The first data asset question is whether you have it. The second — and harder — question is whether you can use it.
The Data Usability Problem
Most institutions that have been systematically collecting data for years discover that the first-order data asset question — do we have this data? — is less consequential than expected, because they have more data than they can effectively use. This is not merely an institutional anecdote: Forrester reports that between 60 percent and 73 percent of all data within an enterprise goes unused for analytics, despite the same institutions continuing to invest in collection. The second-order question — can we use what we have? — is the binding constraint. A data asset that cannot be accessed efficiently, whose quality is insufficient for reliable analysis, whose structure is incompatible with available analytical tools, or whose governance is too constrained to allow the uses that would generate value, is a potential asset rather than an actual one.
The Data Governance Dimension
Data governance is both the most consequential and the most neglected dimension of data asset management. The gap is visible at the level of outcomes: less than half of data and analytics leaders (44%) reported that their team is effective in providing value to their organization, according to a Gartner survey — a shortfall that quality and infrastructure investment alone do not explain. The institution that has excellent data quality and infrastructure but inadequate governance will find its data asset constrained by legal, regulatory, and reputational limitations that inadequate governance creates. The failures are rarely abstract. In 2024, the Dutch Data Protection Authority issued a €290m fine against Uber for storing driver data in the US without adequate safeguards, and the Irish DPC issued a €310m penalty against LinkedIn for its processing of personal data in its advertising practices. Neither case turned on whether the data existed or whether the infrastructure could process it — both concerned whether the institution had the legal and procedural permission to use data it already held. Absent data-sharing agreements and access-control failures follow the same pattern: each represents a data asset impaired by governance failure rather than technical limitation.
Data is a potential asset. Infrastructure makes it accessible. Governance makes it usable. The institution that has invested only in collection has the raw material without the refinery. Converting potential into value requires all three investments simultaneously.
Discussion