You may refer method-level DQ assurance tracking and Object-Level DQ assurance tracking tools to understand more details. In brief, one can check if a project is adhering to the Data Quality Assurance guidelines in two ways: Detailed level or summary level. The question is that if we always need to use the detailed level tracking?

There are many points between using the object level data quality assurance tracking and tracking it at a summary (method) level. Some flexibility you can have is:

• Track the object level DQ assurance at main control level. For example, do not track it at the level of 'duplicate file'/'duplicate records' but at data exchange interface level.
• Track the critical objects- Pick-up top 10 interfaces (say) or top 20-30 input forms etc...
• Track till the specifications phase, and assume that design phase will adhere to the specs phase.
• Track it at method level only.

It purely depends on the size of your system, it complexity and criticality.

One way to manage your efforts is that object level tracking should not be duplicating the efforts, which have been done in analyze and design phase. The purpose of the object level tracking is more to track the exceptions instead of adherence. As you adopt the Bipminstitute.com Data Quality practice framework, the first wave of tracking should be done more process-driven. As the organization develops expertise and insight, one can start using it more instinctively.