During World War 1, the introduction of modern artillery led the British Army to issue an order that required all soldiers to start wearing metal Brodie helmets while operating new equipment.
These metals helmets replaced the soft cloth caps that were more suited to the difficult times spent in the trenches.
Strangely, after issuing the helmets, the field commanders started noticing a very sharp increase in the number of recorded head injuries being treated.
The field commanders immediately suggested that the new helmets should be recalled because data suggested that the helmets were useless or somehow making head trauma worse.
The recommendation to retract all helmets was approved at field level, but when it was communicated back to central command, another strange paradox was noticed.
Military hospitals reported that while head injuries had increased tremendously, deaths from head trauma had almost disappeared.
When the full data picture was put together, it became apparent that the steel helmets turned lethal head wounds into non-fatal, treatable injuries. Before the helmets, a shrapnel hit to the head was almost always instantly fatal, meaning those soldiers died on the battlefield and never made it into the hospital casualty counts.
The same organisation viewed its data in a partial manner.
This is why data must always be seen in a centralised, comprehensive manner.
For instance, if your strategic plan includes updated customer care solutions to make it easier for customer feedback, then one should not necessarily be alarmed if customer complaints shoot up drastically.
In this instance, executives may be misguided into thinking that customer service is getting worse, whereas it simply means that it has now become easier to complain, allowing for better insight into the issues. A strategic response is only as good as the comprehensiveness of the data picture available. It is said that data speaks. That is true, but it always requires an interpreter.
