🗄️Data Management: Data Governance (Part III: Taming the Complexity)

Data Management Series

The Chief Data Officer (CDO) or the “Head of the Data Team” is one of the most challenging jobs because is more of a "political" than a technical role. It requires the ideal candidate to be able to throw and catch curved balls almost all the time, and one must be able to play ball with all the parties having an interest in data (aka stakeholders). It’s a full-time job that requires the combination of management and technical skillsets, and both are important! The focus will change occasionally in one direction more than in the other, with important fluctuations. 

Moreover, even if one masters the technical and managerial aspects, the combination of the two gives birth to situations that require further expertise – applied systems thinking being probably the most important. This, also because there are so many points of failure that it's challenging to address all the important causes. Therefore, it’s critical to be a system thinker, to have an experienced team and make use adequately of its experience! 

In a complex word, in which even the smallest constraint or opportunity can have an important impact especially when it’s involved in the early stages of the processes taking place in organizations. It relies on the manager’s and team’s skillset, their inspiration, the way the business reacts to the tasks involved and probably many other aspects that make things work. It takes considerable effort until the whole mechanism works, and even more time to make things work efficiently. The best metaphor is probably the one of a small combat team in which everybody has their place and skillset in the mechanism, independently if one talks about strategy, tactics or operations. 

Unfortunately, building such teams takes time, and the more people are involved, the more complex this endeavor becomes. The manager and the team must meet somewhere in the middle in what concerns the philosophy, the execution of the various endeavors, the way of working together to achieve the same goals. There are multiple forces pulling in all directions and it takes time until one can align the goals, respectively the effort. 

The most challenging forces are the ones between the business and the data team, respectively the business and data requirements, forces that don’t necessarily converge. Working in small organizations, the two parties have in theory more challenges to overcome the challenges and a team’s experience can weight a lot in the process, though as soon the scale changes, the number of challenges to be overcome changes exponentially (there are however different exponential functions in which the basis and exponent make the growth rapid). 

In big organizations can appear other parties that have the same force to pull the weight in one direction or another. Thus, the political aspects become more complex to the degree that the technologies must follow the political decisions, with all the positive and negative implications deriving from this. As comparison, think about the challenges from moving from two to three or more moving bodies orbiting each other, resulting in a chaotic dynamical system for most initial conditions. 

Of course, a business’ context doesn’t have to create such complexity, though when things are unchecked, when delays in decision-making as well as other typical events occur, when there’s no structure, strategy, coordinated effort, or any other important components, the chances for chaotic behavior are quite high with the pass of time. This is just a model to explain real life situations that seem similar on the surface but prove to be quite complex when diving deeper. That’s probably why a CDO’s role as tamer of complexity is important and challenging!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part XVII: Creating Value for Organizations)

Business Intelligence Series

How does one create value for an organization in BI area? This should be one of the questions the BI professional should ask himself and eventually his/her colleagues on a periodic basis because the mere act of providing reports and good-looking visualizations doesn’t provide value per se. Therefore, it’s important to identify the critical to success and value drivers within each area!

One can start with the data, BI or IT strategies, when organizations invest the time in their direction, respectively with the considered KPIs and/or OKRs defined, and hopefully the organizations already have something similar in place! However, these are just topics that can be used to get a bird view over the overall landscape and challenges. It’s advisable to dig deeper, especially when the strategic, tactical and operational plans aren’t in sync, and let’s be realistic, this happens probably in many organizations, more often than one wants to admit!

Ideally, the BI professional should be able to talk with the colleagues who could benefit from having a set of reports or dashboards that offer a deeper perspective into their challenges. Talking with each of them can be time consuming and not necessarily value driven. However, giving each team or department the chance to speak their mind, and brainstorm what can be done, could in theory bring more value. Even if their issues and challenges should be reflected in the strategy, there’s always an important gap between the actual business needs and those reflected in formal documents, especially when the latter are not revised periodically. Ideally, such issues should be tracked back to a business goal, though it’s questionable how much such an alignment is possible in practice. Exceptions will always exist, no matter how well structured and thought a strategy is!

Unfortunately, this approach also involves some risks. Despite their local importance, the topics raised might not be aligned with what the organization wants, and there can be a strong case against and even a set of negative aspects related to this. However, talking about the costs involved by losing an opportunity can hopefully change the balance favorably. In general, transposing the perspective of issues into the area of their associated cost for the organization has (hopefully) the power to change people’s minds.

Organizations tend to bring forward the major issues, addressing the minor ones only after that, this having the effect that occasionally some of the small issues increase in impact when not addressed. It makes sense to prioritize with the risks, costs and quick wins in mind while looking at the broader perspective! Quick wins are usually addressed at strategic level, but apparently seldom at tactical and operational level, and at these levels one can create the most important impact, paving the way for other strategic measures and activities.

The question from the title is not limited only to BI professionals - it should be in each manager and every employee’s mind. The user is the closest to the problems and opportunities, while the manager is the one who has a broader view and the authority to push the topic up the waiting list. Unfortunately, the waiting lists in some organizations are quite big, while not having a good set of requests on the list might pinpoint that issues might exist in other areas!  

BI professionals and organizations probably know the theory well but prove to have difficulties in combining it with praxis. It’s challenging to obtain the needed impact (eventually the maximum effect) with a minimum of effort while addressing the different topics. Sooner or later the complexity of the topic kicks in, messing things around!

Previous Post <<||>>  Next Post

🗄️Data Management: Data Governance (Part II: Heroes Die Young)

Data Management Series

In the call for action there are tendencies in some organizations to idealize and overcharge main actors' purpose and image when talking about data governance by calling them heroes. Heroes are those people who fight for a goal they believe in with all their being and occasionally they pay the supreme tribute. Of course, the image of heroes is idealized and many other aspects are ignored, though such images sell ideas and ideals. Organizations might need heroes and heroic deeds to change the status quo, but the heroism doesn't necessarily payoff for the "heroes"! 

Sometimes, organizations need a considerable effort to change the status quo. It can be people's resistance to new, to the demands, to the ideas propagated, especially when they are not clearly explained and executed. It can be the incommensurable distance between the "AS IS" and the "TO BE" perspectives, especially when clear paths aren't in sight. It can be the lack of resources (e.g., time, money, people, tools), knowledge, understanding or skillset that makes the effort difficult. 

Unfortunately, such initiatives favor action over adequate strategies, planning and understanding of the overall context. The call do to something creates waves of actions and reactions which in the organizational context can lead to storms and even extreme behavior that ranges from resistance to the new to heroic deeds. Finding a few messages that support the call for action can help, though they can't replace the various critical for success factors.

Leading organizations on a new path requires a well-defined realistic strategy, respectively adequate tactical and operational planning that reflects organizations' specific needs, knowledge and capabilities. Just demanding from people to do their best is not enough, and heroism has chances to appear especially in this context. Unfortunately, the whole weight falls on the shoulders of the people chosen as actors in the fight. Ideally, it should be possible to spread the whole weight on a broader basis which should be considered the foundation for the new. 

The "heroes" metaphor is idealized and the negative outcome probably exaggerated, though extreme situations do occur in organizations when decisions, planning, execution and expectations are far from ideal. Ideal situations are met only in books and less in practice!

The management demands and the people execute, much like in the army, though by contrast people need to understand the reasoning behind what they are doing. Proper execution requires skillset, understanding, training, support, tools and the right resources for the right job. Just relying on people's professionalism and effort is not enough and is suboptimal, but this is what many organizations seem to do!

Organizations tend to respond to the various barriers or challenges with more resources or pressure instead of analyzing and depicting the situation adequately, and eventually change the strategy, tactics or operations accordingly. It's also difficult to do this as long an organization doesn't have the capabilities and practices of self-check, self-introspection, self-reflection, etc. Even if it sounds a bit exaggerated, an organization must know itself to overcome the various challenges. Regular meetings, KPIs and other metrics give the illusion of control when self-control is needed. 

Things don't have to be that complex even if managing data governance is a complex endeavor. Small or midsized organizations are in theory more capable to handle complexity because they can be more agile, have a robust structure and the flow of information and knowledge has less barriers, respectively a shorter distance to overcome, at least in theory. One can probably appeal to the laws and characteristics of networks to understand more about the deeper implications, of how solutions can be implemented in more complex setups.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part XVI: On the Cusps of Complexity)

Business Intelligence Series

We live in a complex world, which makes it difficult to model and work with the complex models that attempt to represent it. Thus, we try to simplify it to the degree that it becomes processable and understandable for us, while further simplification is needed when we try to depict it by digital means that make it processable by machines, respectively by us. Whenever we simplify something, we lose some aspects, which might be acceptable in many cases, but create issues in a broader number of ways.

With each layer of simplification results a model that addresses some parts while ignoring some parts of it, which restricts models’ usability to the degree that makes them unusable. The more one moves toward the extremes of oversimplification or complexification, the higher the chances for models to become unusable.

This aspect is relevant also in what concerns the business processes we deal with. Many processes are oversimplified to the degree that we track the entry and exit points, respectively the quantitative aspects we are interested in. In theory this information should be enough when answering some business questions, though might be insufficient when one dives deeper into processes. One can try to approximate, however there are high chances that such approximations deviate too much from the value approximated, which can lead to strange outcomes.

Therefore, when a date or other values are important, organizations consider adding more fields to reflect the implemented process with higher accuracy. Unfortunately, unless we save a history of all the important changes in the data, it becomes challenging to derive the snapshots we need for our analyses. Moreover, it is more challenging to obtain consistent snapshots. There are systems which attempt to obtain such snapshots through the implementation of the processes, though also this approach involves some complexity and other challenges.

Looking at the way business processes are implemented (see ERP, CRM and other similar systems), the systems track the created, modified and a few other dates that allow only limited perspectives. The fields typically provide the perspectives we need for data analysis. For many processes, it would be interesting to track other events and maybe other values taken in between.

There is theoretical potential in tracking more detailed data, but also a complexity that’s difficult to transpose into useful information about the processes themselves. Despite tracking more data and the effort involved in such activities, processes can still behave like black boxes, especially when we have no or minimal information about the processes implemented in Information Systems.

There’s another important aspect - even if systems provide similar implementations of similar processes, the behavior of users can make an important difference. The best example is the behavior of people entering the relevant data only when a process closes and ignoring the steps happening in between (dates, price or quantity changes).

There is a lot of missing data/information not tracked by such a system, especially in what concerns users’ behavior. It’s true that such behavior can be tracked to some degree, though that happens only when data are modified physically. One can suppose that there are many activities happening outside of the system.

The data gathered represents only the projection of certain events, which might not represent accurately and completely the processes or users’ behavior. We have the illusion of transparency, though we work with black boxes. There can be a lot of effort happening outside of these borders.  

Fortunately, we can handle oversimplified processes and data maintenance, though one can but wonder how many important things can be found beyond the oversimplifications we work with, respectively what we miss in the process. 

Previous Post <<||>>  Next Post

🧭🏭Business Intelligence: Microsoft Fabric (Part III: The Metrics Layer [new feature])

Introduction

One of the announcements of this year's Microsoft Fabric Community first conference was the introduction of a metrics layer in Fabric which "allows organizations to create standardized business metrics, that are rooted in measures and are discoverable and intended for reuse" [1]. As it seems, the information content provided at the conference was kept to a minimum given that the feature is still in private preview, though several webcasts start to catch up on the topic (see [2], [4]). Moreover, as part of their show, the Explicit Measures (@PowerBITips) hosts had Carly Newsome as invitee, the manager of the project, who unveiled more details about the project and the feature, details which became the main source for the information below. 

The idea of a metric layer or metric store is not new, data professionals occasionally refer to their structure(s) of metrics as such. The terms gained weight in their modern conception relatively recently in 2021-2022 (see [5], [6], [7], [8], [10]). Within the modern data stack, a metrics layer or metric store is an abstraction layer available between the data store(s) and end users. It allows to centrally define, store, and manage business metrics. Thus, it allows us to standardize and enforce a single source of truth (SSoT), respectively solve several issues existing in the data stacks. As Benn Stancil earlier remarked, the metrics layer is one of the missing pieces from the modern data stack (see [10]).

Microsoft's Solution

Microsoft's business case for metrics layer's implementation is based on three main ideas (1) duplicate measures contribute to poor data quality, (2) complex data models hinder self-service, (3) reduce data silos in Power BI. In Microsoft's conception the metric layer provides several benefits: consistent definitions and descriptions, easy management via management views, searchable and discoverable metrics, respectively assure trust through indicators. 

For this feature's implementation Microsoft introduces a new Fabric Item called a metric set that allows to group several (business) metrics together as part of a mini-model that can be tailored to the needs of a subset of end-users and accessed by them via the standard tools already available. The metric set becomes thus a mini-model. Such mini-models allow to break down and reduce the overall complexity of semantic models, while being easy to evolve and consume. The challenge will become then on how to break down existing and future semantic models into nonoverlapping mini-models, creating in extremis a partition (see the Lego metaphor for data products). The idea of mini-models is not new, [12] advocating the idea of using a Master Model, a technique for creating derivative tabular models based on a single tabular solution.

A (business) metric is a way to elevate the measures from the various semantic models existing in the organization within the mini-model defined by the metric set. A metric can be reused in other fabric artifacts - currently in new reports on the Power BI service, respectively in notebooks by copying the code. Reusing metrics in other measures can mean that one can chain metrics and the changes made will be further propagated downstream. 

The Metrics Layer in Microsoft Fabric (adapted diagram)

Every metric is tied to the original semantic model which allows thus to track how a metric is used across the solutions and, looking forward to Purview, to identify data's lineage. A measure is related to a "table", the source from which the measure came from.

Users' Perspective

The Metrics Layer feature is available in Microsoft Fabric service for Power BI within the Metrics menu element next to Scorecards. One starts by creating a metric set in an existing workspace, an operation which creates the actual artifact, to which the individual metrics are added. To create a metric, a user with build permissions can navigate through the semantic models across different workspaces he/she has access to, pick a measure from one of them and elevate it to a metric, copying in the process its measure's definition and description. In this way the metric will always point back to the measure from the semantic model, while the metrics thus created are considered as a related collection and can be shared around accordingly. 

Once a metric is added to the metric set, one can add in edit mode dimensions to it (e.g. Date, Category, Product Id, etc.). One can then further explore a metric's output and add filters (e.g. concentrate on only one product or category) point from which one can slice-and-dice the data as needed.

There is a panel where one can see where the metric has been used (e.g. in reports, scorecards, and other integrations), when was last time refreshed, respectively how many times was used. Thus, one has the most important information in one place, which is great for developers as well as for the users. Probably, other metadata will be added, such as whether an increase in the metric would be favorable or unfavorable (like in Tableau Pulse, see [13]) or maybe levels of criticality, an unit of measure, or maybe its type - simple metric, performance indicator (PI), result indicator (RI), KPI, KRI etc.

Metrics can be persisted to the OneLake by saving their output to a delta table into the lakehouse. As demonstrated in the presentation(s), with just a copy-paste and a small piece of code one can materialize the data into a lakehouse delta table, from where the data can be reused as needed. Hopefully, the process will be further automated. 

One can consume metrics and metrics sets also in Power BI Desktop, where a new menu element called Metric sets was added under the OneLake data hub, which can be used to connect to a metric set from a Semantic model and select the metrics needed for the project. 

Tapping into the available Power BI solutions is done via an integration feature based on Sempy fabric package, a dataframe for storage and propagation of Power BI metadata which is part of the python-based semantic Link in Fabric [11].

Further Thoughts

When dealing with a new feature, a natural idea comes to mind: what challenges does the feature involve, respectively how can it be misused? Given that the metrics layer can be built within a workspace and that it can tap into the existing measures, this means that one can built on the existing infrastructure. However, this can imply restructuring, refactoring, moving, and testing a lot of code in the process, hopefully with minimal implications for the solutions already available. Whether the process is as simple as imagined is another story. As misusage, in extremis, data professionals might start building everything as metrics, though the danger might come when the data is persisted unnecessarily. 

From a data mesh's perspective, a metric set is associated with a domain, though there will be metrics and data common to multiple domains. Moreover, a mini-model has the potential of becoming a data product. Distributing the logic across multiple workspaces and domains can add further challenges, especially in what concerns the synchronization and implemented of requirements in a way that doesn't lead to bottlenecks. But this is a general challenge for the development team(s). 

The feature will probably suffer further changes until is released in public review (probably by September or the end of the year). I subscribe to other data professionals' opinion that the feature was for long needed and that can have an important impact on the solutions built. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

Resources:
[1] Microsoft Fabric Blog (2024) Announcements from the Microsoft Fabric Community Conference (link)
[2] Power BI Tips (2024) Explicit Measures Ep. 236: Metrics Hub, Hot New Feature with Carly Newsome (link)
[3] Power BI Tips (2024) Introducing Fabric Metrics Layer / Power Metrics Hub [with Carly Newsome] (link)
[4] KratosBI (2024) Fabric Fridays: Metrics Layer Conspiracy Theories #40 (link)
[5] Chris Webb's BI Blog (2022) Is Power BI A Semantic Layer? (link)
[6] The Data Stack Show (2022) TDSS 95: How the Metrics Layer Bridges the Gap Between Data & Business with Nick Handel of Transform (link)
[7] Sundeep Teki (2022) The Metric Layer & how it fits into the Modern Data Stack (link)
[8] Nick Handel (2021) A brief history of the metrics store (link)
[9] Aurimas (2022) The Jungle of Metrics Layers and its Invisible Elephant (link)
[10] Benn Stancil (2021) The missing piece of the modern data stack (link)
[11] Microsoft Learn (2024) Sempy fabric Package (link)
[12] Michael Kovalsky (2019) Master Model: Creating Derivative Tabular Models (link)
[13] Christina Obry (2023) The Power of a Metrics Layer - and How Your Organization Can Benefit From It (link) 
[14] KratosBI (2024) Introducing the Metrics Layer in #MicrosoftFabric with Carly Newsome [link]

🗄️Data Management: Master Data Management (Part I: Understanding Integration Challenges) [Answer]

Data Management Series

Answering Piethein Strengholt’s post [1] on Master Data Management’s (MDM) integration challenges, the author of "Data Management at Scale".

Master data can be managed within individual domains though the boundaries must be clearly defined, and some coordination is needed. Attempting to partition the entities based on domains doesn’t always work. The partition needs to be performed at attribute level, though even then might be some exceptions involved (e.g. some Products are only for Finance to use). One can identify then attributes inside of the system to create the boundaries.

MDM is simple if you have the right systems, processes, procedures, roles, and data culture in place. Unfortunately, people make it too complicated – oh, we need a nice shiny system for managing the data before they are entered in ERP or other systems, we need a system for storing and maintaining the metadata, and another system for managing the policies, and the story goes on. The lack of systems is given as reason why people make no progress. Moreover, people will want to integrate the systems, increasing the overall complexity of the ecosystem.

The data should be cleaned in the source systems and assessed against the same. If that's not possible, then you have the wrong system! A set of well-built reports can make data assessment possible. 

The metadata and policies can be maintained in Excel (and stored in SharePoint), SharePoint or a similar system that supports versioning. Also, for other topics can be found pragmatic solutions.

ERP systems allow us to define workflows and enable a master data record to be published only when the information is complete, though there will always be exceptions (e.g., a Purchase Order must be sent today). Such exceptions make people circumvent the MDM systems with all the issues deriving from this.

Adding an MDM system within an architecture tends to increase the complexity of the overall infrastructure and create more bottlenecks. Occasionally, it just replicates the structures existing in the target system(s).

Integrations are supposed to reduce the effort, though in the past 20 years I never saw an integration to work without issues, even in what MDM concerns. One of the main issues is that the solutions just synchronized the data without considering the processual dependencies, and sometimes also the referential dependencies. The time needed for troubleshooting the integrations can easily exceed the time for importing the data manually over an upload mechanism.

To make the integration work the MDM will arrive to duplicate the all the validation available in the target system(s). This can make sense when daily or weekly a considerable volume of master data is created. Native connectors simplify the integrations, especially when it can handle the errors transparently and allow to modify the records manually, though the issues start as soon the target system is extended with more attributes or other structures.

If an organization has an MDM system, then all the master data should come from the MDM. As soon as a bidirectional synchronization is used (and other integrations might require this), Pandora’s box is open. One can define hard rules, though again, there are always exceptions in which manual interference is needed.

Attempting an integration of reference data is not recommended. ERP systems can have hundreds of such entities. Some organizations tend to have a golden system (a copy of production) with all the reference data. It works for some time, until people realize that the solution is expensive and time-consuming.

MDM systems do make sense in certain scenarios, though to get the integrations right can involve a considerable effort and certain assumptions and requirements must be met.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Piethein Strengholt (2023) Understanding Master Data Management’s Integration Challenges (link)

🧭Business Intelligence: Data Products (Part II: The Complexity Challenge)

Business Intelligence Series

Creating data products within a data mesh resumes in "partitioning" a given set of inputs, outputs and transformations to create something that looks like a Lego structure, in which each Lego piece represents a data product. The word partition is improperly used as there can be overlapping in terms of inputs, outputs and transformations, though in an ideal solution the outcome should be close to a partition.

If the complexity of inputs and outputs can be neglected, even if their number could amount to a big number, not the same can be said about the transformations that must be performed in the process. Moreover, the transformations involve reengineering the logic built in the source systems, which is not a trivial task and must involve adequate testing. The transformations are a must and there's no way to avoid them. 

When designing a data warehouse or data mart one of the goals is to keep the redundancy of the transformations and of the intermediary results to a minimum to minimize the unnecessary duplication of code and data. Code duplication becomes usually an issue when the logic needs to be changed, and in business contexts that can happen often enough to create other challenges. Data duplication becomes an issue when they are not in synch, fact derived from code not synchronized or with different refresh rates.

Building the transformations as SQL-based database objects has its advantages. There were many attempts for providing non-SQL operators for the same (in SSIS, Power Query) though the solutions built based on them are difficult to troubleshoot and maintain, the overall complexity increasing with the volume of transformations that must be performed. In data mashes, the complexity increases also with the number of data products involved, especially when there are multiple stakeholders and different goals involved (see the challenges for developing data marts supposed to be domain-specific). 

To growing complexity organizations answer with complexity. On one side the teams of developers, business users and other members of the governance teams who together with the solution create an ecosystem. On the other side, the inherent coordination and organization meetings, managing proposals, the negotiation of scope for data products, their design, testing, etc.  The more complex the whole ecosystem becomes, the higher the chances for systemic errors to occur and multiply, respectively to create unwanted behavior of the parties involved. Ecosystems are challenging to monitor and manage. 

The more complex the architecture, the higher the chances for failure. Even if some organizations might succeed, it doesn't mean that such an endeavor is for everybody - a certain maturity in building data architectures, data-based artefacts and managing projects must exist in the organization. Many organizations fail in addressing basic analytical requirements, why would one think that they are capable of handling an increased complexity? Even if one breaks the complexity of a data warehouse to more manageable units, the complexity is just moved at other levels that are more difficult to manage in ensemble. 

Being able to audit and test each data product individually has its advantages, though when a data product becomes part of an aggregate it can be easily get lost in the bigger picture. Thus, is needed a global observability framework that allows to monitor the performance and health of each data product in aggregate. Besides that, there are needed event brokers and other mechanisms to handle failure, availability, security, etc. 

Data products make sense in certain scenarios, especially when the complexity of architectures is manageable, though attempting to redesign everything from their perspective is like having a hammer in one's hand and treating everything like a nail.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Data Products (Part I: A Lego Exercise)

Business Intelligence Series

One can define a data product as the smallest unit of data-driven architecture that can be independently deployed and managed (aka product quantum) [1]. In other terms one can think of a data product like a box (or Lego piece) which takes data as inputs, performs several transformations on the data from which result several output data (or even data visualizations or a hybrid between data, visualizations and other content). 

At high-level each Data Analytics solution can be regarded as a set of inputs, a set of outputs and the transformations that must be performed on the inputs to generate the outputs. The inputs are the data from the operational systems, while the outputs are analytics data that can be anything from data to KPIs and other metrics. A data mart, data warehouse, lakehouse and data mesh can be abstracted in this way, though different scales apply. 

For creating data products within a data mesh, given a set of inputs, outputs and transformations, the challenge is to find horizontal and vertical partitions within these areas to create something that looks like a Lego structure, in which each piece of Lego represents a data product, while its color represents the membership to a business domain. Each such piece is self-contained and contains a set of transformations, respectively intermediary inputs and outputs. Multiple such pieces can be combined in a linear or hierarchical fashion to transform the initial inputs into the final outputs. 

Data Products with a Data Mesh

Finding such a partition is possible though it involves a considerable effort, especially in designing the whole thing - identifying each Lego piece uniquely. When each department is on its own and develops its own Lego pieces, there's no guarantee that the pieces from the various domains will fit together to built something cohesive, performant, secure or well-structured. Is like building a house from modules, the pieces must fit together. That would be the role of governance (federated computational governance) - to align and coordinate the effort. 

Conversely, there are transformations that need to be replicated for obtaining autonomous data products, and the volume of such overlapping can be considerable high. Consider for example the logic available in reports and how often it needs to be replicated. Alternatively, one can create intermediary data products, when that's feasible. 

It's challenging to define the inputs and outputs for a Lego piece. Now imagine in doing the same for a whole set of such pieces depending on each other! This might work for small pieces of data and entities quite stable in their lifetime (e.g. playlists, artists, songs), but with complex information systems the effort can increase by a few factors. Moreover, the complexity of the structure increases as soon the Lego pieces expand beyond their initial design. It's like the real Lego pieces would grow within the available space but still keep the initial structure - strange constructs may result, which even if they work, change the gravity center of the edifice in other directions. There will be thus limits to grow that can easily lead to duplication of functionality to overcome such challenges.

Each new output or change in the initial input for this magic boxes involves a change of all the intermediary Lego pieces from input to output. Just recollect the last experience of defining the inputs and the outputs for an important complex report, how many iterations and how much effort was involved. This might have been an extreme case, though how realistic is the assumption that with data products everything will go smoother? No matter of the effort involved in design, there will be always changes and further iterations involved.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Zhamak Dehghani (2021) Data Mesh: Delivering Data-Driven Value at Scale (book review) 

🧭Business Intelligence: A Software Engineer's Perspective (Part III: More of a One-Man Show)

Business Intelligence Series 

Probably, in some organizations there are still recounted stories about a hero who knew so much about the business and was technically proficient that he/she was able to provide data-driven answers to most business questions. Unfortunately, the times of solo representations are for long gone - the world moves too fast, there are too many questions looking for an answer, many of them requiring a solution before the problem was actually defined, a whole infrastructure is needed to be able to harness the potential of  technologies and data, the volume of knowledge required grows exponentially, etc. 

One of the approaches of handling the knowledge gap between the initial and required knowledge in solving problems based on data is to build all the required knowledge in one person, either on the business or the technical side. More common is to hire a data analyst and build the knowledge in the respective resource, and the approach has great chances to work until the volume of work exceeds a person's limits. The data analyst is forced to request to have the workload prioritized, which might work in certain occasions, while in others one needs to compromise on quality and/or do overtime, and all the issues deriving from this. 

There are also situations in which the complexity of the problem exceeds a person's ability to handle it, and that's not necessarily a matter of intelligence but of knowhow. Some organizations respond with complexity to complexity, while others are more creative and break the complexity in manageable pieces. In both cases, more resources are needed to cover the knowledge and resource gap. Hiring more data analysts can get the work done though it's not a recipe for success. The more diverse the team, the higher the chances to succeed, though again it's a matter of creativity and of covering the knowledge gaps. Sometimes, it's more productive to use the resources already available in organization, though this can involve other challenges. 

Even if much of the knowledge gets documented, as soon the data analyst leaves the organization a void is created until a similar resource is able to fill it. Organizations can better cope with these challenges if they disseminate the knowledge between data professionals respectively within the business. The more resources are involved the higher the level of retention and higher the chances of reusing the knowledge. However, the more people are involved, the higher the costs, especially the one associated with the waste of effort. 

Organizations can compromise by choosing 1-2 resources from each department to be involved in knowledge dissemination, ideally people with data and technology affinity. They shall become data citizens, people who use  data, data processing and visualization for building solutions that enable their job. Data citizens are expected to act as showmen in their knowledge domain and do their magic whenever such requirements arise.

Having a whole team of data citizens opens new opportunities for organizations, though such resources will need beside domain knowledge and data literacy also technical knowledge. Unfortunately, many people will reach their limitations in this area. Besides the learning effort, understanding what good architecture, design and techniques means is unfortunately not for everybody, and here's where the concept of citizen data analyst or citizen scientist breaks, and this independently of the tools used.

A data citizen's effort works best in data discovery, exploration and visualization scenarios where the rapid creation of prototypes reduces the time from idea to solution. However, the results are personal solutions that need to be validated by a technical person, pieces of the solutions maybe redesigned and moved until enterprise solutions result.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: A Software Engineer's Perspective (Part II: Major Knowledge Gaps)

Business Intelligence Series

Solving a problem requires a certain degree of knowledge in the areas affected by the problem, degree that varies exponentially with problem's complexity. This requirement applies to scientific fields with low allowance for errors, as well as to business scenarios where the allowance for errors is in theory more relaxed. Building a report or any other data artifact is closely connected with problem solving as the data artifacts are supposed to model the whole or parts of what is needed for solving the problem(s) in scope.

In general, creating data artifacts requires: (1) domain knowledge - knowledge of the concepts, processes, systems, data, data structures and data flows as available in the organization; (2) technical knowledge - knowledge about the tools, techniques, processes and methodologies used to produce the artifacts; (3) data literacy - critical thinking, the ability to understand and explore the implications of data, respectively communicating data in context; (4) activity management - managing the activities involved. 

At minimum, creating a report may require only narrower subsets from the areas mentioned above, depending on the complexity of the problem and the tasks involved. Ideally, a single person should be knowledgeable enough to handle all this alone, though that's seldom the case. Commonly, two or more parties are involved, though let's consider the two-parties scenario: on one side is the customer who has (in theory) a deep understanding of the domain, respectively on the other side is the data professional who has (in theory) a deep understanding of the technical aspects. Ideally, both parties should be data literates and have some basic knowledge of the other party's domain. 

To attack a business problem that requires one or more data artifacts both parties need to have a common understanding of the problem to be solved, of the requirements, constraints, assumptions, expectations, risks, and other important aspects associated with it. It's critical for the data professional to acquire the domain knowledge required by the problem, otherwise the solution has high chances to deviate from the expectations. The general issue is that there are multiple interactions that are iterative. Firstly, the interactions for building the needed common ground. Secondly, the interaction between the problem and reality. Thirdly, the interaction between the problem and parties’ mental models und understanding about the problem. 

The outcome of these interactions is that the problem and its requirements go through several iterations in which knowledge from the previous iterations are incorporated successively. With each important piece of knowledge gained, it's important to revise and refine the question(s), respectively the problem. If in each iteration there are also programming and further technical activities involved, the effort and costs resulted in the process can explode, while the timeline expands accordingly. 

There are several heuristics that could be devised to address these challenges: (1) build all the required knowledge in one person, either on the business or the technical side; (2) make sure that the parties have the required knowledge for approaching the problems in scope; (3) make sure that the gaps between reality and parties' mental models is minimal; (4) make sure that the requirements are complete and understood before starting the development; (5) adhere to methodologies that accommodate the necessary iterations and endeavor's particularities; (6) make sure that there's a halt condition for regularly reviewing the progress, respectively halting the work; (7) build an organizational culture to support all this. 

The list is open, and the heuristics aren't exclusive, so in theory any combination of them can be considered. Ideally, an organization should reflect all these heuristics in one form or another. The higher the coverage, the more mature the organization is. The question is how organizations with a suboptimal setup can change the status quo?

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: A One-Man Show (Part VI: The Lakehouse Perspective)

Business Intelligence Suite

Continuing the ideas on Christopher Laubenthal's article "Why one person can't do everything in the data space" [1] and why his analogy between a college's functional structure and the core data roles is poorly chosen. In the last post I mentioned as a first argument that the two constructions have different foundations.

Secondly, it's a matter of construction, namely the steps used to arrive from one state to another. Indeed, there's somebody who builds the data warehouse (DWH), somebody who builds the ETL/ELT pipelines for moving the data from the sources to the DWH, somebody who builds the sematic data model that includes business related logic, respectively people who tap into the data for reporting, data visualizations, data science projects, and whatever is still needed in the organization. On top of this, there should be somebody who manages the DWH. I haven't associated any role to them because one of the core roles can be responsible for more than one step. 

In the case of a lakehouse, it is the data engineer who moves the data from the various data sources to the data lake if that doesn't happen already by design or configuration. As per my understanding the data engineers are the ones who design and build the new lakehouse, move transform and manage the data as required. The Data Analysts, Data Scientist and maybe some Information Designers can tap then into the data. However, the DWH and the lakehouse(s) are technologies that facilitate their work. They can still do their work also if the same data are available by other means.

In what concerns the dorm analogy, the verbs were chosen to match the way data warehouses (DWH) or lakehouses are built, though the congruence of the steps is questionable. One could have compared the number of students with the numbers of data entities, but not with the data themselves. Usually, students move by themselves and occupy the places. The story tellers, the assistants and researchers are independent on whether the students are hosted in the dorm or not. Therefore, the analogy seems to be a bit forced. 

Frankly, I covered all the steps except the ones related to Data Science by myself for both described scenarios. It helped that I knew the data from the data sources and the transformations rules I had to apply, respectively the techniques needed for moving and transforming the data, and the volume of data entities was manageable somehow. Conversely, 1-2 more resources in the area of data analysis and visualizations could have helped to bring more value to the business. 

This opens the challenge of scale and it has do to with systems engineering and how the number of components and the interactions between them increase systems' complexity and the demand for managing the respective components. In the simplest linear models, for each multiplier of a certain number of components of the same type from the organization, the number of resources managing the respective layer matches to some degree the multiplier. E.g. if a data engineer can handle x data entities in a unit of time, then for hand n*x components are more likely at least n data engineers required. However, the output of n components is only a fraction of the n*x given the dependencies existing between components and other constraints.

An optimization problem resumes in finding out what data roles to chose to cover an organization's needs. A one man show can be the best solution for small organizations, though unless there's a good division of labor, bringing a second person will make the throughput slower until will become faster.

Previous Post <<|||>> Next Post

Resources:
[1] Christopher Laubenthal (2024) "Why One Person Can’t Do Everything In Data" (link)

🧭Business Intelligence: A One-Man Show (Part II: In the Cusps of Complexity)

Business Intelligence Series

I watched today on YouTube Power BI Tips' "One Person to Do Everything" episode I missed last week. The main topic is based on Christopher Laubenthal's article "Why one person can't do everything in the data space". Author's arguments are based on an analogy between the various data areas and a college's functional structure. Reading the article, I must say that it takes a poorly chosen analogy to mess messy things more!

One of the most confusing things is that there are so many data-related context-dependent roles with considerable overlapping, that it becomes more and more difficult to understand what they cover. The author considers the roles of Data Architect, Data Engineer, Database Administrator (DBA), Data Analyst, Information Designer and Data Scientist. However, to the every aspect of a data architecture there are also developers on the database (backend) and reporting side (front-end). Conversely, there are other data professionals on the management side for the various knowledge areas of Data Management: Data Governance, Data Strategy, Data Security, Data Operations, etc. There are also roles at the border between the business and the technical side like Data Stewards, Business Analysts, Data Citizen, etc. 

There are two main aspects here. According to the historical perspective, many of these roles appeared when a new set of requirements or a new layer appeared in the architecture. Firstly, it was maybe the DBA, who was supposed to primarily administer the database. Being a keeper of the data and having some knowledge of the data entities, it was easy for him/her to export data for the various reporting needs. In time such activities were taken over by a second category of data professionals. Then the data were moved to Decision Support Systems and later to Data Warehouses and Data Lakes/Lakehoses, this evolution requiring other professionals to address the challenges of each layer. Every activity performed on the data requires a certain type of knowledge that can result in the end in a new denomination. 

The second perspective results from the management of data and the knowledge areas associated with it. If in small organizations with one or two systems in place one doesn't need to talk about Data Operations, in big organizations, where a data center or something similar is maybe in place, Data Operations can easily become a topic on its own, a management structure needing to be in place for its "effective and efficient" management. And the same can happen in the other knowledge areas and their interaction with the business. It's an inherent tendency of answering to complexity with complexity, which on the long term can be in the detriment of any business. In extremis, organizations tend to have a whole team in each area, which can further increase the overall complexity by a small to not that small magnitude. 

Fortunately, one of the benefits of technological advancement is that much of the complexity can be moved somewhere else, and these are the areas where the cloud brings the most advantages. Parts or all architecture can be deployed into the cloud, being managed by cloud providers and third-parties on an on-demand basis at stable costs. Moreover, with the increasing maturity and integration of the various layers, the impact of the various roles in the overall picture is reduced considerably as areas like governance, security or operations are built-in as services, requiring thus less resources. 

With Microsoft Fabric, all the data needed for reporting becomes in theory easily available in the OneLake. Unfortunately, there is another type of complexity that is dumped on other professionals' shoulders and these aspects need to be furthered considered. 

Previous Post <<|||>> Next Post

Resources:
[1] Christopher Laubenthal (2024) "Why One Person Can’t Do Everything In Data" (link)
[2] Power BI tips (2024) Ep.292: One Person to Do Everything (link)

Data Science: Back to the Future I (About Beginnings)

Data Science Series

I've attended again, after several years, a webcast on performance improvement in SQL Server with Claudio Silva, “Writing T-SQL code for the engine, not for you”. The session was great and I really enjoyed it! I recommend it to any data(base) professional, even if some of the scenarios presented should be known already.

It's strange to see the same topics from 20-25 years ago reappearing over and over again despite the advancements made in the area of database engines. Each version of SQL Server brought something new in what concerns the performance, though without some good experience and understanding of the basic optimization and troubleshooting techniques there's little overall improvement for the average data professional in terms of writing and tuning queries!

Especially with the boom of Data Science topics, the volume of material on SQL increased considerably and many discover how easy is to write queries, even if the start might be challenging for some. Writing a query is easy indeed, though writing a performant query requires besides the language itself also some knowledge about the database engine and the various techniques used for troubleshooting and optimization. It's not about knowing in advance what the engine will do - the engine will often surprise you - but about knowing what techniques work, in what cases, which are their advantages and disadvantages, respectively on how they might impact the processing.

Making a parable with writing literature, it's not enough to speak a language; one needs more for becoming a writer, and there are so many levels of mastery! However, in database world even if creativity is welcomed, its role is considerable diminished by the constraints existing in the database engine, the problems to be solved, the time and the resources available. More important, one needs to understand some of the rules and know how to use the building blocks to solve problems and build reliable solutions.

The learning process for newbies focuses mainly on the language itself, while the exposure to complexity is kept to a minimum. For some learners the problems start when writing queries based on multiple tables -  what joins to use, in what order, how to structure the queries, what database objects to use for encapsulating the code, etc. Even if there are some guidelines and best practices, the learner must walk the path and experiment alone or in an organized setup.

In university courses the focus is on operators algebras, algorithms, on general database technologies and architectures without much hand on experience. All is too theoretical and abstract, which is acceptable for research purposes,  but not for the contact with the real world out there! Probably some labs offer exposure to real life scenarios, though what to cover first in the few hours scheduled for them?

This was the state of art when I started to learn SQL a quarter century ago, and besides the current tendency of cutting corners, the increased confidence from doing some tests, and the eagerness of shouting one’s shaking knowledge and more or less orthodox ideas on the various social networks, nothing seems to have changed! Something did change – the increased complexity of the problems to solve, and, considering the recent technological advances, one can afford now an AI learn buddy to write some code for us based on the information provided in the prompt.

This opens opportunities for learning and growth. AI can be used in the learning process by providing additional curricula for learners to dive deeper in some topics. Moreover, it can help us in time to address the challenges of the ever-increase complexity of the problems.

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part VIII: Insights - The Complexity Perspective)

Business Intelligence Series

Scientists attempt to discover laws and principles, and for this they conduct experiments, build theories and models rooted in the data they collect. In the business setup, data professionals analyze the data for identifying patterns, trends, outliers or anything else that can lead to new information or knowledge. On one side scientists chose the boundaries of the systems they study, while for data professionals even if the systems are usually given, they can make similar choices. 

In theory, scientists are more flexible in what data they collect, though they might have constraints imposed by the boundaries of their experiments and the tools they use. For data professionals most of the data they need is already there, in the systems the business uses, though the constraints reside in the intrinsic and extrinsic quality of the data, whether the data are fit for the purpose. Both parties need to work around limitations, or attempt to improve the experiments, respectively the systems. 

Even if the data might have different characteristics, this doesn't mean that the methods applied by data professionals can't be used by scientists and vice-versa. The closer data professionals move from Data Analytics to Data Science, the higher the overlap between the business and scientific setup. 

Conversely, the problems data professionals meet have different characteristics. Scientists outlook is directed mainly at the phenomena and processes occurring in nature and society, where randomness, emergence and chaos seem to feel at home. Business processes deal more with predefined controlled structures, cyclicity, higher dependency between processes, feedback and delays. Even if the problems may seem to be different, they can be modeled with systems dynamics. 

Returning to data visualization and the problem of insight, there are multiple questions. Can we use simple designs or characterizations to find the answer to complex problems? Which must be the characteristics of a piece of information or knowledge to generate insight? How can a simple visualization generate an insight moment? 

Appealing to complexity theory, there are several general approaches in handling complexity. One approach resides in answering complexity with complexity. This means building complex data visualizations that attempt to model problem's complexity. For example, this could be done by building a complex model that reflects the problem studied, and build a set of complex visualizations that reflect the different important facets. Many data professionals advise against this approach as it goes against the simplicity principle. On the other hand, starting with something complex and removing the nonessential can prove to be an approachable strategy, even if it involves more effort. 

Another approach resides in reducing the complexity of the problem either by relaxing the constraints, or by breaking the problem into simple problems and addressing each one of them with visualizations. Relaxing the constraints allow studying upon case a more general problem or a linearization of the initial problem. Breaking down the problem into problems that can be easier solved, can help to better understand the general problem though we might lose the sight of emergence and other behavior that characterize complex systems.

Providing simple visualizations to complex problems implies a good understanding of the problem, its solution(s) and the overall context, which frankly is harder to achieve the more complex a problem is. For its understanding a problem requires a minimum of knowledge that needs to be reflected in the visualization(s). Even if some important aspects are assumed as known, they still need to be confirmed by the visualizations, otherwise any deviation from assumptions can lead to a new problem. Therefore, its questionable that simple visualizations can address the complexity of the problems in a general manner. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post 

🧮ERP: Implementations (Part III: Simplifying the Implementation Project)

 

ERP implementations are complex projects and a way to manage their complexity is to attempt reducing their complexity (instead of answering to complexity by complexity). A project implementation’s methodology is probably the most important area that allows project’s simplification, though none of the available methodologies seems to work well with such projects.

The point that differentiates the various methodologies is solution’s conceptualization. In general, the expectation is to have a set of functional design documents (FDDs) that describe how the system operates and that can be used for programming the customizations, if any. The customer must review and sign-off the FDDs before the setup is done, respectively the development starts. Moreover, given the dependencies between documents, they often need to be signed off together.

Unfortunately, FDDs reflect the degree of understanding of the target system and business requirements, gaps that can prove to be a challenge for the parties involved, requiring many iterations until they are brought to the expected quality level. The higher the accuracy considered; the more iterations are needed. FDDs tend to consume a considerable percent of the available financial resources, in extremis the whole budget being exhausted just for 'printed paper'. Moreover, the key users see late in the project the working functionality.

In agile methodologies, FDDs are replaced by user stories, and, if still needed, can be written as part of the sprints or later. Unfortunately, agile methodologies have their own challenges and constraints in ERP implementations. As functionality is explored, understood, and negotiated with the customer during the implementation, it’s seldom possible to provide a realistic cost estimation upfront. Given that most ERP implementations exceed their budget, starting a journey without having an idea how much the project costs seems to be a prohibitive approach for many customers. Moreover, the negotiations have the character of Change Requests, which can easily become a bottleneck for the project.

On the other hand, agile methodologies involve the customer earlier and the development could start earlier as well. The earlier the customer is involved, the earlier the key users understand how the system works, and thus they can be more efficient in performing their activities, respectively in identifying the gaps in understanding, trapping functional issues early in the process, at least in theory. Some projects address this need by having the key user trained, though the training environment usually has a different setup and data than needed by the customer. Wouldn’t be a good idea to have the key users trained in an environment that reflects to a higher or lower degree the customer’s data and setup requirements?

In theory the setup for such an environment can be done upfront based on one standard configuration frequently met in customer’s industry. With this the functional consultants can start to configure the system together with the key users exploring the data and setup existing in the legacy system(s). This would allow increasing on both sides the depth of understanding and has the potential of speeding up the implementation. This can be started in the early phases, during the time in which the requirements are gathered. Ideally, a basic setup can exist already when the requirements are signed off. It’s true that this approach would mean a higher investment upfront, though the impact could be considerable. Excepting Data Migration and customizations the customer already has a good basis for Go-Live.

Of course, there can be further challenges, though the customer can make thus sure that the financial resources are well spent – having a usable system, respectively a good system understanding outweighs by far the extreme alternative of having high-quality unimplemented FDDs!

Previous <<||>> Next

🧮ERP: Implementations (Part II: It’s a Matter of Complexity)

 

There are many factors to blame for implementation process’ inefficiency, however many of the factors can be associated with the complexity of the project itself, respectively of the application(s) involved. The problem of complexity can be addressed by either answering to complexity with complexity, building a complex team to handle the tasks, which is seldom feasible even if many organizations do it, respectively by simplifying the implementation process and/or the application.

In what concerns the project, the complexity starts with requirement’s elicitation, the iterative transformations they suffer until the final functional requirements document is finalized, their evaluation and mapping to features, respectively gap’s identification. It’s a complex task because it involves understanding the business as well the functionality available in the target system(s). Then comes the effort estimation, which, as the name suggests, is just a guess based on available historical numbers and/or experts’ opinion. High-level requirements are easier to manage than low-level requirements, however they allow for more gaps in understanding. The more detailed the specifications, the more they should help in the estimation process, though that’s the theory. A considerable number of factors can impact the process.

Even if there are standard activities in the implementation process, the number of resources involved from the customer as well from the partner(s) side makes the whole planning process a nightmare for any Project Manager, no matter how experienced he/she is.

Ideally, each member of the team should behave like a trooper, knowing by instinct when and what needs to be done, which are the expectations, etc. This might be close to expectation on the partner side as the resources more likely participated in similar projects, though there’s always a mix between levels of expertise, resources migrating between projects. Unfortunately, that’s seldom (never) the case on the customer side as the gap between reality and expectation is considerable.

Each team member requires a minimum of information/knowledge so he/she can perform the activities assigned. Moreover, the volume of coordination and cooperation is considerably higher than in other projects, complexity that increases with organization’s size and is inverse proportional with organization’s maturity in managing projects and implementation-related activities. There’s thus a minimum of initial communication needed, and furthermore communication needs to occur between the parties involved. Moreover, the higher the lack of cohesion between the parties, the higher the need for communication and this applies especially when multiple organizations are involved in the project.

The triple constraint of Project Management between scope, cost, and time, respectively on quality has an important impact on the project. Resources need to be available when the project needs them and, especially on the partner side, only when they are needed. The implementation project to be feasible for the partner, its resources must work on several projects in parallel or the timing must be perfect, that no waiting times are involved, respectively the effort is concentrated only when needed. Such precision is possible maybe at project’s beginning, though the further the project evolves, the more challenging becomes the coordination of resources. Similar considerations apply to the customer as well.

Thus, a more realistic expectation is to have resources available only at certain points in time, and the resources should be capable of juggling between projects, respectively between project and other activities. Prioritizing is a must, and sometimes the operations or other projects have higher priority. When the time is not available, resources need to compromise by reducing the level of quality.

On the other side, it would be great if most of the effort could be concentrated at the beginning of the project, the later interactions being minimal.  

Previous <<||>> Next

🌡Performance Management: Mastery (Part II: First Time Right - The Aim toward Operational Excellence)

 

Performance Management Series

Rooted in Six Sigma methodology as a step toward operational excellence, First Time Right (FTR) implies that any procedure is performed in the right manner the first time and every time. It equates to minimizing the waste in its various forms (inventory, motion, overprocessing, overproduction, waiting, transportation, defects). Like many quality concepts from the manufacturing industry, the concept was transported in the software development process as principle, process, goal and/or metric. Thus, it became part of Software Engineering, Project Management, Data Science, and any other similar endeavors whose outcome results in software products. 

Besides the quality aspect, FTR is rooted also in the economic imperative – the need to achieve something in the minimum amount of time with the minimum of effort. It’s about being efficient in delivering a product or achieving a given target. It can be associated with continuous improvement, learning and mastery, the aim being to encompass FTR as part of organization’s culture. 

Even if not explicitly declared, FTR lurks in each task planned. It seems that it became common practice to plan with the FTR in mind, however between this theoretical aim and practice there’s as usual an important gap. Unfortunately, planners, managers and even tasks' performers often forget that mistakes are made, that several iterations are needed to get the job done. It starts with the communication between people in clarifying the requirements and ends with the formal sign off. All the deviations from the FTR add up in the deviations between expected and actual effort, though probably more important are the deviations from the plan and all the consequences deriving from it. Especially in complex projects this adds up into a spiral of issues that can easily reinforce themselves. 

Many of the jobs that imply creativity, innovation, research or exploration require at least several iterations to get the job done and this is independent of participants’ professionalism and experience. Moreover, the more quality one needs, the higher the effort, the 80/20 being sometimes a good approximation of the effort needed. In extremis, aiming for perfection instead of excellence can make certain tasks a never-ending story. 

Achieving FTR requires practice - the more novelty, the higher the complexity, the communication or the synchronization needs, the more practice is needed. It starts with the individual to master the individual tasks and ends with the team, where communication, synchronization and other aspects need to be considered. The practice is usually achieved on hands-on work as part of the daily duties, project work, and so on. Unfortunately, it’s based primarily on individual experience, and seldom groomed in advance, as preparation for future tasks. That’s why sometimes when efficiency is needed in performing critical complex tasks, one also needs to consider the learning curve in achieving the required quality. 

Of course, many organizations demand from job applicants experience and, when possible, they hire people with experience, however the diversity, complexity and changing nature of tasks require further practice. This aspect is somehow recognized in the implementation in organizations of the various forms of DevOps, though how many organizations adopt it and enforce it on a regular basis? Moreover, a major requirement of nowadays businesses is to be agile, and besides the mere application of methodologies, being agile means to have also a FTR mindset. 

FTR starts with the wish for mastery at individual and team level and, with the right management attention, by allocating time for learning, self-development in the important areas, providing relevant feedback and building an infrastructure for knowledge sharing and harnessing, FTR can become part of organization’s culture. It’s up to each of us to do it!