Should CRM Users Be Measured on Data Quality KPIs?
Most Organisations agree that high-quality data is essential for getting value from Dynamics 365. Accurate customer information supports better reporting, improved customer experiences, more reliable forecasting, and increasingly more effective AI-driven insights. Yet many Organisations continue to struggle with incomplete records, duplicate data, missing activities, and inconsistent data entry practices. This raises an interesting question: Should CRM users be measured on data quality KPIs? Consider a situation many Organisations have experienced. A sales team is expected to maintain customer records, update opportunities, and log key customer interactions in Dynamics 365. However, users are primarily measured on revenue, pipeline growth, and sales performance. As a result, CRM updates are often treated as a secondary task. During a quarterly sales review, leadership discovers that several opportunities forecasted as active were closed weeks earlier, while others had not been updated since the previous reporting cycle. Customer records are missing key information, activities have not been logged consistently, and reporting accuracy begins to suffer. The issue is often viewed as a reporting problem, but in reality, it starts with the quality and consistency of the data being maintained in Dynamics 365. To address these challenges, some Organisations introduce data quality metrics such as: Record completeness Duplicate record reduction Activity logging compliance Opportunity update accuracy Customer data validation rates Supporters argue that what gets measured gets managed, and that data quality should be considered part of everyone's responsibility. Others believe that introducing data quality KPIs may create an additional administrative burden, reduce user adoption, and shift focus away from core business objectives. There is also the question of whether users should carry the full responsibility. Modern Dynamics 365 environments include validation rules, duplicate detection, business process flows, Power Automate workflows, and governance frameworks that can help improve data quality. Some Organisations, therefore, argue that technology and governance should do more of the heavy lifting rather than relying solely on user behaviour. From your experience: Should CRM users be measured on data quality KPIs? Have data quality metrics improved CRM adoption or data accuracy in your Organisation? What KPIs have been most effective? Is data quality primarily a user responsibility, or should technology and governance frameworks carry most of the burden? Have you found a balance that improves data quality without creating additional friction for users? I'm interested in hearing how different Organisations balance user accountability, adoption, and data quality within Dynamics 365 environments.Who Should Be Accountable for Data Quality in Dynamics 365: IT or the Business?
Data quality remains one of the most common challenges in Dynamics 365 environments, regardless of industry or organisation size. When customer records are incomplete, duplicate data exists, or reporting becomes unreliable, the conversation often turns to ownership and accountability. Consider a simple example: A sales team creates customer records in Dynamics 365, while customer service updates contact details and finance systems synchronize billing information through integrations. Over time, duplicate records appear, customer information becomes inconsistent, and management reports start showing conflicting results. When this happens, who is accountable? Are the business users entering the data? Is the IT team managing the platform? The integration owners? Or should there be dedicated data stewards responsible for maintaining data quality standards? Some argue that data quality is primarily a business responsibility because users create and maintain most of the information stored in Dynamics 365. Others believe IT teams should take greater ownership through governance frameworks, validation rules, integrations, monitoring, and automated controls. In practice, many organisations struggle to find the right balance. When data issues arise, responsibility can become unclear, making it difficult to drive long-term improvements. From your experience: Who should ultimately be accountable for data quality in Dynamics 365? Should ownership sit with business teams, IT, dedicated data stewards, or a shared governance model? What approaches have worked well in your organisation? Have you seen a particular governance model deliver better results? I'm interested in hearing different perspectives and learning how others are addressing this challenge.Microsoft deployment blueprint - Address oversharing concerns for your M365 Copilot deployment
Optimized deployment leverages advanced compliance and automation capabilities available in Microsoft 365 E5. This episode outlines how E5 customers can proactively secure data and enhance Copilot performance.Microsoft deployment blueprint - Address oversharing concerns for your M365 Copilot deployment
In regulated industries, internal oversharing can compromise data integrity and Copilot effectiveness. This episode defines what “Foundational” means for Microsoft 365 E3 customers and outlines actionable steps to mitigate oversharing risks during Copilot deployment.Protecting Public Data and Trust with Azure Security and Microsoft Entra – A State DOJ Case
On June 27, 2022 - California Department of Justice launched a new Firearms Dashboard Portal with altruistic intentions to “improve transparency and information sharing for firearms-related data” and “balance its duties to provide gun violence and firearms data to support research efforts while protecting the personal identifying information in the data the Department collects and maintains”. Fast forward less than 30 days, the Attorney General’s office is now being sued by two different parties, a national non-profit on July 1 and a group of four CA citizens on July 18 respectively. Both lawsuits are predicated on the assumption that the bold text was not upheld. The CA DOJ and the CA Attorney General are not alone in facing the three pressures that incited this particular incident. Citizens want greater transparency when it comes to community health data, criminal activity, and other politically impacted domains like firearm ownership. This data comes in many forms (databases, video footage, internal reports/memos, court documents, etc.) and resides on a broad array of digital locations. This data is of special interest to hackers looking to leverage Personal Identifiable Information (PII) for financial gain OR hacktivists desiring to expose a particular truth or perceived truth by leaking the information to the broader public.
