Topics In Demand
Notification
New

No notification found.

The Real AI Bottleneck Isn’t Compute—It’s Trustworthy Data
The Real AI Bottleneck Isn’t Compute—It’s Trustworthy Data

27

0

In 2025, the gold rush isn’t in models—it’s in data. Across boardrooms, the conversation is no longer about whether to adopt artificial intelligence but how fast and how broadly it can be scaled. Enterprises are deploying AI to reinvent customer experience, automate operations, and forecast demand with near-psychic precision. IDC estimates global spending on AI will top $500 billion this year. Generative AI alone is being hailed as the next industrial revolution.

Yet amidst the euphoria, a growing number of AI initiatives are quietly underperforming—or outright failing. The reason? It’s not a lack of computing. Not no shortage of talent. Not even model complexity. The problem is far more fundamental and far more damaging.

It’s bad data.

 

A World Racing Toward AI—Blind to Its Foundations

Today’s AI strategies are built on sand. Over 80% of enterprise data remains unstructured, unclassified, and often unreliable. According to Gartner, by 2026, 75% of AI projects will fail due to issues stemming from data quality, governance, and model trustworthiness. While companies obsess over fine-tuning models and optimizing inference speeds, most forget the raw fuel AI runs on: data that is complete, clean, contextualized, and accessible.

Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case.

Take the example of a leading global bank that invested millions into an AI model to detect insider trading signals. The model performed well in testing, but in production, it flagged thousands of false positives. The cause? Inconsistent timestamp formats across business units led to skewed event timelines—something never caught because the data was never properly profiled or standardized.

Or look at healthcare, where clinical AI is now assisting in diagnostic decisions. A recent MIT study revealed that 20% of training datasets used to build AI models for disease prediction were duplicated, mislabeled, or missing critical demographic tags. That doesn’t just introduce bias—it could cost lives.

These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader truth: when poor-quality data feeds an intelligent system, it doesn’t matter how sophisticated your model is. The result is not insight—it’s noise, risk, and reputational damage.

 

The Cost of Ignoring Data Quality

Let’s be clear—data is no longer a back-office concern. It is now a strategic asset. And just like any critical asset, when mismanaged, it becomes a liability.

The economic toll of poor data is staggering. IBM estimates the global cost of bad data at over $3.1 trillion annually. At an enterprise level, Gartner reports that companies lose an average of $12.9 million every year due to poor data quality, from wasted marketing spend to flawed forecasting to regulatory penalties. In sectors like finance and pharmaceuticals, the cost is not just monetary—it’s about loss of trust, failed audits, and non-compliance with stringent frameworks like the EU AI Act, HIPAA, or India’s DPDP Act.

AI only amplifies these risks. Unlike traditional software, AI learns from what it’s fed. Feed it biased data, and it will perpetuate discrimination. Feed it outdated data, and it will make decisions based on yesterday’s world. Feed it fragmented data, and it will hallucinate patterns that don’t exist. This is the dark side of AI—one that remains hidden until the damage is done.

 

A Strategic Shift—Data Quality as a Core Product Discipline

To escape this cycle, a fundamental mindset shift is required. Data quality must not be treated as a compliance checkbox or post-processing fix. It must be managed like a product—with versioning, feedback loops, clear ownership, performance metrics, and user-centric design.

This approach borrows from the discipline of product management and applies it to the enterprise data stack. Instead of passively consuming data, organizations need to actively build and maintain it, like they would a customer-facing application.

Here’s how this strategy plays out:

  • Enterprises must define what “good data” means in their context. This involves establishing quality KPIs—such as completeness, consistency, timeliness, lineage, and usability. These metrics must be aligned not just with IT standards but with business goals. 
  • They must embed quality assurance into every stage of the data lifecycle. This means deploying schema validation, anomaly detection, deduplication, and enrichment directly into ingestion and processing layers.
  • AI must be used to fix AI’s fuel. Machine learning-based data remediation tools can now identify and auto-correct anomalies, missing values, and mismatches at scale. Generative techniques like data synthesis and imputation are also evolving to support downstream model reliability without overfitting.
  • Governance must be federated—but coordinated. Centralized data teams often struggle with context. Instead, federated governance—where data ownership is pushed to domain experts but aligned via common standards and policy orchestration—ensures quality is both local and consistent. Metadata catalogs, lineage graphs, and data contracts between producers and consumers are essential in enforcing this model.
  • Organizations must operationalize quality metrics into dashboards visible to C-level leadership. Just as product teams report on NPS and adoption, data teams must report on uptime, error rates, trust scores, and business impact, turning invisible data problems into tangible business conversations.

 


That the contents of third-party articles/blogs published here on the website, and the interpretation of all information in the article/blogs such as data, maps, numbers, opinions etc. displayed in the article/blogs and views or the opinions expressed within the content are solely of the author's; and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of NASSCOM or its affiliates in any manner. NASSCOM does not take any liability w.r.t. content in any manner and will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any kind of liability arising out of any act, error or omission. The contents of third-party article/blogs published, are provided solely as convenience; and the presence of these articles/blogs should not, under any circumstances, be considered as an endorsement of the contents by NASSCOM in any manner; and if you chose to access these articles/blogs , you do so at your own risk.


© Copyright nasscom. All Rights Reserved.