#️⃣Software Engineering: Mea Culpa (Part VIII: A Look Beyond)

Software Engineering Series

With AI on the verge, blogging and bloggers can easily become obsolete. Why bother navigating through the many blogs to get a broader perspective when the same can be obtained with AI? Just type in a prompt of the type "write a blogpost of 600 words on the importance of AI in society" and Copilot or any other similar AI agent will provide you an answer that may look much better than the first draft of most of the bloggers out there! It doesn't matter whether the text follows a well-articulated idea, a personal perspective or something creative! One gets an acceptable answer with a minimum of effort and that's what matters for many.

The results tend to increase in complexity the more models are assembled together, respectively the more uncontrolled are the experiments. Moreover, solutions that tend to work aren't necessarily optimal. Machines can't offer instant enlightenment or anything close to it. Though they have an incomparable processing power of retrieval, association, aggregation, segregation and/or iteration, which coupled with the vast amount of data, information and knowledge can generate anything in just a matter of seconds. Probably, the only area in which humans can compete with machines is creativity and wisdom, though how many will be able to leverage these at scale? Probably, machines have some characteristics that can be associated with these intrinsic human characteristics, though usually more likely the brute computational power will prevail.

At Microsoft Build, Satya Nadella mentioned that foundry encompasses already more than 1900 supported models. In theory, one can still evaluate and test such models adequately. What will happen when the scale increases with a few orders of magnitude? What will happen when for each person there are one or more personalized AI models? AI can help in many areas by generating and evaluating rapidly many plausible alternatives, though as soon the models deal with some kind of processing randomization, the chances for errors increase exponentially (at least in theory).

It's enough for one or more hallucinations or other unexpected behavior to lead to more unexpected behavior. No matter how well a model was tested, as long as there's no stable predictable mathematical model behind it, the chances for something to go wrong increase with the number of inputs, parameters, uses, or changes of context the model deals with. Unfortunately, all these aspects are seldom documented. It's not like using a formula and you know that given a set of inputs and operations, the result is the same. The evolving nature of such models makes them unpredictable in the long term. Therefore, there must always be a way to observe the changes occurring in models.

One of the important questions is how many errors can we afford in such models? How long it takes until errors impact each other to create effects comparable with a tornado. And what if the tornado increases in magnitude to the degree that it wrecks everything that crosses its path? What if multiple tornadoes join forces? How many tornadoes can destroy a field, a country or a continent? How many or big must be the tornadoes to trigger a warning?

Science-Fiction authors love to create apocalyptic scenarios, and all happens in just a few steps, respectively chapters. In nature, usually it takes many orders of magnitude to generate unpredictable behavior. But, as nature often reveals, unpredictable behavior does happen, probably more often than we expect and wish for. The more we are poking the bear, the higher the chances for something unexpected to happen! Do we really want this? What will be the price we must pay for progress?

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part XXXI: 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

🧮ERP: Implementations (Part XIII: On Project Management)

ERP Implementations Series

Given its intrinsic complexity and extended implications, an ERP implementation can be considered as the real test of endurance for a Project Manager, respectively the team managed. Such projects typically deal with multiple internal and external parties with various interests in the outcomes of the project. Moreover, such projects involve multiple technologies, systems, and even methodologies. But, more importantly, such projects tend to have specific characteristics associated with their mass, being challenging to manage within the predefined constraints: time, scope, costs and quality.

From a Project Manager’s perspective what counts is only the current project. From a PMO perspective, one project, independent of its type, must be put within the broader perspective, while looking at the synergies and other important aspects that can help the organization. Unfortunately, for many organizations all begins and ends with the implementation, and this independently of the outcomes of the project. Often failure lurks in the background and usually there can be small differences that in the long term have a considerable impact. ERP implementations are more than other projects sensitive on the initial conditions – the premises under which the project starts and progresses. 

One way of coping with this inherent complexity is to split projects into several phases considered as projects or subprojects in their own boundaries. This allows organizations to narrow the focus and split the overall work into more manageable pieces, reducing to some degree the risks while learning in the process about organization’s capabilities in addressing the various aspects. Conversely, the phases are not necessarily sequential but often must overlap to better manage the resources and minimize waste. 

Given that an implementation project can take years, it’s normal for people to come and go, some taking over work from colleagues, with or without knowledge transfer. The knowledge is available further on, as long as the resources don’t leave the organization, though knowledge transfer can’t be taken for granted. It’s also normal for resources to suddenly not be available or disappear, increasing the burden that needs to be shifted on others’ shoulders. There’s seldom a project without such events and one needs to make the best of each situation, even if several tries and iterations are needed in the process.

Somebody needs to manage all this, and the weight of the whole project falls on a PM’s shoulders. Managing by exception and other management principles break under the weight of implementation projects and often it’s challenging to make progress without addressing this. Fortunately, PMs can shift the burden on Key Users and other parties involved in the project. Splitting a project in subprojects can help set boundaries even if more management could occasionally be involved. Also having clear responsibilities and resources who can take over the burdens when needed can be a sign of maturity of the teams, respectively the organization. 

Teams in Project Management are often compared with teams in sports, though the metaphor is partially right when each party has a ball to play with, while some of the players or even teams prefer to play alone at their own pace. It takes time to build effective teams that play well together, and the team spirit or other similar concepts can't fill all the gaps existing in organizations! Training in team sports has certain characteristics that must be mirrored in organizations to allow for teams to improve. Various parties expect from the PM to be the binder and troubleshooter of something that should have been part of an organization’s DNA! Bringing external players to do the heavy lifting may sometimes work, though who’ll do the lifting after the respective resources are gone? 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧮ERP: Implementations (Part XII: The Process Perspective)

ERP Implementations Series

Technology can have a tremendous potential impact on organizations, helping them achieve their strategic goals and objectives, however it takes more than an implementation of one or more technologies to leverage that potential! This applies to ERP and other technology implementations altogether, but the role of technology is more important in the latter through its transformative role. ERP implementations can be the foundation on which the whole future of the organization is built upon, and it’s ideal to have a broader strategy that looks at all the facets of an organization pre-, during and postimplementation. 

One of the most important assets an organization has is its processes, organization’s success depending on the degree the processes are used to leverage the various strategies. Many customers want their business processes to be implemented on the new platform and that's the point where many projects go in the wrong direction! There are probably areas where this approach makes sense, though organizations need to look also at the alternatives available in the new ecosystem, identify and prioritize the not existing features accordingly. There will be also extreme cases in which one or a mix of systems will be considered as not feasible, and this is an alternative that should be considered during such evaluations! 

An ERP system allows organizations to implement their key value-creation processes by providing a technological skeleton with a set of configurations and features that can be used to address a wide set of requirements. Such a framework is an enabler - makes things possible - though the potential is not reached automatically, and this is one of the many false assumptions associated with such projects. Customers choose such a system and expect magic to happen! Many of the false perceptions are strengthened by implementers or the other parties involved in the projects. As in other IT areas, there are many misconceptions that pervade. 

An ERP provides thus a basis on which an organization can implement its processes. Doing an ERP implementation without process redesign is seldom possible, even if many organizations want to avoid it at all costs. Even if organization’s processes are highly standardized, expecting a system to model them by design is utopian, given that ERP system tends to target the most important aspects identified across industries. And thus, customizations come into play, some of them done without looking for alternatives already existing in the intrinsic or extended range of solutions available in an ERP’s ecosystem. 

One of the most important dangers is when an organization’s processes are so complex that their replication in the new environment creates more issues that the implementation can solve. At least in the first phases of the implementation, organizations must learn to compromise and focus on the critical aspects without which the organization can’t do its business. Moreover, the costs of implementations tend to increase exponentially, when multiple complex requirements are added to address the gaps.  Organizations should always look at alternatives – integrations with third party systems tend to be more cost-effective than rebuilding the respective functionality from scratch! 

It's also true that some processes are too complex to be implemented, though the solution resides usually in the middle. Each customization adds another level of complexity, and a whole range of risk many customers take. Conversely, there’s no blueprint that works for everybody. Organizations must thus compromise and that’s probably one of the most important aspects they should be aware of! However, also compromises must be made in the right places, while evaluating alternatives and the possible outcomes. It’s important to be aware of the full extent of the implications for their decisions. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧮ERP: Implementations (Part XI: Tales from the Crypt)

ERP Implementations Series

One can seldom meet more frighteningly strange stories than the ones told by people who worked in ERP implementations. Such projects attempt to model an organization’s main functions and processes, independently on whether the focus is on production, finance, supply chain, services, projects or human resources. Because they tend to touch all important aspects of a business, such projects become so complex and political that they are often challenging to manage and occasionally are predestined to failure by design.

For the ones who never participated in an ERP implementation, imagine an average project and the number of challenges associated with it, and multiply it by 10 or a similar number that reflects the increase in complexity with the translation to broader scales. The jump in complexity can be compared with the jump from putting together a bed after a scheme to building a whole house using the same level of detail. The scale can further increase by moving from a house to a whole building or a complex of residential houses. Even if that’s technically achievable, a further challenge is how to build all this in a short amount of time, with minimal costs and acceptable quality levels.

With the increase of scale, imagine the amount of planning and coordination that needs to be achieved to avoid any delays. Even if many plan with the "first-time right" objective in mind, inherent issues are often unavoidable, and an organization’s agility can be measured on how robustly it can handle the foreseeable and unforeseeable challenges altogether. Of course, there are many approaches that allow one to minimize, defer or share the risks, or even opportunities, though there’s usually an important gap between one’s planning and reality!

This doesn’t mean that such projects are unmanageable! Everything can be managed to some level of detail and within some tolerance margins, however many organizations are tempted to answer complexity with complexity, and that’s seldom the right approach! Ideally, complexity should be broken down to manageable parts, though that’s challenging to do when one doesn’t know what is being done. That’s why many organizations search for partners with which to share the risks and success, though that works if the customer, and its partners can stir the same ship toward common destinations, at least for the main itinerary if not for the whole duration of the trip.  

Unfortunately, as happens in partnerships that diverge toward distinct goals, the misalignment and other similar factors resulting from this divergence can lead to further challenges that increase the complexity of ERP implementations even more. Ideally, a partner should behave like the mechanics at a pitstop, though that’s utopic especially when they must be always available and this for the whole duration of the project. So, all parties need to compromise somehow, and, even if there are general recipes that can be used, it’s challenging to make everybody happy!

Often in an ERP implementation is defined from the beginning whose needs are the most important, and from there one can build a whole hierarchy of scenarios, models and analyses that should show the right path(s). There’s a lot of knowledge that can be carried out between projects, respectively, between the different phases of a project, though there will always be surprises and one should be prepared for them! Same as the captain must occasionally change the course to avoid or fight storms or other hazards, so must the corresponding structure act when this is the case! Occasionally, each team member may be in the position to act like a captain and raise to expectations, though project designs must allow for this!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

#️⃣Software Engineering: Programming (Part XVII: More Thoughts on AI)

Software Engineering Series

I've been playing with AI-based prompting in Microsoft 365 and Edge Copilot for SQL programming tasks and even for simple requests I got wrong or suboptimal solutions. Some of the solutions weren’t wrong by far, though it was enough for the solution to not work at all or give curious answers. Some solutions were even more complex than needed, which made their troubleshooting more challenging, to the degree that was easier to rewrite the code by myself. Imagine when such wrong solutions and lines of reasoning propagate uncontrolled within broader chains of reasoning! 

Some of the answers we get from AI can be validated step by step, and the logic can be changed accordingly, though this provides no guarantee that the answers won't change as new data, information, knowledge is included in the models, or the model changes, directly or indirectly. In Software Development, there’s a minimum set of tests that can and should be performed to assure that the input generated matches the expectations, however in AI-based solutions there’s no guarantee that what worked before will continue to work.

Moreover, small errors can propagate in a chain-effect creating curious wrong solutions. AI acts and probably will continue to act as a Pandora's box. So, how much can we rely on AI, especially when the complexity of the problems and their ever-changing nature is confronted with a model highly sensitive to the initial or intermediary conditions? 

Some of the answers may make sense, and probably also the answers can be better to some degree than the decisions made by experts, though how far do we want to go? Who is ready to let his own life blindly driven by the answers provided by an AI machine just because it can handle certain facts better than us? Moreover, the human brain is wired to cope with uncertainty, morality and other important aspects that can enhance the quality of the decisions, even if the decisions aren't by far perfect

It’s important to understand the sensitivity of AI models and outputs to the initial and even intermediate conditions on which such models are based, respectively what is used in their reasoning and how slight changes can result in unexpected effects. Networks, independently whether they are or not AI-based, lead to behavior that can be explainable to some degree as long full transparency of the model and outcomes of the many iterations is provided. When AI models behave like black boxes there’s no guarantee of the outcomes, respectively transparence on the jumps made from one state of the network to the other, and surprises can appear more often than we expect or are prepared to accept. 

Some of the successes rooted in AI-based reasoning might happen just because in similar contexts people are not ready to trust their reasoning or take a leap of faith. AI tends to replace all these aspects that are part of human psychology, logic and whatever is part of the overall process. The eventual successes are thus not an immediate effect of the AI capabilities, but just that we took a shortcut. Unfortunately, this can act like a sharp blade with two edges. 

I want to believe that AI is the solution to humanity's problems, and probably there are many areas of applicability, though letting AI control our lives and the over-dependence on AI can on long term cause more problems than AI and out society can solve. The idea of AI acting as a Copilot that can be used to extrapolate beyond our capabilities is probably not wrong, though one should keep the risks and various outcomes in sight!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part XXIX: 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 XXVIII: 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

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part XXVI: 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 XXV: 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

🧭Business Intelligence: Perspectives (Part XXII: Breaking Queries' Complexity)

Business Intelligence Series

Independently whether standalone or encapsulated in database objects, the queries written can become complex in time, respectively difficult to comprehend and maintain. One can reduce the cognitive load by identifying the aspects that enable one’s intuition - order, similarity and origin being probably the most important aspects that help coping with the inherent complexity. 

One should start with the table having the lowest level of detail, usually a transaction table that forms the backbone of a certain feature. For example, for Purchase Orders this could be upon case the distribution or line level. If Invoices are added to the logic, and there could be multiple invoice line for a record from the former logic, then this becomes the new level of detail. Further on, if General Ledger lines are added, more likely this becomes the lowest level of detail, and so on.

This approach allows to keep a consistent way of building the queries while enabling to validate the record count, making sure that no duplicates are added to the logic. Conversely, one can start also from the table with the lowest level of details, and add tables successively based on their level of detail, though the database engine may generate upon case a suboptimal plan. In addition, checking the cardinality may involve writing a second query. 

One should try to keep the tables belonging to the same entity together, when possible (e.g. Purchase Order vs. Vendor information). This approach allows to reduce the volume of work required to manage, review, test and understand the query later. If the blocks are too big, then occasionally it makes sense to bring pieces of logic into CTEs (Common Table Expressions), or much better into views that allow to better encapsulate and partition the logic.

CTEs allow to split the logic into logical steps, allowing occasionally to troubleshoot the logic on pieces though one should keep a balance between maintainability and detail. In extremis, people may create unnecessarily an additional CTE for each join. The longer and the more fragmented a query, the more difficult it becomes to troubleshoot and even understand. Readability can be better achieved though indentation, by keeping things together that belong together, respectively partitioning the logic in logical blocks that derive from the model. 

Keeping things together should be applied also to the other elements. For example, the join constraints should be limited only to the fields participating in the join (and, if possible, all the other constraints should be brought in the WHERE clause). Bringing the join constraints in the WHERE clause, an approach used in the past, decreases query readability no matter how well the WHERE clause is structured, and occasionally can lead to constraints’ duplication or worse, to missing pieces of logic. 

The order of the attributes should follow a logic that makes sense. One approach is to start from the tables with lowest cardinality that identify entities uniquely and move to the attributes that have a higher level of detail. However, not all attributes are equally important, and thus one might have to compromise and create multiple groups of data coming from different levels. 

One should keep in mind that the more random the order of the attributes is, the more difficult it becomes to validate the data as one needs to jump multiple times either in the query or in the mask. Ideally one should find a balance between the two perspectives. Having an intuitive logic of how the attributes are listed increases queries’ readability, maintainability and troubleshooting. The more random attributes’ listing, the higher the effort for the same. 

Previous Post  <<||>>   Next Post

🗄️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) 🆕

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]

Resources:

[R1] Microsoft Learn (2025) Fabric: What's new in Microsoft Fabric? [link]