Be good-argument-driven, not data-driven
Key idea is the "data maturity" of the topic under discussion.<p>Where there is data, you should use it and be smart about it.<p>For a lot of big decisions, especially in companies doing something new, there is no good data at first. You have to reason about it based on experience and analogy.<p>Then, once you commit to a path, you can start gathering data to see if your hypothesis was correct. The further you go, the more you can rely on data, assuming you know how to think about it.<p>Discussions about being data-driven that don't take into account the "data maturity" of the situation are nonsensical.<p>Being "data driven" when you're considering something radically new is either delusional or a cop out.<p>Ignoring data when it could correct your biases is either lazy or wrong or both.<p>And finally, lots of people who claim to be "data driven" are not smart about data. To paraphrase Wilde, "data is rarely pure and never simple." It doesn't just reveal truths you can treat as dogma. It's ambiguous and takes a lot of work to interpret. A lot of "data driven" teams aren't doing that work.