Rubbish In - Rubbish Out: Why incomplete infrastructure coverage undermines ITAM

In IT Asset Management (ITAM), data is everything. From software compliance to cost optimization, every decision hinges on the accuracy and completeness of asset data. Yet, many organizations fall into the trap of trusting outputs from ITAM systems without ensuring that the entire infrastructure is actually in scope and properly covered.

As we discussed in our previous article, AI-powered ITAM tools promise transformative benefits, from automated license optimization, to predictive compliance management, and intelligent cost forecasting. However, these capabilities become liabilities when built on incomplete infrastructure discovery. This is where the classic principle of “rubbish in, rubbish out” (RIRO) becomes painfully relevant. 

How incomplete infrastructure coverage creates ITAM blind spots

When parts of the infrastructure, such as remote endpoints, cloud assets, or unmanaged devices are excluded from discovery, ITAM systems operate with partial visibility. The result?

• Reports show compliance where none exists.
• Optimization recommendations are based on incomplete usage data.
• Risk assessments underestimate exposure.

In short, decisions are made with false confidence, which can be more dangerous than having no data at all.

Why AI-powered ITAM systems amplify data quality problems 

Modern ITAM increasingly relies on AI to automate tasks like license re-harvesting, forecasting renewals, or identifying unused assets. But AI is only as good as the data it receives. Common ITAM data quality challenges, such as incomplete infrastructure coverage, directly undermine these AI capabilities.

As we explored in part 1, ITAM data quality challenges stem from multiple sources: inconsistent naming conventions, duplicate records, stale inventory data, and most critically, infrastructure blind spots. When discovery tools miss entire segments of the IT estate, the resulting data quality issues cascade through every downstream process. 

If infrastructure coverage is patchy:

• AI models generate skewed insights;
• automation may act on incorrect assumptions, leading to costly errors;
• trust in ITAM outputs erodes across stakeholders.

Compliance & audit risks from untracked IT assets 

Software compliance audit preparation requires complete infrastructure visibility; a requirement that many organizations only discover when audit notices arrive. Auditors don’t care if your ITAM system missed half your infrastructure. If software is deployed on untracked devices your organization might face severe consequences:

• You’re still liable for license violations;
• You risk financial penalties and reputational damage;
• Regulatory compliance (e.g., GDPR, ISO standards) may be compromised due to unmonitored data flows.

Impact on strategic IT decision-making

ITAM data feeds into broader IT and business strategies such as cloud migration plans, vendor negotiations, sustainability goals. If the underlying data is flawed:

• you may overestimate savings or underestimate risks;
• vendor relationships may suffer due to inaccurate usage reports;
• sustainability metrics (e.g., e-waste reduction) may be misreported.

Conclusion: Coverage first, intelligence second

Building on the data quality fundamentals we established in Part 1, organizations must ensure that infrastructure coverage is complete and continuously validated, before investing in AI, dashboards, or automation. This means:

• regular audits of discovery scope;
• inclusion of cloud, remote, and hybrid environments;
• ongoing validation of asset data quality.

Only then can ITAM deliver reliable insights, confident decisions, and real value.