|
| Business Intelligence Series |
Independently of the complexity of the problems, one should start by framing the problem(s) correctly and this might take several steps and iterations until a foundation is achieved, upon which further steps can be based. Ideally, the framed problem should reflect reality and should provide a basis on which one can build something stable, durable and sustainable. Conversely, people want quick low-cost fixes and probably the easiest way to achieve this is by focusing on appearances, which are often confused with more.
In many data-related contexts, there’s the tendency to start with the "solution" in mind, typically one or more reports or visualizations which should serve as basis for further exploration. Often, the information exchange between the parties involved (requestor(s), respectively developer(s)) is kept to a minimum, though the formalized requirements barely qualify for the minimum required. The whole process starts with a gap that can create further changes as the development process progresses, with all the consequences deriving from this: the report doesn’t satisfy the needs, more iterations are needed - requirements’ reevaluation, redesign, redevelopment, retesting, etc.
The poor results are understandable, all parties start with a perspective based on facts which provide suboptimal views when compared with the minimum basis for making the right steps in the right direction. That’s not only valid for reports’ development but also for more complex endeavors – data models, data marts and warehouses, and other software products. Data professionals attempt to bridge the gaps by formalizing and validating the requirements, building mock-ups and prototypes, testing, though that’s more than many organizations can handle!
There are simple reports or data visualizations for which not having prior knowledge of the needed data sources, processes and the business rules has a minimal impact on the further steps of the processes involved in building the final product(s). However, "all generalizations are false" to some degree, and there’s a critical point after which minimal practices tend to create more waste than companies can afford. Consequently, applying the full extent of the processes can lead to waste when the steps aren’t imperative for the final product.
Even if one is aware of all the implications, one’s experience and the application of best practices doesn’t guarantee the quality of the results as long as some kind of novelty, unknown, fuzziness or complexity is involved. Novelty can appear in different ways – process, business rules, data or problem formulations, particularities that aren’t easily perceived or correctly understood. Each important minor piece of information can have an exponential impact under the wrong circumstances.
The unknown can encompass novelty, though can be also associated with the multitude of facts not explicitly and/or directly considered. "The devil is in details" and it’s so easy for important or minor facts to remain hidden under the veil of suppositions, expectations, respectively under the complex and fuzzy texture of logical aspects. Many processes operate under strict rules, though there are various consequences, facts or unnecessary information that tend to increase the overall complexity and fuzziness.
Predefined processes, procedures and practices can help cut and illuminate through this complex structure associated with the various requirements and aspects of problems. Plunging headfirst can be occasionally associated with the need to evaluate what is known and unknown from facts and data’s perspective, to identify the gaps and various factors that can weigh in the final solution. Unfortunately, too often it’s nothing of this!
Besides the multitude of good/best practices and problem-solving approaches, all one has is his experience and intuition to cut through the overall complexity. False steps are inevitable for finding the approachable path(s) from the requirements to the solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment