🪙Business Intelligence: Knowledge Graphs (Just the Quotes)

"Knowledge graphs are a specific type of graph with an emphasis on contextual understanding. Knowledge graphs are interlinked sets of facts that describe real-world entities, events, or things and their interrelations in a human- and machine-understandable format." (Jesús Barrasa et al, "Knowledge Graphs: Data in Context for Responsive Businesses", 2021)

"[…] knowledge graphs are useful because they provide contextualized understanding of data. They achieve this by adding a layer of metadata that imposes rules for structure and interpretation." (Jesús Barrasa et al, "Knowledge Graphs: Data in Context for Responsive Businesses", 2021)

"Knowledge graphs use an organizing principle so that a user" (or a computer system) can reason about the underlying data. The organizing principle gives us an additional layer of organizing data (metadata) that adds connected context to support reasoning and knowledge discovery. […] Importantly, some processing can be done without knowledge of the domain, just by leveraging the features of the property graph model" (the organizing principle)." (Jesús Barrasa et al,Knowledge Graphs: Data in Context for Responsive Businesses", 2021)

"Data Fabric architecture utilizes active metadata, knowledge graphs, and semantic enrichment, combining intelligent information integration and transformation technologies to intelligently support data consumers, for example, business users."  (Eberhard Hechler et al, "Data Fabric and Data Mesh Approaches with AI", 2023)

"In Exploiting semantic knowledge graphs can support interpretability and explainability of nearly all AI model types (including DL models) by discovering and depicting semantic and non-obvious relationships or depicting an ML model in a simplified and more readable, explainable way., a Data Mesh solution organizes data around business domain owners and transforms relevant data assets (data sources) to data products that can be consumed by distributed business users from various business domains or functions. These data products are created, governed, and used in an autonomous, decentralized, and self-service manner. Self-service capabilities, which we have already referenced as a Data Fabric capability, enable business organizations to entertain a data marketplace with shopping-for-data characteristics." (Eberhard Hechler et al, "Data Fabric and Data Mesh Approaches with AI", 2023)

"It is essential to realize that the Data Fabric architecture enables the Data Mesh solution via its rich knowledge catalog, semantic search and discovery, smart integration capabilities, and semantic knowledge graphs. Trustworthy AI, for instance, is enabled via the Data Fabric as well." (Eberhard Hechler et al, "Data Fabric and Data Mesh Approaches with AI", 2023)

"As with many other deep learning-based approaches, another major challenge is in interpretability. While knowledge graphs provide a structured and transparent way to store relationships, LLMs operate as a black box, making it difficult to understand how specific outputs are generated. [...] Data alignment is also a key issue, as structured knowledge graphs and unstructured text data must be carefully preprocessed to ensure consistency.  Differences in data formats, ontology mismatches, and information redundancy can create inefficiencies when integrating these two paradigms. Developing robust pipelines that seamlessly connect graph-based insights with LLM-generated text remains an open challenge." (Aldo Marzullo et al, "Graph Machine Learning" 2nd Ed., 2025)

"Despite their impressive capabilities, LLMs are not without limitations. One of the most significant challenges is the problem of hallucination, where an LLM generates factually incorrect or misleading information that appears plausible. This is particularly problematic in domains requiring high factual accuracy, such as healthcare, finance, and legal applications. To mitigate hallucinations and enhance the reliability of LLM outputs,  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a powerful technique. RAG works by dynamically retrieving relevant information from an external knowledge source (such as a knowledge graph) at inference time, rather than just relying on pre-trained knowledge. This approach ensures that the model has access to up-to-date and accurate data, grounding answers in verified information rather than generating content purely from its internal representations." (Aldo Marzullo et al, "Graph Machine Learning" 2nd Ed., 2025)

"Despite their effectiveness and advantages in supporting the development of intelligent systems, KGs haven’t been widely adopted for several reasons, including the following: (•) They are expensive to build and maintain in terms of time, effort, and money. (•) Intricate access patterns are required to navigate multiple hops. (•) Their results scatter information across multiple nodes and relationships." (Alessandro Negro, "Graph-Powered Machine Learning", 2021)

"Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), powered by large language models (LLMs) like Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s GPT, has transformed how we work and live, revolutionizing business after business. Despite this success, generative AI falls short in domains where specific domain knowledge, high accuracy, and explainability are essential. And it has other significant limitations, including hallucinations and a lack of context and relations. This is where knowledge graphs (KGs) come in, provid-ing contextual information - such as experiences, environmental characteristics, cultural aspects, and social normsneeded to build the 'third wave of AI' for mission-critical applications." (Alessandro Negro et al, "Knowledge Graphs and LLMs in Action", 2026)

"KGs are sophisticated graph structures that represent real-world entities (people, places, diseases, proteins), define meaningful connections between them, and provide context. KGs provide structured, explainable knowledge representation but are challenging to build and query; LLMs offer natural language processing capabilities but suffer from hallucinations, stale information, and a lack of domain-specific grounding. Together, they are a 'killer combination': LLMs can extract entities and relationships from unstructured text to build KGs more efficiently, providing more autonomous and powerful graph querying and analysis. Meanwhile, KGs provide reliable, up-to-date domain knowledge to ground LLM responses and prevent hallucinations." (Alessandro Negro et al, "Knowledge Graphs and LLMs in Action", 2026)

"The KG serves as the central reference for all structured and unstructured data related to a domain. Because a KG represents information by focusing on the meaning of data, users can overcome challenges related to data types, formats, and provenance, connecting information from multiple data sources. [...] A KG represents the core information and big picture of a domain. Humans can analyze, visualize, and query graph data to extract insights. Inference rules and machine learning algorithms are performed on top of the KG to infer new information not explicitly encoded within the KG. Analysts can use methods such as centrality and connectivity analysis to identify influential nodes, network analysis to detect the shortest path between nodes, and community analysis to recognize groups of similar nodes." (Alessandro Negro et al, "Knowledge Graphs and LLMs in Action", 2026) 

"Traditional paradigms build systems for specific purposes with structured, homogeneous databases. This approach works for tailored needs but is impractical for complex domains that need to adapt to user characteristics and integrate heterogeneous data. KGs capture connections, enabling relationship discovery through graph pattern matching and traversal. Both the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Labeled Property Graphs (LPGs) provide machine-readable formats that humans can interpret. KGs emphasize rich, meaningful data representations usable by both humans and machines, enabling a paradigm shift where intelligent behavior is encoded in a unique source of truth." (Alessandro Negro et al, "Knowledge Graphs and LLMs in Action", 2026)

🪙Business Intelligence: Context (Just the Quotes)

"Data in isolation are meaningless, a collection of numbers. Only in context of a theory do they assume significance […]" (George Greenstein, "Frozen Star", 1983)

"Without meaningful data there can be no meaningful analysis. The interpretation of any data set must be based upon the context of those data." (Donald J Wheeler, "Understanding Variation: The Key to Managing Chaos" 2nd Ed., 2000)

"Statistical analysis of data can only be performed within the context of selected assumptions, models, and/or prior distributions. A statistical analysis is actually the extraction of substantive information from data and assumptions. And herein lies the rub, understood well by Disraeli and others skeptical of our work: For given data, an analysis can usually be selected which will result in 'information' more favorable to the owner of the analysis then is objectively warranted." (Stephen B Vardeman & Max D Morris, "Statistics and Ethics: Some Advice for Young Statisticians", The American Statistician vol 57, 2003)

"Readability in visualization helps people interpret data and make conclusions about what the data has to say. Embed charts in reports or surround them with text, and you can explain results in detail. However, take a visualization out of a report or disconnect it from text that provides context (as is common when people share graphics online), and the data might lose its meaning; or worse, others might misinterpret what you tried to show." (Nathan Yau, "Data Points: Visualization That Means Something", 2013)

"Statistics are meaningless unless they exist in some context. One reason why the indicators have become more central and potent over time is that the longer they have been kept, the easier it is to find useful patterns and points of reference." (Zachary Karabell, "The Leading Indicators: A short history of the numbers that rule our world", 2014)

"The second rule of communication is to know what you want to achieve. Hopefully the aim is to encourage open debate, and informed decision-making. But there seems no harm in repeating yet again that numbers do not speak for themselves; the context, language and graphic design all contribute to the way the communication is received. We have to acknowledge we are telling a story, and it is inevitable that people will make comparisons and judgements, no matter how much we only want to inform and not persuade. All we can do is try to pre-empt inappropriate gut reactions by design or warning." (David Spiegelhalter, "The Art of Statistics: Learning from Data", 2019)

"Agile practices can bring discipline to data science through support for the values and principles of DataOps. However, just as there is no perfect agile framework or set of practices for software development, there is no single set of best agile practices for data science. The right practices to use are context and organization specific and help data analytics teams become more adaptable and collaborative and tighten feedback loops to produce faster (and better) results. The successful application of agile and Lean thinking to data analytics requires observation, constant experimentation, and adjustment." (Harvinder Atwal, "Practical DataOps: Delivering Agile Data Science at Scale", 2020)

"DataOps does not prescribe a particular agile framework, set of practices, artifacts, or roles. Nonetheless, instead of inventing new ways of working, it is better to adapt existing proven practices and combining them as needed. The following are useful agile practices aligned with DataOps principles. However, none are compulsory, and if you find they do not add value, do not use them. Agile frameworks are not mutually exclusive, and practices are situation and context-dependent. You can explore alternatives as long as you stay true to DataOps values and principles." (Harvinder Atwal, "Practical DataOps: Delivering Agile Data Science at Scale", 2020)

"We think of context as the network surrounding a data point of interest that is relevant to a specific AI system. […] AI benefits greatly from context to enable probabilistic decision making for real-time answers, handle adjacent scenarios for broader applicability, and be maximally relevant to a given situation. But all systems, including AI, are only as good as their inputs." (Jesús Barrasa et al, "Knowledge Graphs: Data in Context for Responsive Businesses", 2021)

"A data silo is an isolated source of data that is only accessible to a single line of business (LOB) or department. It leads to inefficiencies, wasted resources, and obstacles in the form of incomplete data profiles and the inability to construct deep insights. [...] On the other hand, a data swamp is a large body of data that is ungoverned and unreliable. It is hard to find data and even harder to use it, which is why it's often used out of context. This is the opposite of data silos in the sense that the data is there and has been brought together, but because it has been done without adequate process and policy, it is as good as not being there. That would be a wasted investment." (Anindita Mahapatra, "Simplifying Data Engineering and Analytics with Delta", 2022

"A well-designed dashboard needs to provide a similar experience; information cannot be placed just anywhere on the dashboard. Charts that relate to one another are usually positioned close to one another. Important charts often appear larger and more visually prominent than less important ones. In other words, there are natural sizes for how a dashboard comprises charts based on the task and context." (Vidya Setlur & Bridget Cogley, "Functional Aesthetics for data visualization", 2022)

"Decision-makers are constantly provided data in the form of numbers or insights, or similar. The challenge is that we tend to believe every number or piece of data we hear, especially when it comes from a trusted source. However, even if the source is trusted and the data is correct, insights from the data are created when we put it in context and apply meaning to it. This means that we may have put incorrect meaning to the data and then made decisions based on that, which is not ideal. This is why anyone involved in the process needs to have the skills to think critically about the data, to try to understand the context, and to understand the complexity of the situation where the answer is not limited to just one specific thing. Critical thinking allows individuals to assess limitations of what was presented, as well as mitigate any cognitive bias that they may have." (Angelika Klidas & Kevin Hanegan, "Data Literacy in Practice", 2022)

"A data product is based on semantically related raw data that is transformed into a meaningful business context and easily discoverable and consumable by business users." (Eberhard Hechler et al, "Data Fabric and Data Mesh Approaches with AI", 2023)

"Data Fabric is a distributed data architecture that connects scattered data across tools and systems with the objective of providing governed access to fit-for-purpose data at speed. Data Fabric focuses on Data Governance, Data Integration, and Self-Service data sharing. It leverages a sophisticated active metadata layer that captures knowledge derived from data and its operations, data relationships, and business context. Data Fabric continuously analyzes data management activities to recommend value-driven improvements. Data Fabric works with both centralized and decentralized data systems and supports diverse operational models." (Sonia Mezzetta, "Principles of Data Fabric: Become a data-driven organization by implementing Data Fabric solutions efficiently", 2023)

"Centralized governance structures often have an abstract view of data, focusing more on uniformity and compliance than context and relevance. While these are essential elements, the nuance often needs to be noticed. Decentralized governance flips the script by giving data ownership to the domain that generates it. The domain has the richest understanding of the data’s context, relevance, and potential impact, thereby being well-positioned to enforce governance policies that improve data quality." (Pradeep Menon, "Data Mesh Principles, patterns, architecture, and strategies for data-driven decision making", 2024)

"Data Mesh addresses data governance challenges by advocating for a federated governance model, which positions accountability for governance with the data owners who are most knowledgeable about the data. In this model, governance is decentralized, with each domain team responsible for the governance of its data products. This approach ensures that governance decisions are made by those who have the deepest understanding of the data’s context, use, and risks. It leads to more relevant, efficient, and effective governance practices that are closely aligned with the specific needs of each domain." (Jean-Georges Perrin & Eric Broda, "Implementing Data Mesh: Principles and Practice to Design, Build, and Implement Data Mesh", 2024)

"When data is considered a product, it creates opportunities for collaboration across different domains. This collaboration involves working with other teams to create, share, and use data products that span multiple areas of expertise, interest, or value. Data Mesh promotes cross-domain collaboration by focusing on the consumers rather than the producers. Data products are made available through standardized interfaces and protocols that support various modes of consumption and are governed by domain experts who understand the context and nuances of their data." (Pradeep Menon, "Data Mesh Principles, patterns, architecture, and strategies for data-driven decision making", 2024)

"At its core, observability rests on three fundamental pillars: metrics, logs, and traces. In the context of data systems, these pillars translate into quantitative measurements (such as data volume, processing latency, and schema changes), detailed event records (including data pipeline execution logs and error messages), and lineage traces that map the flow of data through interconnected processes. Together, they enable a granular and multidimensional understanding of data system behavior, facilitating not just detection but also rapid root-cause analysis." (William Smith, "Soda Core for Modern Data Quality and Observability: The Complete Guide for Developers and Engineers", 2025)

"Data mesh fundamentally reframes data governance and validation by distributing accountability to domain-oriented teams who act as custodians and producers of their respective data products. These teams possess intimate domain knowledge, which is essential for nuanced validation criteria that adapt to the semantics, context, and evolution of their datasets. By treating datasets as first-class products with clear ownership, interfaces, and service-level objectives, data mesh encourages autonomous validation workflows embedded directly within the domains where data originates and is consumed." (William Smith, "Great Expectations for Modern Data Quality: The Complete Guide for Developers and Engineers", 2025)

"Implementing a Medallion architecture isn’t about following a checklist set of instructions. It’s not about taking the exact, fixed process and trying to fit your unique organization around it. Instead, focus on providing your data consumers with context -  organize your data so they understand when it has been cleaned, when it is ready for consumption. Help them find the data to empower their work as fast and easily as possible. Once you have that, you can fit the processes to your design." (Piethein Strengholt, "Building Medallion Architectures: Designing with Delta Lake and Spark", 2025)

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 33: Data Lifecycle for Analytics)

Business Intelligence Series

In the context of BI, Analytics and other data-related topics, the various parties usually talk about data ingestion, preparation, storage, analysis and visualization, often ignoring processes like data generation, collection, and interpretation. It’s also true that a broader discussion may shift the attention unnecessarily, though it’s important to increase people’s awareness in respect to data’s full lifecycle. Otherwise, many of the data solutions become a mix of castles built into the air, respectively structures of cards waiting for the next flurry to be blown away. 

Data is generated continuously by organizations, their customers, vendors, and third parties, as part of a complex network of processes, systems and integrations that extend beyond their intended boundaries. Independently of their type, scope and various other characteristics, all processes consume and generate data at a rapid pace that steadily exceeds organizations’ capabilities to make good use of it.

There are also scenarios in which the data must be collected via surveys, interviews, forms, measurements or direct observations, and whatever processes are used to elicit some aspect of importance. The volume and other characteristics of data generated in this way may depend on the goals and objectives in scope, respectively the methods, procedures and even the methodologies used. 

Data ingestion is the process of importing data from the various sources into a central or intermediary repository for storage, processing, analysis and visualization. The repository can be a data mart, warehouse, lakehouse, data lake or any other destination intended for the intermediary or the final intended destination of data. Moreover, data can have different levels of quality in respect to its intended usage.

Data storage refers to the systems and approaches used to securely retain, organize, and access data throughout its journey within the various layers of the infrastructure. It focuses on where and how data is stored, independently on whether that’s done on-premises, in the cloud or across hybrid environments.

Data preparation is the process of transforming the data into a form close to what is intended for analysis and visualization. It may involve data aggregation, enrichment, transposition and other operations that facilitate further steps. It’s probably the most important step in a data project given that the final outcome can have an important impact on data analysis and visualization, facilitating or impeding the respective processes. 

Data analysis consists of a multitude of processes that attempt to harness value from data in its various forms of aggregation. The ultimate purpose is to infer meaningful information, respectively knowledge from the data augmented as insights. The road from raw data to these targeted outcomes is a tedious one, where recipes can help and imped altogether. Expecting value from any pile of data can easily become a costly illusion when data, processes and their usage is poorly understood and harnessed. 

Data visualization is the means of presenting data and its characteristics in the form of figures, diagrams and other forms of representation that facilitate data’s navigation, perception and understanding for various purposes. Usually, the final purpose is fact-checking, decision-making, problem-solving, etc., though there is a multitude of steps in between. Especially in these areas there are mixed good and poor practices altogether.  

Data interpretation is the attempt of drawing meaningful conclusions from the data, information and knowledge gained mainly from data analysis and visualization. It is often a subjective interpretation as it’s usually regarded from people’s understanding of the various facts as they are considered. The inferences made in the process can be a matter of gut feeling, respectively of mature analysis. It’s about sense-making, contextualization, critical thinking, pattern recognition, internalization and externalization, and other similar cognitive processes.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🤖〽️Prompt Engineering: Copilot Unabridged (Part 53: The Future of Business Intelligence - Will AI Make It Obsolete?)

Prompt Engineering Series

Prompt: "write a blogpost of 600 words on how AI may start making business intelligence obsolete"

Introduction

Business intelligence (BI) has long been the backbone of data-driven decision-making, helping organizations analyze trends, optimize operations, and gain competitive advantages. However, as artificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve, many wonder whether traditional BI tools and methodologies will become obsolete. AI’s ability to process vast amounts of data, generate insights autonomously, and adapt in real time is reshaping the landscape of business analytics. But does this mean BI will disappear entirely, or will it simply evolve?

The Shift from Traditional BI to AI-Driven Analytics

Traditional BI relies on structured data, dashboards, and human interpretation to extract meaningful insights. Analysts and business leaders use BI tools to generate reports, visualize trends, and make informed decisions. However, AI is introducing a new paradigm - one where data analysis is automated, predictive, and adaptive.

AI-driven analytics can:

• Process unstructured data from sources like social media, emails, and customer interactions.
• Identify patterns and correlations that human analysts might overlook.
• Provide real-time insights without requiring manual report generation.
• Predict future trends using machine learning models.

These capabilities suggest that AI is not just enhancing BI - it is fundamentally transforming it.

Why AI Might Replace Traditional BI Tools

Several factors indicate that AI could make traditional BI tools obsolete:

• Automation of Data Analysis: AI eliminates the need for manual data processing, allowing businesses to generate insights instantly. Traditional BI tools require human intervention to clean, structure, and interpret data, whereas AI can automate these processes.
• Predictive and Prescriptive Analytics: While BI focuses on historical data, AI-driven analytics predict future trends and prescribe actions. Businesses can move beyond reactive decision-making and adopt proactive strategies based on AI-generated forecasts.
• Natural Language Processing (NLP) for Data Queries: AI-powered systems enable users to ask questions in natural language rather than navigating complex dashboards. This makes data analysis more accessible to non-technical users, reducing reliance on BI specialists.
• Continuous Learning and Adaptation: AI models improve over time, refining their predictions and insights based on new data. Traditional BI tools require manual updates and adjustments, whereas AI evolves autonomously.

Challenges and Limitations of AI in Business Intelligence

Despite AI’s advancements, there are reasons why BI may not become entirely obsolete:

• Data Governance and Compliance: AI-driven analytics must adhere to strict regulations regarding data privacy and security. Businesses need human oversight to ensure compliance with laws such as GDPR.
• Interpretability and Trust: AI-generated insights can sometimes be opaque, making it difficult for business leaders to trust automated recommendations. Traditional BI tools provide transparency in data analysis.
• Human Expertise in Decision-Making: AI can generate insights, but human intuition and strategic thinking remain essential for complex business decisions. AI should complement, not replace, human expertise.

The Future: AI-Augmented Business Intelligence

Rather than making BI obsolete, AI is likely to augment and enhance business intelligence. The future of BI will involve AI-powered automation, predictive analytics, and real-time decision-making, but human oversight will remain crucial.

Organizations that embrace AI-driven BI will gain a competitive edge, leveraging automation while maintaining strategic control. The key is to integrate AI as a collaborative tool rather than a complete replacement for traditional BI methodologies.

Conclusion

AI is revolutionizing business intelligence, but it is unlikely to make it entirely obsolete. Instead, BI will evolve into a more automated, predictive, and adaptive system powered by AI. Businesses that integrate AI-driven analytics will benefit from faster insights, improved decision-making, and enhanced efficiency.

The future of AI is not about replacement - it’s about transformation. AI will redefine how businesses analyze data, but human expertise will remain essential in shaping strategic decisions.

Disclaimer: The whole text was generated by Copilot (under Windows 10) at the first attempt. This is just an experiment to evaluate feature's ability to answer standard general questions, independently on whether they are correctly or incorrectly posed. Moreover, the answers may reflect hallucinations and other types of inconsistent or incorrect reasoning.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 32: Data Storytelling in Visualizations)

Business Intelligence Series

From data-related professionals to book authors on data visualization topics, there are many voices that require from any visualization to tell a story, respectively to conform to storytelling principles and best practices, and this independently of the environment or context in which the respective artifacts are considered. The need for data visualizations to tell a story may be entitled, though in business setups the data, its focus and context change continuously with the communication means, objectives, and, at least from this perspective, one can question storytelling’s hard requirement.

Data storytelling can be defined as "a structured approach for communicating data insights using narrative elements and explanatory visuals" [1]. Usually, this supposes the establishment of a context, respectively a fundament on which further facts, suppositions, findings, arguments, (conceptual) models, visualizations and other elements can be based upon. Stories help to focus the audience on the intended messages, they connect and eventually resonate with the audience, facilitate the retaining of information and understanding the chain of implications the decisions in scope have, respectively persuade and influence, when needed.

Conversely, besides the fact that it takes time and effort to prepare stories and the afferent content (presentations, manually created visualizations, documentation), expecting each meeting to be a storytelling session can rapidly become a nuisance for the auditorium as well for the presenters. Like in any value-generating process, one should ask where the value in storytelling is based on data visualizations and the effort involved, or whether the effort can be better invested in other areas.

In many scenarios, requesting from a dashboard to tell a story is an entitled requirement given that many dashboards look like a random combination of visuals and data whose relationship and meaning can be difficult to grasp and put into a plausible narrative, even if they are based on the same set of data. Data visualizations of any type should have an intentional well-structured design that facilitates visual elements’ navigation, understanding facts’ retention, respectively resonate with the auditorium.

It’s questionable whether such practices can be implemented in a consistent and meaningful manner, especially when rich navigation features across multiple visuals are available for users to look at data from different perspectives. In such scenarios the identification of cases that require attention and the associations existing between well-established factors help in the discovery process.

Often, it feels like visuals were arranged aleatorily in the page or that there’s no apparent connection between them, which makes the navigation and understanding more challenging. For depicting a story, there must be a logical sequencing of the various visualizations displayed in the dashboards or reports, especially when visuals’ arrangement doesn’t reflect the typical navigation of the visuals or when the facts need a certain sequencing that facilitates understanding. Moreover, the sequencing doesn’t need to be linear but have a clear start and end that encompasses everything in between.

Storytelling works well in setups in which something is presented as the basis for one-time or limited in scope sessions like decision-making, fact-checking, awareness raising and other types of similar communication. However, when building solutions for business monitoring and data exploration, there can be multiple stories or no story worth telling, at least not for the predefined scope. Even if one can zoom in or out, respectively rearrange the visuals and add others to highlight the stories encompassed, the value added by taking the information out of the dashboards and performing such actions can be often neglected to the degree that it doesn’t pay off. A certain consistency, discipline and acumen is needed then for focusing on the important aspects and ignoring thus the nonessential. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Brent Dykes, "Effective Data Storytelling: How to Drive Change with Data, Narrative and Visuals", 2019 [quotes]

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 31: More on Data Visualization)

Business Intelligence Series

There are many reasons why the data visualizations available in the different mediums can be considerate as having poor quality and unfortunately there is often more than one issue that can be corroborated with this - the complexity of the data or of the models behind them, the lack of identifying the right data, respectively aspects that should be visualized, poor data visualization software or the lack of skills to use its capabilities, improper choice of visual displays, misleading choice of scales, axes and other elements, the lack of clear outlines for telling a story respectively of pushing a story too far, not adapting visualizations to changing requirements or different perspectives, to name just the most important causes.

The complexity of the data increases with the dimensions associated typically with what we call currently big data - velocity, volume, value, variety, veracity, variability and whatever V might be in scope. If it's relatively easy to work with a small dataset, understanding its shapes and challenges, our understanding power decreases with the Vs added into the picture. Of course, we can always treat the data alike, though the broader the timeframe, the higher the chances are for the data to have important changing characteristics that can impact the outcomes. It can be simple definition changes or more importantly, the model itself. Data, processes and perspectives change fluidly with the many requirements, and quite often the further implications for reporting, visualizations and other aspects are not considered.

Quite often there's a gap between what one wants to achieve with a data visualization and the data or knowledge available. It might be a matter of missing values or whole attributes that would help to delimit clearly the different perspectives or of modelling adequately the processes behind. It can be the intrinsic data quality issues that can be challenging to correct after the fact. It can also be our understanding about the processes themselves as reflected in the data, or more important, on what's missing to provide better perspectives. Therefore, many are forced to work with what they have or what they know.

Many of the data visualizations inadvertently reflect their creators' understanding about the data, procedures, processes, and any other aspects related to them. Unfortunately, also business users or other participants have only limited views and thus their knowledge must be elicited accordingly. Even then, it might be pieces of data that are not reflected in any knowledge available.

If one tortures enough data, one or more stories worthy of telling can probably be identified. However, much of the data is dull to the degree that some creators feel forced to add elements. Earlier, one could have blamed the software for it, though modern software provides nice graphics and plenty of features that can help graphics creators in the process. Even data with high quality can reveal some challenges difficult to overcome. One needs to compromise and there can be compromises in many places to the degree that one can but wonder whether the end result still reflects reality. Unfortunately, it's difficult to evaluate the impact of such gaps, however progress can be made occasionally by continuously evaluating the gaps and finding the appropriate methods to address them.

Not all stories must have complex visualizations in which multiple variables are used to provide the many perspectives. Some simple visualizations can be enough for establishing common ground on which something more complex (or simple) can be built upon. Data visualization is a continuous process of exploration, extrapolation, evaluation, testing assumptions and ideas, where one's experience can be a useful mediator between the various forces. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 30: The Data Science Connection)

Business Intelligence Series

Data Science is a collection of quantitative and qualitative methods, respectively techniques, algorithms, principles, processes and technologies used to analyze, and process amounts of raw and aggregated data to extract information or knowledge it contains. Its theoretical basis is rooted within mathematics, mainly statistics, computer science and domain expertise, though it can include further aspects related to communication, management, sociology, ecology, cybernetics, and probably many other fields, as there’s enough space for experimentation and translation of knowledge from one field to another.  

The aim of Data Science is to extract valuable insights from data to support decision-making, problem-solving, drive innovation and probably it can achieve more in time. Reading in between the lines, Data Science sounds like a superhero that can solve all the problems existing out there, which frankly is too beautiful to be true! In theory everything is possible, when in practice there are many hard limitations! Given any amount of data, the knowledge that can be obtained from it can be limited by many factors - the degree to which the data, processes and models built reflect reality, and there can be many levels of approximation, respectively the degree to which such data can be collected consistently. 

Moreover, even if the theoretical basis seems sound, the data, information or knowledge which is not available can be the important missing link in making any sensible progress toward the goals set in Data Science projects. In some cases, one might be aware of what's missing, though for the data scientist not having the required domain knowledge, this can be a hard limit! This gap can be probably bridged with sensemaking, exploration and experimentation approaches, especially by applying models from other domains, though there are no guarantees ahead!

AI can help in this direction by utilizing its capacity to explore fast ideas or models. However, it's questionable how much the models built with AI can be further used if one can't build mechanistical mental models of the processes reflected in the data. It's like devising an algorithm for winning at lottery small amounts, though investing more money in the algorithm doesn't automatically imply greater wins. Even if occasionally the performance is improved, it's questionable how much it can be leveraged for each utilization. Statistics has its utility when one studies data in aggregation and can predict average behavior. It can’t be used to predict the occurrence of events with a high precision. Think how hard the prediction of earthquakes or extreme weather is by just looking at a pile of data reflecting what’s happening only in a certain zone!

In theory, the more data one has from different geographical areas or organizations, the more robust the models can become. However, no two geographies, respectively no two organizations are alike: business models, the people, the events and other aspects make global models less applicable to local context. Frankly, one has more chances of progress if a model is obtained by having a local scope and then attempting to leverage the respective model for a broader scope. Even then, there can be differences between the behavior or phenomena at micro, respectively at macro level (see the law of physics). 

This doesn’t mean that Data Science or AI related knowledge is useless. The knowledge accumulated by applying various techniques, models and programming languages in problem-solving can be more valuable than the results obtained! Experimentation is a must for organizations to innovate, to extend their knowledge base. It’s also questionable how much of the respective knowledge can be retained and put to good use. In the end, each organization must determine this by itself!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 29: Navigating into the Unknown)

Business Intelligence Series

One of the important challenges in Business Intelligence and the other related knowledge domains is that people try to oversell ideas, overstretching, shifting, mixing and bending the definition of concepts and their use to suit the sales pitch or other related purposes. Even if there are several methodologies built around data that attempt to provide a solid foundation on which organizations can build upon, terms like actionable, value, insight, quality or importance continue to be a matter of perception, interpretation, and quite often be misused. 

It's often challenging to define precisely such businesses concepts especially there are degrees of fuzziness that may apply to the different contexts that are associated with them. What makes a piece of signal, data, information or knowledge valuable, respectively actionable? What is the value, respectively values we associate with a piece or aggregation of information, insight or degree of quality? When do values, changes, variations and other aspects become important, respectively can be ignored? How much can one generalize or particularize certain aspects? And, many more such questions can be added to this line of inquiry. 

Just because an important value changed, no matter in what direction, it might mean nothing as long as the value moves in certain ranges, respectively other direct or indirect conditions are met or not. Sometimes, there are simple rules and models that can be used to identify the various areas that should trigger different responses, respectively actions, though even small variations can increase the overall complexity multifold. There seems to be certain comfort in numbers, even if the same numbers can mean different things to different people, at different points in time, respectively contexts.

In the pursuit to bridge the multitude of gaps and challenges, organization attempt to arrive at common definitions and understanding in what concerns the business terms, goals, objectives, metrics, rules, procedures, processes and other points of focus associated with the respective terms. Unfortunately, many such foundations barely support the edifices built as long as there’s no common mental models established!

Even if the use of shared models is not new, few organizations try to make the knowledge associated with them explicit, respectively agree on and evolve a set of mental models that reflect how the business works, what is important, respectively can be ignored, which are the dependent and independent aspects, etc. This effort can prove to be a challenge for many organizations, especially when several leaps of faith must be made in the process.

Independently on whether organizations use shared mental models, some kind of common ground must be achieved. It starts with open dialog, identifying the gaps, respectively the minimum volume of knowledge required for making progress in the right direction(s). The broader the gaps and the misalignment, the more iterations are needed to make progress! And, of course, one must know which are the destinations, what paths to follow, what to ignore, etc. 

It's important how we look at the business, and people tend to use different filters (aka glasses or hats) for this purpose. Simple relationships between the various facts are ideal, though uncommon. There’s a chain of causality that may trigger a certain change, though more likely one deals with a networked structure of cause-effect relationships. The world is more complex than we (can} imagine. We try to focus on the aspects we are aware of, respectively consider as important. However, in a complex world also small variations in certain areas can shift the overall weight to aspects outside of our focus, influence or area of responsibility. Quite often, what we don’t know is more important than what we know!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 28: Cutting through Complexity)

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.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

#️⃣Software Engineering: Programming (Part XVI: The Software Quality Perspective and AI)

Software Engineering Series

Organizations tend to complain about poor software quality developed in-house, by consultancy companies or third parties, without doing much in this direction. Unfortunately, this agrees with the bigger picture reflected by the quality standards adopted by organizations - people talk and complain about them, though they aren’t that eager to include them in the various strategies, or even if they are considered, they are seldom enforced adequately!

Moreover, even if quality standards are adopted, and a lot of effort may be spent in this direction (as everybody has strong opinions and there are many exceptions), as projects progress, all the good intentions come to an end, the rules fading on the way either because are too strict, too general, aren’t adequately prioritized or communicated, or there’s no time to implement (all of) them. This applies in general to programming and to the domains that revolve around data – Business Intelligence, Data Analytics or Data Science.

The volume of good quality code and deliverables is not only a reflection of an organization’s maturity in dealing with best practices but also of its maturity in handling technical debt, Project Management, software and data quality challenges. All these aspects are strongly related to each other and therefore require a systemic approach rather than focusing on the issues locally. The systemic approach allows organizations to bridge the gaps between business areas, teams, projects and any other areas of focus.

There are many questionable studies on the effect of methodologies on software quality and data issues, proclaiming that one methodology is better than the other in addressing the multifold aspects of software quality. Besides methodologies, some studies attempt to correlate quality with organizations’ size, management or programmers’ experience, the size of software, or whatever characteristic might seem to affect quality.

Bad code is written independently of companies’ size or programmer's experience, management or organization’s maturity. Bad code doesn’t necessarily happen all at once, but it can depend on circumstances, repetitive team, requirements and code changes. There are decisions and actions that sooner or later can affect the overall outcome negatively.

Rewriting the code from scratch might look like an approachable measure though it’s seldom the cost-effective solution. Allocating resources for refactoring is usually a better approach, though this tends to increase considerably the cost of projects, and organizations might be tempted to face the risks, whatever they might be. Independently of the approaches used, sooner or later the complexity of projects, requirements or code tends to kick back.

There are many voices arguing that AI will help in addressing the problems of software development, quality assurance and probably other areas. It’s questionable how much AI will help to address the gaps, non-concordances and other mistakes in requirements, and how it will develop quality code when it has basic "understanding" issues. Even if step by step all current issues revolving around AI will be fixed, it will take time and multiple iterations until meaningful progress will be made.

At least for now, AI tools like Copilot or ChatGPT can be used for learning a programming language or framework through predefined or ad-hoc prompts. Probably, it can be used also to identify deviations from best practices or other norms in scope. This doesn’t mean that AI will replace for now code reviews, testing and other practices used in assuring the quality of software, but it can be used as an additional method to check for what was eventually missed in the other methods.

AI may also have hidden gems that when discovered, polished and sized, may have a qualitative impact on software development and software. Only time will tell what’s possible and achievable.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧩IT: Idioms, Sayings, Proverbs and Other Words of Wisdom

In IT setups one can hear many idioms, sayings and other type of words of wisdom that make the audience smile, even if some words seem to rub salt in the wounds. These are some of the idioms met in IT meetings or literature. Frankly, it's worth to write more about each of them, and this it the purpose of the "project". 

"A bad excuse is better than none"

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush": a working solution is worth more than hypothetically better solutions. 

"A drowning man will clutch at a straw": a drowning organization will clutch to the latest hope

"A friend in need (is a friend indeed)": 

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"

"A little learning is a dangerous thing"

"A nail keeps a shoe, a shoe a horse, a horse a man, a man a castle" (cca 1610): A nail keeps the shoe

"A picture is worth a thousand words"

"A stitch in time (saves nine)"

"Actions speak louder than words"

"All good things must come to an end"

"All generalizations are false" [attributed to Mark Twain, Alexandre Dumas (Père)]: Cutting though Complexity

"All the world's a stage, And all [...] merely players": A look forward

"All roads lead to Rome"

"All is well that ends well"

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

"Another day, another dollar"

"As you sow so shall you reap"

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

"Better late than never": SQL Server and Excel Data

"Better safe than sorry": Deleting obsolete companies

"Big fish eat little fish"

"Better the Devil you know (than the Devil you do not)": 

"Calm seas never made a good sailor"

"Count your blessings"

"Dead men tell no tales"

"Do not bite the hand that feeds you"

"Do not change horses in midstream"

"Do not count your chickens before they are hatched"

"Do not cross the bridge till you come to it"

"Do not judge a book by its cover"

"Do not meet troubles half-way"

"Do not put all your eggs in one basket"

"Do not put the cart before the horse"

"Do not try to rush things; ignore matters of minor advantage" (Confucius): A tale of two cities II

"Do not try to walk before you can crawl"

"Doubt is the beginning, not the end, of wisdom"

"Easier said than done"

"Every cloud has a silver lining"

"Every little bit helps"

"Every picture tells a story"

"Failing to plan is planning to fail": Planning correctly misunderstood...

"Faith will move mountains"

"Fake it till you make it"

"Fight fire with fire"

"First impressions are the most lasting"

"First things first": Ways of looking at data

"Fish always rots from the head downwards"

"Fools rush in (where angels fear to tread)" (Alexander Pope, "An Essay on Criticism", cca. 1711): A tale of two cities II

"Half a loaf is better than no bread"

"Haste makes waste"

"History repeats itself"

"Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst"

"If anything can go wrong, it will" (Murphy's law)

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it.": Approaching a query

"If you play with fire, you will get burned"

"If you want a thing done well, do it yourself"

"Ignorance is bliss"

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

"It ain't over till/until it's over"

"It is a small world"

"It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness"

"It is never too late": A look back, All-knowing developers are back...

"It's a bad plan that admits of no modification." (Publilius Syrus): Planning Correctly Misunderstood I

"It’s not an adventure until something goes wrong." (Yvon Chouinard): Documentation - Lessons learned

"It is not enough to learn how to ride, you must also learn how to fall"

"It takes a whole village to raise a child"

"It will come back and haunt you"

"Judge not, that ye be not judged"

"Kill two birds with one stone"

"Knowledge is power, guard it well"

"Learn a language, and you will avoid a war" (Arab proverb)

"Less is more"

"Life is what you make it"

"Many hands make light work"

"Moderation in all things"

"Money talks"

"More haste, less speed"

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

"Never judge a book by its cover"

"Never say never"

"Never too old to learn"

"No man can serve two masters"

"No pain, no gain"

"No plan ever survived contact with the enemy.' (Carl von Clausewitz): Planning Correctly Misunderstood I

"Oil and water do not mix"

"One-man show": series

"One man's trash is another man's treasure"

"One swallow does not make a summer"

"Only time will tell": The Software Quality Perspective and AI, Microsoft Fabric, It’s all about Partnership II, Access vs. LightSwitch

"Patience is a virtue"

"Poke the bear": Mea Culpa - A Look Forward

"Practice makes perfect"

"Practice what you preach"

"Prevention is better than cure"

"Rules were made to be broken"

"Seek and ye shall find"

"Some are more equal than others" (George Orwell, "Animal Farm")

"Spoken words fly away, written words remain." ["Verba volant, scripta manent"]: Documentation - Lessons learned

"Strike while the iron is hot"

"Technology is dead": Dashboards Are Dead & Other Crap, programming is dead

"The best defense is a good offense"

"The bets are off":  A look forward

"The bigger they are, the harder they fall"

"The devil is in the detail": Copilot Stories Part IV, Cutting through Complexity, More on SQL Databases, The Analytics Marathon, The Choice of Tools in PM, Who Messed with My Data?, 

"The die is cast"

"The exception which proves the rule"

"The longest journey starts with a single step"

"The pursuit of perfection is a fool's errand"

"There are two sides to every question"

"There is no smoke without fire"

"There's more than one way to skin a cat" (cca. 1600s)

"There is no I in team"

"There is safety in numbers"

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" (George Santayana)

"Time is money"

"To learn a language is to have one more window from which to look at the world" (Chinese proverb)[5

"Too little, too late"

"Too much of a good thing"

"Truth is stranger than fiction"

"Two birds with one stone": Deleting sequential data...

"Two heads are better than one": Pair programming

"Two wrongs (do not) make a right"

"United we stand, divided we fall"

"Use it or lose it"

"Unity is strength"

"Variety is the spice of life." (William Cowper)

"Virtue is its own reward"

"Well begun is half done"

"What does not kill me makes me stronger"

"Well done is better than well said"

"What cannot be cured must be endured"

"What goes around, comes around"

"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade"

"When the cat is away, the mice will play"

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going"

"Where there is a will there is a way"

"With great power comes great responsibility"

"Work expands so as to fill the time available"

"You are never too old to learn": All-Knowing Developers are Back in Demand?

"You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink"

"You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs"

"(You cannot) teach an old dog new tricks"

"You must believe and not doubt at all": Believe and not doubt

"Zeal without knowledge is fire without light"

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Wikipedia (2024) List of proverbial phrases [link]

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 27: A Tale of Two Cities II)

Business Intelligence Series

There’s a saying that applies to many contexts ranging from software engineering to data analysis and visualization related solutions: "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" [1]. Much earlier, an adage attributed to Confucius provides a similar perspective: "do not try to rush things; ignore matters of minor advantage". Ignoring these advices, there's the drive in rapid prototyping to jump in with both feet forward without checking first how solid the ground is, often even without having adequate experience in the field. That’s understandable to some degree – people want to see progress and value fast, without building a foundation or getting an understanding of what’s happening, respectively possible, often ignoring the full extent of the problems.

A prototype helps to bring the requirements closer to what’s intended to achieve, though, as the practice often shows, the gap between the initial steps and the final solutions require many iterations, sometimes even too many for making a solution cost-effective. There’s almost always a tradeoff between costs and quality, respectively time and scope. Sooner or later, one must compromise somewhere in between even if the solution is not optimal. The fuzzier the requirements and what’s achievable with a set of data, the harder it gets to find the sweet spot.

Even if people understand the steps, constraints and further aspects of a process relatively easily, making sense of the data generated by it, respectively using the respective data to optimize the process can take a considerable effort. There’s a chain of tradeoffs and constraints that apply to a certain situation in each context, that makes it challenging to always find optimal solutions. Moreover, optimal local solutions don’t necessarily provide the optimum effect when one looks at the broader context of the problems. Further on, even if one brought a process under control, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the process works efficiently.

This is the broader context in which data analysis and visualization topics need to be placed to build useful solutions, to make a sensible difference in one’s job. Especially when the data and processes look numb, one needs to find the perspectives that lead to useful information, respectively knowledge. It’s not realistic to expect to find new insight in any set of data. As experience often proves, insight is rarer than finding gold nuggets. Probably, the most important aspect in gold mining is to know where to look, though it also requires luck, research, the proper use of tools, effort, and probably much more.

One of the problems in working with data is that usually data is analyzed and visualized in aggregates at different levels, often without identifying and depicting the factors that determine why data take certain shapes. Even if a well-suited set of dimensions is defined for data analysis, data are usually still considered in aggregate. Having the possibility to change between aggregates and details is quintessential for data’s understanding, or at least for getting an understanding of what's happening in the various processes. 

There is one aspect of data modeling, respectively analysis and visualization that’s typically ignored in BI initiatives – process-wise there is usually data which is not available and approximating the respective values to some degree is often far from the optimal solution. Of course, there’s often a tradeoff between effort and value, though the actual value can be quantified only when gathering enough data for a thorough first analysis. It may also happen that the only benefit is getting a deeper understanding of certain aspects of the processes, respectively business. Occasionally, this price may look high, though searching for cost-effective solutions is part of the job!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Alexander Pope (cca. 1711) An Essay on Criticism

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 26: Monitoring - A Cockpit View)

Business Intelligence Series

The monitoring of business imperatives is sometimes compared metaphorically with piloting an airplane, where pilots look at the cockpit instruments to verify whether everything is under control and the flight ensues according to the expectations. The use of a cockpit is supported by the fact that an airplane is an almost "closed" system in which the components were developed under strict requirements and tested thoroughly under specific technical conditions. Many instruments were engineered and evolved over decades to operate as such. The processes are standardized, inputs and outputs are under strict control, otherwise the whole edifice would crumble under its own complexity. 

In organizational setups, a similar approach is attempted for monitoring the most important aspects of a business. A few dashboards and reports are thus built to monitor and control what’s happening in the areas which were identified as critical for the organization. The various gauges and other visuals were designed to provide similar perspectives as the ones provided by an airplane’s cockpit. At first sight the cockpit metaphor makes sense, though at careful analysis, there are major differences. 

Probably, the main difference is that businesses don’t necessarily have standardized processes that were brought under control (and thus have variation). Secondly, the data used doesn’t necessarily have the needed quality and occasionally isn’t fit for use in the business processes, including supporting processes like reporting or decision making. Thirdly, are high the chances that the monitoring within the BI infrastructures doesn’t address the critical aspects of the business, at least not at the needed level of focus, detail or frequency. The interplay between these three main aspects can lead to complex issues and a muddy ground for a business to build a stable edifice upon. 

The comparison with airplanes’ cockpit was chosen because the number of instruments available for monitoring is somewhat comparable with the number of visuals existing in an organization. In contrast, autos have a smaller number of controls simple enough to help the one(s) sitting in the cockpit. A car’s monitoring capabilities can probably reflect the needs of single departments or teams, though each unit needs its own gauges with specific business focus. The parallel is however limited because the areas of focus in organizations can change and shift in other directions, some topics may have a periodic character while others can regain momentum after a long time. 

There are further important aspects. At high level, the expectation is for software products and processes, including the ones related to BI topics, to have the same stability and quality as the mass production of automobiles, airplanes or other artifacts that have similar complexity and manufacturing characteristics. Even if the design process of software and manufacturing may share many characteristics, the similar aspects diverge as soon as the production processes start, respectively progress, and these are the areas where the most differences lie. Starting from the requirements and ending with the overall goals, everything resembles the characteristics of quick shifting sands on which is challenging to build any stabile edifice.

At micro level in manufacturing each piece was carefully designed and produced according to a set of characteristics that were proved to work. Everything must fit perfectly in the grand design and there are many tests and steps to make sure that happens. To some degree the same is attempted when building software products, though the processes break along the way with the many changes attempted, with the many cost, time and quality constraints. At some point the overall complexity kicks back; it might be still manageable though the overall effort is higher than what organizations bargained for. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part 25: Grounding the Roots)

Business Intelligence Series

When building something that is supposed to last, one needs a solid foundation on which the artifact can be built upon. That’s valid for castles, houses, IT architectures, and probably most important, for BI infrastructures. There are so many tools out there that allow building a dashboard, report or other types of BI artifacts with a few drag-and-drops, moving things around, adding formatting and shiny things. In many cases all these steps are followed to create a prototype for a set of ideas or more formalized requirements keeping the overall process to a minimum. 

Rapid prototyping, the process of building a proof-of-concept by focusing at high level on the most important design and functional aspects, is helpful and sometimes a mandatory step in eliciting and addressing the requirements properly. It provides a fast road from an idea to the actual concept, however the prototype, still in its early stages, can rapidly become the actual solution that unfortunately continues to haunt the dreams of its creator(s). 

Especially in the BI area, there are many solutions that started as a prototype and gained mass until they start to disturb many things around them with implications for security, performance, data quality, and many other aspects. Moreover, the mass becomes in time critical, to the degree that it pulled more attention and effort than intended, with positive and negative impact altogether. It’s like building an artificial sun that suddenly becomes a danger for the nearby planet(s) and other celestial bodies. 

When building such artifacts, it’s important to define what goals the end-result must or would be nice to have, differentiating clearly between them, respectively when is the time to stop and properly address the aspects mandatory in transitioning from the prototype to an actual solution that addresses the best practices in scope. It’s also the point when one should decide upon solution’s feasibility, needed quality acceptance criteria, and broader aspects like supporting processes, human resources, data, and the various aspects that have impact. Unfortunately, many solutions gain inertia without the proper foundation and in extremis succumb under the various forces.

Developing software artifacts of any type is a balancing act between all these aspects, often under suboptimal circumstances. Therefore, one must be able to set priorities right, react and change direction (and gear) according to the changing context. Many wish all this to be a straight sequential road, when in reality it looks more like mountain climbing, with many peaks, valleys and change of scenery. The more exploration is needed, the slower the progress.

All these aspects require additional time, effort, resources and planning, which can easily increase the overall complexity of projects to the degree that it leads to (exponential) effort and more important - waste. Moreover, the complexity pushes back, leading to more effort, and with it to higher costs. On top of this one has the iteration character of BI topics, multiple iterations being needed from the initial concept to the final solution(s), sometimes many steps being discarded in the process, corners are cut, with all the further implications following from this. 

Somewhere in the middle, between minimum and the broad overextending complexity, is the sweet spot that drives the most impact with a minimum of effort. For some organizations, respectively professionals, reaching and remaining in the zone will be quite a challenge, though that’s not impossible. It’s important to be aware of all the aspects that drive and sustain the quality of artefacts, data and processes. There’s a lot to learn from successful as well from failed endeavors, and the various aspects should be reflected in the lessons learned. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post