions necessary to implement the decision made, and/or the operations results. Data values never change anything, for they have or should have been already accounted for. If not, it is an omission in modeling of the reality. In routine operations, credibility of data values is not less important but is of less concern to individual entities informed. In indirect informing (Gackowski, 2005 and 2006), data/information values are subject to established procedures to assure their integrity during acquisition, entering, storing, retrieving, and presenting. It is done on behalf of all the data-sharing entities informed. Credibility of information values is a complex notion of the degree or extent to which they represent the actual reality to users in operations. The Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) (1983) and Gleim (2004) use the term "reliability" as "the quality of information that assures that information is reasonably free from error and bias and faithfully represents what it purports to represent." Wang and Strong (1996) define BELIEVABILITY as "the extent to which data are accepted or regarded as true, real, and credible" (p. …