🧮ERP: Implementations (Part XV: An Ecosystemic View)

ERP Implementations Series

In organizations, the network of interconnected systems, technologies, applications, users and all what resides around them, physically or logically, through their direct or indirect interactions form an ecosystem governed by common goals, principles, values, policies, processes and resources. An ERP system becomes thus part of the ecosystem and, given its importance, probably becomes the centerpiece of the respective structure, having the force to shift towards it all the flows existing in organizations, respectively nourishing its satellite systems, enabling them to create more value.

Ecology’s components should allow for growth, regeneration, adaptation, flow, interaction and diversity, respectively creating value for the organizations. The more the flow of information, data, products, and money is unrestricted and sustained by the overall architecture, the more beneficial they become. At least, this is the theoretical basis on which such architectures are built upon. Of course, all this doesn’t happen by itself, but must be sustained and nourished adequately!

The mixture of components can enable system interoperability, scalability, reliability, automation, extensibility or maintainability with impact on collaboration, innovation, sustainability, cost-efficiency and effectiveness. All of these are concepts with weight and further implications for ecology. Some aspects are available by design, while others need to be introduced and enforced in a systematic, respectively systemic manner. It’s an exploration of what’s achievable, of what works, of what creates value. Organizations should review the best practices in the field and explore.

Ideally, the ERP system should nourish the ecology it belongs to, enabling it to grow and create more value for the organization. Conversely, the ERP system can become a cannibal for the ecology, pulling towards it all the resources, but more importantly, limiting the other systems in terms of functionality, value, usage, etc. In other terms, an ERP system has the power to cannibalize its environment, with all the implications deriving from this. This may seem like a pessimistic view, though it’s met in organizations more often than people think. Just think about the rate of failure in ERP implementations, the ERP cannibalizing thus all the financial and human resources available at their disposal.

To create more value, the ERPs should be integrated with the other critical and non-critical information systems – email and other communication systems, customer and vendor relationship systems, inventory management systems, regulatory reporting platforms and probably there are many other systems designed to address the various needs. Of course, not every organization needs all these types of information systems, though the functions exist to some degree in many organizations. Usually, components grow in importance with the shift of needs and attention.

There are also small organizations that only use small subparts of the ERP system (e.g. finance, HR), however an ERP investment becomes more attractive and cost-effective, the further the organization can leverage all its (important) features. It’s also true that an ERP system is not always the solution for everybody. It’s a matter of scale, functionality, and business model. Above all, the final solution must be cost-effective and an enabler for the organization!

Beyond the ecosystemic view, there are design principles and rules that can be used to describe, map and plan the road ahead, though nothing should be considered as fixed. One needs to balance between opportunities and risks, value and costs, respectively between the different priorities. In some scenarios there’s a place for experimentation, while in other scenarios organizations must stick to what they know. Even if there are maybe recipes for success, there’s no guarantee behind them. Each organization must evaluate what works and what doesn’t. It’s a never-ending story in which such topics need to be approached gradually and iteratively.

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

🗄️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

🗄️Data Management: Data Culture (Part III: A Tale of Two Cities I)

One of the curious things is that as part of their change of culture organizations try to adopt a new language, to give new names to things, try to make distinction between the "AS IS" and "TO BE" states, insisting how the new image will replace the previous one. Occasionally, they even stress how bad things were in the past and how great will be in the future, trying to depict the future in vivid images. 

Even if this might work occasionally, it tends to confuse people and this not necessarily because of the language and the metaphors used, or the fact that same people were in the same positions, but the lack of belief or conviction, respectively half-hearted enthusiasm personified by the parties. To "convert" people to new philosophies one needs to believe in them or mimic that in similar terms. The lack of conviction can easily have a false effect that spreads within the organization. 

Dissociation from the past, from what an organization was, tends to increase the resistance against the new because two different images are involved. On one side there’s the attachment to the past, and even if there were mistakes made, or things didn’t go optimally, the experiences and decisions made are part of the organization, of the people who made them. People as individuals and as an organization should embrace their mistakes and good deeds altogether, learn from them, improve what is to improve and move forward. Conversely, there’s the resistance to the new, to the change, words they don’t believe in yet, the bigger picture is still fuzzy in their minds, and there can be many other reasons that don’t agree with one’s understanding. 

There are images, memories, views, decisions, objectives of the past and people need to recognize the road from what it was to what should be. One can hypothesize that embracing one’s mistake and understanding, the chain of reasoning from then and from now will help an organization transition towards the new. Awareness of one’s situation most probably will help in the transition process. Unfortunately, leaders and technology gurus tend to depict the past as negative, creating thus more negative emotions, respectively reactions in the process. The past is still part of the people, of the organization and will continue to be.

Conversely, the disassociation from the past can create more resistance to the new, and probably more unnecessary barriers. Probably, it’s easier for the gurus to build the new if the past weren’t there! Forgetting the past would be an error because there are many lessons that can be still useful. All the experience needs to be redirected in new directions. It’s more important to help people see the vision of the future, understand their missions, the paths to be followed and the challenges ahead, . 

It sounds more of a rambling from a psychology course, though organizations do have an image they want to change, to bring forth to cope with the various challenges, an image they want to reflect when needed. There are also organizations that want to change but keep their image intact, which leads to deeper conflicts. Unfortunately, changes of image involve conflicts that can become complex from what they bring forth.  

A data culture should increase people’s awareness of the present, respectively of the future, of what it takes to bridge the gap, the challenges ahead, how to embrace change, how to keep a realistic perspective, how to do a reality check, etc. Methodologies can increase people’s awareness and provide the theoretical basis, though walking the path will be a different story for everyone. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: Why Data Projects Fail to Deliver Real-Life Impact (Part III: Failure through the Looking Glass)

Business Intelligence Series

There’s a huge volume of material available on project failure – resources that document why individual projects failed, why in general projects fail, why project members, managers and/or executives think projects fail, and there seems to be no other more rewarding activity at the end of a project than to theorize why a project failed, the topic culminating occasionally with the blaming game. Success may generate applause, though it's failure that attracts and stirs the most waves (irony, disapproval, and other similar behavior) and everybody seems to be an expert after the consumed endeavor. 

The mere definition of a project failure – not fulfilling project’s objectives within the set budget and timeframe - is a misnomer because budgets and timelines are estimated based on the information available at the beginning of the project, the amount of uncertainty for many projects being considerable, and data projects are no exceptions from it. The higher the uncertainty the less probable are the two estimates. Even simple projects can reveal uncertainty especially when the broader context of the projects is considered. 

Even if it’s not a common practice, one way to cope with uncertainty is to add a tolerance for the estimates, though even this practice probably will not always accommodate the full extent of the unknown as the tolerances are usually small. The general expectation is to have an accurate and precise landing, which for big or exploratory projects is seldom possible!

Moreover, the assumptions under which the estimates hold are easily invalidated in praxis – resources’ availability, first time right, executive’s support to set priorities, requirements’ quality, technologies’ maturity, etc. If one looks beyond the reasons why projects fail in general, quite often the issues are more organizational than technological, the lack of knowledge and experience being some of the factors. 

Conversely, many projects will not get approved if the estimates don’t look positive, and therefore people are pressured in one way or another to make the numbers fit the expectations. Some projects, given their importance, need to be done even if the numbers don’t look good or can’t be quantified correctly. Other projects represent people’s subsistence on the job, respectively people's self-occupation to create motion, though they can occasionally have also a positive impact for the organizations. These kinds of aspects almost never make it in statistics or surveys. Neither do the big issues people are afraid to talk about. Where to consider that in the light of politics and office’s grapevine the facts get distorted!

Data projects reflect all the symptoms of failure projects have in general, though when words like AI, Statistics or Machine Learning are used, the chances for failure are even higher given that the respective fields require a higher level of expertise, the appropriate use of technologies and adherence to the scientific process for the results to be valid. If projects can benefit from general recipes, respectively established procedures and methods, their range of applicability decreases when the mentioned areas are involved. 

Many data projects have an exploratory nature – seeing what’s possible - and therefore a considerable percentage will not reach production. Moreover, even those that reach that far might arrive to be stopped or discarded sooner or later if they don’t deliver the expected value, and probably many of the models created in the process are biased, irrelevant, or incorrectly apply the theory. Where to add that the mere use of tools and algorithms is not Data Science or Data Analysis. 

The challenge for many data projects is to identify which Project Management (PM) best practices to consider. Following all or no practices at all just increases the risks of failure!

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

𖣯Strategic Management: Inflection Points and the Data Mesh (Quote of the Day)

Strategic Management Series

"Data mesh is what comes after an inflection point, shifting our approach, attitude, and technology toward data. Mathematically, an inflection point is a magic moment at which a curve stops bending one way and starts curving in the other direction. It’s a point that the old picture dissolves, giving way to a new one. [...] The impacts affect business agility, the ability to get value from data, and resilience to change. In the center is the inflection point, where we have a choice to make: to continue with our existing approach and, at best, reach a plateau of impact or take the data mesh approach with the promise of reaching new heights." [1]

I tried to understand the "metaphor" behind the quote. As the author through another quote pinpoints, the metaphor is borrowed from Andrew Groove:

"An inflection point occurs where the old strategic picture dissolves and gives way to the new, allowing the business to ascend to new heights. However, if you don’t navigate your way through an inflection point, you go through a peak and after the peak the business declines. [...] Put another way, a strategic inflection point is when the balance of forces shifts from the old structure, from the old ways of doing business and the old ways of competing, to the new." [2]

The second part of the quote clarifies the role of the inflection point - the shift from a structure, respectively organization or system to a new one. The inflection point is not when we take a decision, but when the decision we took, and the impact shifts the balance. If the data mesh comes after the inflection point (see A), then there must be some kind of causality that converges uniquely toward the data mesh, which is questionable, if not illogical. A data mesh eventually makes sense after organizations reached a certain scale and thus is likely improbable to be adopted by small to medium businesses. Even for large organizations the data mesh may not be a viable solution if it doesn't have a proven record of success. 

I could understand if the author would have said that the data mesh will lead to an inflection point after its adoption, as is the case of transformative/disruptive technologies. Unfortunately, the tracking record of BI and Data Analytics projects doesn't give many hopes for such a magical moment to happen. Probably, becoming a data-driven organization could have such an effect, though for many organizations the effects are still far from expectations. 

There's another point to consider. A curve with inflection points can contain up and down concavities (see B) or there can be multiple curves passing through an inflection point (see C) and the continuation can be on any of the curves.

Examples of Inflection Points [3]

The change can be fast or slow (see D), and in the latter it may take a long time for change to be perceived. Also [2] notes that the perception that something changed can happen in stages. Moreover, the inflection point can be only local and doesn't describe the future evolution of the curve, which to say that the curve can change the trajectory shortly after that. It happens in business processes and policy implementations that after a change was made in extremis to alleviate an issue a slight improvement is recognized after which the performance decays sharply. It's the case of situations in which the symptoms and not the root causes were addressed. 

More appropriate to describe the change would be a tipping point, which can be defined as a critical threshold beyond which a system (the organization) reorganizes/changes, often abruptly and/or irreversible.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Zhamak Dehghani (2021) Data Mesh: Delivering Data-Driven Value at Scale (book review)
[2] Andrew S Grove (1988) "Only the Paranoid Survive: How to Exploit the Crisis Points that Challenge Every Company and Career"
[3] SQL Troubles (2024) R Language: Drawing Function Plots (Part II - Basic Curves & Inflection Points) (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)

𖣯Strategic Management: The Impact of New Technologies (Part III: Checking the Vital Signs)

An organization which went through a major change, like the replacement of a strategic system (e.g. ERP/BI implementations), needs to go through a period of attentive supervision to address the inherent issues that ideally need to be handled as they arise, to minimize their future effects. Some organizations might even go through a convalescence period, which risks to prolong itself if the appropriate remedies aren’t found. Therefore, one needs an entity, who/which has the skills to recognize the symptoms, understand what’s happening and why, respectively of identifying the appropriate actions.

Given technologies’ multi-layered complexity and the volume of knowledge for understanding them, the role of the doctor can be seldom taken by one person. Moreover, the patient is an organization, each person in the organization having usually local knowledge about the patient. The needed knowledge is dispersed trough the organization, and one needs to tap into that knowledge, identify the people close to technologies and business area, respectively allow such people exchange information on a regular basis.

The people who should know the best the organization are in theory the management, however they are usually too far away from technologies and often too busy with management topics. IT professionals are close to technologies, though sometimes too far away from the patient. The users have a too narrow overview, while from logistical and economic reasons the number of people involved should be kept to a minimum. A compromise is to designate one person from each business area who works with any of the strategic systems, and assure that they have the technical and business knowledge required. It’s nothing but the key-user concept, though for it to work the key-users need not only knowledge but also the empowerment to act when the symptoms appear.

Big organizations have also a product owner for each application who supervises the application through its entire lifecycle, and who needs to coordinate with the IT, business and service providers. This is probably a good idea in order to assure that the ROI is reached over time, respectively that the needs of the system are considered within the IT operation context. In small organizations, the role can be taken by a technical or a business resource with deeper skills then the average user, usually a key-user. However, unless joined with the key-user role, the product owner’s focus will be the product and seldom the business themes.

The issues that need to be overcome after major changes are usually cross-functional, being imperative for people to work together and find solutions. Unfortunately, it’s also in human nature to wait until the issues are big enough to get the proper attention. Unless the key-users have the time allocated already for such topics, the issues will be lost in the heap of operational and tactical activities. This time must be allocated for all key-users and the technical resources needed to support them.

Some organizations build temporary working parties (groups of experts working together to achieve specific goals) or similar groups. However, the statute of such group needs to be permanent if the organization wants to continuously have its health in check, to build the needed expertize and awareness about occurred or potential issues. Centers of excellence/expertize (CoE) or competency centers (CC) are such working groups with permanent statute, having defined roles, responsibilities, and processes for supporting and promoting the effective use of technologies within the organization, respectively of monitoring and systematically addressing the risks and opportunities associated with them.

There’s also the null hypothesis, doing nothing, relying solely on employees’ professionalism, though without defined responsibility, accountability and empowerment, it can get messy.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: New Technologies, Old Challenges (Part II - ETL vs. ELT)

 

Data lakes and similar cloud-based repositories drove the requirement of loading the raw data before performing any transformations on the data. At least that’s the approach the new wave of ELT (Extract, Load, Transform) technologies use to handle analytical and data integration workloads, which is probably recommendable for the mentioned cloud-based contexts. However, ELT technologies are especially relevant when is needed to handle data with high velocity, variance, validity or different value of truth (aka big data). This because they allow processing the workloads over architectures that can be scaled with workloads’ demands.

This is probably the most important aspect, even if there can be further advantages, like using built-in connectors to a wide range of sources or implementing complex data flow controls. The ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) tools have the same capabilities, maybe reduced to certain data sources, though their newer versions seem to bridge the gap.

One of the most stressed advantages of ELT is the possibility of having all the (business) data in the repository, though these are not technological advantages. The same can be obtained via ETL tools, even if this might involve upon case a bigger effort, effort depending on the functionality existing in each tool. It’s true that ETL solutions have a narrower scope by loading a subset of the available data, or that transformations are made before loading the data, though this depends on the scope considered while building the data warehouse or data mart, respectively the design of ETL packages, and both are a matter of choice, choices that can be traced back to business requirements or technical best practices.

Some of the advantages seen are context-dependent – the context in which the technologies are put, respectively the problems are solved. It is often imputed to ETL solutions that the available data are already prepared (aggregated, converted) and new requirements will drive additional effort. On the other side, in ELT-based solutions all the data are made available and eventually further transformed, but also here the level of transformations made depends on specific requirements. Independently of the approach used, the data are still available if needed, respectively involve certain effort for further processing.

Building usable and reliable data models is dependent on good design, and in the design process reside the most important challenges. In theory, some think that in ETL scenarios the design is done beforehand though that’s not necessarily true. One can pull the raw data from the source and build the data models in the target repositories.

Data conversion and cleaning is needed under both approaches. In some scenarios is ideal to do this upfront, minimizing the effect these processes have on data’s usage, while in other scenarios it’s helpful to address them later in the process, with the risk that each project will address them differently. This can become an issue and should be ideally addressed by design (e.g. by building an intermediate layer) or at least organizationally (e.g. enforcing best practices).

Advancing that ELT is better just because the data are true (being in raw form) can be taken only as a marketing slogan. The degree of truth data has depends on the way data reflects business’ processes and the way data are maintained, while their quality is judged entirely on their intended use. Even if raw data allow more flexibility in handling the various requests, the challenges involved in processing can be neglected only under the consequences that follow from this.

Looking at the analytics and data integration cloud-based technologies, they seem to allow both approaches, thus building optimal solutions relying on professionals’ wisdom of making appropriate choices.

Previous Post <<||>>Next Post

🧭Business Intelligence: New Technologies, Old Challenges (Part I: An Introduction)

Each important technology has the potential of creating divides between the specialists from a given field. This aspect is more suggestive in the data-driven fields like BI/Analytics or Data Warehousing. The data professionals (engineers, scientists, analysts, developers) skilled only in the new wave of technologies tend to disregard the role played by the former technologies and their role in the data landscape. The argumentation for such behavior is rooted in the belief that a new technology is better and can solve any problem better than previous technologies did. It’s a kind of mirage professionals and customers can easily fall under.

Being bigger, faster, having new functionality, doesn’t make a tool the best choice by default. The choice must be rooted in the problem to be solved and the set of requirements it comes with. Just because a vibratory rammer is a new technology, is faster and has more power in applying pressure, this doesn’t mean that it will replace a hammer. Where a certain type of power is needed the vibratory rammer might be the best tool, while for situations in which a minimum of power and probably more precision is needed, like driving in a nail, then an adequately sized hammer will prove to be a better choice.

A technology is to be used in certain (business/technological) contexts, and even if contexts often overlap, the further details (aka requirements) should lead to the proper use of tools. It’s in a professional’s duties to be able to differentiate between contexts, requirements and the capabilities of the tools appropriate for each context. In this resides partially a professional’s mastery over its field of work and of providing adequate solutions for customers’ needs. Especially in IT, it’s not enough to master the new tools but also have an understanding about preceding tools, usage contexts, capabilities and challenges.

From an historical perspective each tool appeared to fill a demand, and even if maybe it didn’t manage to fill it adequately, the experience obtained can prove to be valuable in one way or another. Otherwise, one risks reinventing the wheel, or more dangerously, repeating the failures of the past. Each new technology seems to provide a deja-vu from this perspective.

Moreover, a new technology provides new opportunities and requires maybe to change our way of thinking in respect to how the technology is used and the processes or techniques associated with it. Knowledge of the past technologies help identifying such opportunities easier. How a tool is used is also a matter of skills, while its appropriate use and adoption implies an inherent learning curve. Having previous experience with similar tools tends to reduce the learning curve considerably, though hands-on learning is still necessary, and appropriate learning materials or tutoring is upon case needed for a smoother transition.

In what concerns the implementation of mature technologies, most of the challenges were seldom the technologies themselves but of non-technical nature, ranging from the poor understanding/knowledge about the tools, their role and the implications they have for an organization, to an organization’s maturity in leading projects. Even the most-advanced technology can fail in the hands of non-experts. Experience can’t be judged based only on the years spent in the field or the number of projects one worked on, but on the understanding acquired about implementation and usage’s challenges. These latter aspects seem to be widely ignored, even if it can make the difference between success and failure in a technology’s implementation.

Ultimately, each technology is appropriate in certain contexts and a new technology doesn’t necessarily make another obsolete, at least not until the old contexts become obsolete.

Previous Post <<||>>Next Post

💼Project Management: Project Execution (Part IV: Projects' Dynamics II - Motion)

Motion is the action or process of moving or being moved between an initial and a final or intermediate point. From the tinniest endeavors to the movement of the planets and beyond, everything is governed by motion. If the laws of nature seem to reveal an inner structural perfection, the activities people perform are quite often far from perfect, which is acceptable if we consider that (almost) everything is a learning process. What is probably less acceptable is the volume of inefficient motion we can easily categorize sometimes as waste.

The waste associated with motion can take many forms: sorting through a pile of tools to find the right one, searching for information, moving back and forth to reach a destination or achieve a goal, etc. Suboptimal motion can have important effects for an organization resulting in reduced productivity, respectively higher costs.

If for repetitive activities that involve a certain degree of similarity can be found typically a way to optimize the motion, the higher the uncertainty of the steps involved, the more difficult it becomes to optimize it. It’s the case of discovery endeavors in which the path between start and destination can’t be traced beforehand, respectively when the destination or path in between can’t be depicted to the needed level of detail. A strategy’s implementation, ERP implementations and other complex projects, especially the ones dealing with new technologies and/or incomplete knowledge, tend to be exploratory in nature and thus fall under this latter type a motion.

In other words, one must know at minimum the starting point, the destination, how to reach it and what it takes to reach it – resources, knowledge, skillset. When one has all this information one can go on and estimate how long it will take to reach the destination, though the estimate reflects the information available as well estimator’s skills in translating the information into a realistic roadmap. Each new information has the potential of impacting considerably the whole process, in extremis to the degree that one must start the journey anew. The complexity of such projects and the volume of uncertainty can make estimation difficult if not impossible, no matter how good estimators' skills are. At best an estimator can come with a best- and worst-case estimation, both however dependent on the assumptions made.

Moreover, complex projects are sensitive to the initial conditions or auspices under which they start. This sensitivity can turn a project in a totally different direction or pace, that can be reinforced positively or negatively as the project progresses. It’s a continuous interplay between internal and external factors and components that can create synergies or have adverse effects with the potential of reaching tipping points.

Related to the initial conditions, as the praxis sometimes shows, for entities found in continuous movement (like organizations) it’s also important to know from where one’s coming (and at what speed), as the previous impulse (driving force) can be further used or stirred as needed. Metaphorically, a project will need a certain time to find the right pace if it lacks the proper impulse.

Unless the team is trained to play and plays like an orchestra, the impact of deviations from expectations can be hardly quantified. To minimize the waste, ideally a project’s journey should minimally deviate from the optimal path, which can be challenging to achieve as a project’s mass can pull the project in one direction or the other. The more the project advances the bigger the mass, fact which can make a project unstoppable. When such high-mass projects are stopped, their impulse can continue to haunt the organization years after.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

💼Project Management: Project Execution (Part III: Projects' Dynamics - An Introduction)

Despite the considerable collection of books on Project Management (PM) and related methodologies, and the fact that projects are inherent endeavors in professional as well personal life (setups that would give in theory people the environment and exposure to different project types), people’s understanding on what it takes to plan and execute a project seems to be narrow and questionable sometimes. Moreover, their understanding diverges considerably from common sense. It’s also true that knowledge and common sense are relative when considering any human endeavor in which there are multiple roads to the same destination, or when learning requires time, effort, skills, and implies certain prerequisites, however the lack of such knowledge can hurt when endeavor’s success is a must and a team effort. 

Even if the lack of understanding about PM can be considered as minor when compared with other challenges/problems faced by a project, when one’s running fast to finish a race, even a small pebble in one’s running shoes can hurt a lot, especially when one doesn’t have the luxury to stop and remove the stone, as it would make sense to do.

It resides in the human nature to resist change, to seek for information that only confirm own opinions, to follow the same approach in handling challenges, even if the attempts are far from optimal, even if people who walked the same path tell you that there’s a better way and even sketch the path and provide information about what it takes to reach there. As it seems, there’s the predisposition to learn on the hard way, if there’s significant learning involved at all. Unfortunately, such situations occur in projects and the solutions often overrun the boundaries of PM, where social and communication skills must be brought into play. 

On the other side, there’s still hope that change can be managed optimally once the facts are explained to a certain level that facilitates understanding. However, such an attempt can prove to be quite a challenge, given the various setups in which PM takes place. The intersection between technologies and organizational setups lead to complex scenarios which make such work more difficult, even if projects’ challenges are of organizational rather than technological nature. 

When the knowledge we have about the world doesn’t fit our expectation, a simple heuristic is to return to the basics. A solid edifice can be built only on a solid foundation and the best foundation in coping with reality is to establish common ground with other people. One can achieve this by identifying their suppositions and expectations, by closing the gap in perception and understanding, by establishing a basis for communication, in which feedback is a must if one wants to make significant progress.

Despite of being explorative and time-consuming, establishing common ground can be challenging when addressing to an imaginary audience, which is quite often the situation. The practice shows however that progress can be made by starting with a set of well-formulated definitions, simple models, principles, and heuristics that have the potential of helping in sense-making.

The goal is thus to identify first the definitions that reflect the basic concepts that need to be considered. Once the concepts defined, they can be related to each other with the help of a few models. Even if fictitious, as simplifications of the reality, the models should allow playing with the concepts, facilitating concepts’ understanding. Principles (set of rules for reasoning) can be used together with heuristics (rules of thumb methods or techniques) for explaining the ‘known’ and approaching the ‘unknown’. Even maybe not perfect, these tools can help building theories or explanatory constructs.

||>>Next Post

𖣯Strategic Management: The Impact of New Technologies (Part I: A Nail Keeps the Shoe)

Probably one of the most misunderstood aspects for businesses is the implications the adoption of a new technology have in terms of effort, resources, infrastructure and changes, these considered before, during and post-implementation. Unfortunately, getting a new BI tool or ERP system is not like buying a new car, even if customers’ desires might revolve around such expectations. After all, the customer has been using a BI tool or ERP system for ages, the employees should be able to do the same job as before, right?

In theory adopting a new system is supposed to bring organizations a competitive advantage or other advantages - allow them reduce costs, improve their agility and decision-making, etc. However, the advantages brought by new technologies remain only as potentials unless their capabilities aren’t harnessed adequately. Keeping the car metaphor, besides looking good in the car, having a better mileage or having x years of service, buying a highly technologically-advanced car more likely will bring little benefit for the customer unless he needs, is able to use, and uses the additional features.

Both types of systems mentioned above can be quite expensive when considering the benefits associated with them. Therefore, looking at the features and the further requirements is critical for better understanding the fit. In the end one doesn’t need to buy a luxurious or sport car when one just needs to move from point A to B on small distances. In some occasions a bike or a rental car might do as well. Moreover, besides the acquisition costs, the additional features might involve considerable investments as long the warranty is broken and something needs to be fixed. In extremis, after a few years it might be even cheaper to 'replace' the whole car. Unfortunately, one can’t change systems yet, as if they were cars.

Implementing a new BI tool can take a few weeks if it doesn’t involve architecture changes within the BI infrastructure. Otherwise replacing a BI infrastructure can take from months to one year until having a stable environment. Similarly, an ERP solution can take from six months to years to implement and typically this has impact also on the BI infrastructure. Moreover, the implementation is only the top of the iceberg as further optimizations and changes are needed. It can take even more time until seeing the benefits for the investment.

A new technology can easily have the impact of dominoes within the organization. This effect is best reflected in sayings of the type: 'the wise tell us that a nail keeps a shoe, a shoe a horse, a horse a man, a man a castle, that can fight' and which reflect the impact tools technologies have within organizations when regarded within the broader context. Buying a big car, might involve extending the garage or eventually buying a new house with a bigger garage, or of replacing other devices just for the sake of using them with the new car. Even if not always perceptible, such dependencies are there, and even if the further investments might be acceptable and make sense, the implications can be a bigger shoe that one can wear. Then, the reversed saying can hold: 'for want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost'.

For IT technologies the impact is multidimensional as the change of a technology has impact on the IT infrastructure, on the processes associated with them, on the resources required and their skillset, respectively on the various types of flows (data, information, knowledge, materials, money).

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

📦Data Migrations (DM): Conceptualization (Part III: Heuristics)

Probably one of the most difficult things to learn as a technical person is using the right technology for a given purpose, this mainly because one’s inclined using the tools one knows best. Moreover, technologies’ overlapping makes the task more and more challenging, the difference between competing technologies often residing in the details. Thus, identifying the gaps resumes in understanding the details of the problem(s) or need(s), respectively the advantages or disadvantages of a technology over the other. This is true especially about competing technologies, including the ones that replace other technologies.

There are simple heuristics, that can allow approaching such challenges. For example, heavy data processing belongs usually in databases, while import/export functionality belongs in an ETL tool.  Therefore, one can start looking at the problems from these two perspectives. Would the solution benefit from these two approaches or are there more appropriate technologies (e.g. data streaming, ELT, non-relational databases)? How much effort would involve building the solution? 

Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) tools provided by third-party vendors usually offer specialized functionality in each area. Gartner and Forrester provide regular analyses of the main players in the important areas, analyses which can be used in theory as basis for further research. Even if COTS tend to be more expensive and can have some important functionality gaps, as long they are extensible, they can prove a good starting point for developing a solution. 

Sometimes it helps researching on the web what other people or organizations did, how they approached the same aspects, what technologies, techniques and best practices they used to overcome the challenges. One doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel even if it’s sometimes fun to do so. Moreover, a few hours of research can give one a basis of useful information and a better understanding over the work ahead.

On the other side sometimes it’s advisable to use the tools one knows best, however this can lead also to unusable and less performant solutions. For example, MS Excel and Access have been for years the tools of choice for building personal solutions that later grew into maintenance nightmares for the IT team. Ideally, they can still be used for data entry or data cleaning, though building solutions exclusively based on (one of) them can prove to be far than optimal. 

When one doesn’t know whether a technology or mix of technologies can be used to provide a solution, it’s recommended to start a proof-of-concept (PoC) that would allow addressing most important aspects of the needed solution. One can start small by focusing on the minimal functionality needed to check the main aspects and evolve the PoC during several iterations as needed.

For example, in the case of a Data Migration (DM) this would involve building the data extraction layer for an entity, implement several data transformations based on the defined mappings, consider building a few integrity rules for validation, respectively attempt importing the data into the target system. Once this accomplished, one can start increasing the volume of data to check how the solution behaves under stress. The volume of data can be increased incrementally or by considering all the data available. 

As soon the skeleton was built one can consider all the mappings, respectively add several entities to build the dependencies existing between them and other functionality. The prototype might not address all the requirements from the beginning, therefore consider the problems as they arise. For example, if the volume of data seems to cause problems then attempt splitting the data during processing in batches or considering specific optimization techniques like indexing or scaling techniques like increasing computing resources. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

📦Data Migrations (DM): Conceptualization I (Goals, Objectives & Requirements)

Data Migrations Series

One of the nowadays’ challenges is finding the right mix of technologies that allows building a solution for a business need. There are so many choices and the responsible person is easily tempted to use one of the trending technologies just because he wants to learn something new or the technologies seem to fit into the bigger picture, which probably in many cases it would be acceptable. Unfortunately, there’s also the tendency of picking a technology without looking at what functionality it provides, respectively whether the functionality meets intended solutions’ requirements. Moreover, the requirements are sometimes barely defined at the appropriate level of detail, fact that makes from the implementation project a candidate for failure. Sometimes even the goals and objectives aren’t clearly stated, fact that can make a project’s success easily questionable from the beginning. 

A goal is a general statement that reflects the desired result toward which an organization’s effort needs to be directed. For example, a Data Migration (DM)’s primary goal can be formulated as 'to make available all the master and transactional data needed by the business from the legacy systems to the target system(s) within expected timeline and quality with a minimal disruption for the business'. 

An objective is a break down of the goal into several components that should foster a clear understanding on how the goal will be achieved. Ideally the objectives should be SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound), even if measurable objectives are sometimes hard to define properly. One can consider them as the tactics used in achieving the goal. For example, the above formulated goal can be broken down into the following objectives:

• Build a DM concept/strategy
• Build a flexible and performant infrastructure for DM that can be adapted to further requirements
• Provide a basis for further DMs
• Align DM and main project’s requirements and activities
• Provide an interface and support for the Data Management areas
• Foster trust, transparency and awareness 
• Address internal/external compliance requirements
• Document and communicate accountability for the various activities
• Cleanse and enrich the data needed by the target system 
• Archive the DM and project data 

One can attempt defining the objectives directly from the goal(s), though unless one is aware of all the implication a DM has, more likely one will be forced to define and evaluate the individual functional and nonfunctional requirements for the DM first, and attempt consolidating the requirements into a set of objectives. In the end it can be a combination of both, in which some objectives are first formulated, the requirements are defined and evaluated, respectively the objectives are refined to accommodate the requirements. 

ISO 9126, an international standard for the evaluation of software quality, defines about 45-50 attributes that can be used for addressing the requirements of software solutions, attributes that reflect functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, and maintainability characteristics. One can start with such a list and identify how important are the respective attributes for the solution.  The next step would be to document the requirements into a consolidated list by providing a short argumentation for their use, respectively how they will be addressed as part of the solution. The process can prove to be time-consuming, however it is a useful exercise that usually needs to be done only once and be reviewed occasionally.

The list can be created independently of any other documentation or be included directly into a concept or strategy. The latter will assure in theory that the document provides a unitary view of the migration, considering that each new or obsolete requirement can impact the concept. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧮ERP: Implementations (Part V: It’s all about Partnership - An Introduction)

ERP Implementations Series

Unless the organization (customer) implementing an ERP system has a strong IT team and the knowledge required for the implementation is available already in-house, the resources need to be acquired from the market, and probably the right thing to do is to identify a certified implementer (partner) which can fill the knowledge and skillset gaps, respectively which can help splitting the risks associated with such an implementation.

In theory, the customer provides knowledge about its processes, while the partner comes with expertise about the system to be implemented and further technologies, industry best practices, project methodologies, etc. Further on, the mix is leveraged to harness the knowledge and reach project’s objectives. 

In praxis however finding an implementer which can act as partner might be more challenging than expected. This because the implementer needs to understand customer’s business and where it’s heading, bridge the gap between functional requirements and system’s functionality, advise on areas of improvement, prepare the customer for the project and lead the customer through the changes, respectively establish a basis for the future. Some of the implications are seldom made explicit even if they are implied by what is needed by the project. 

Technology is seldom the issue in an ERP implementation, the challenges residing in handing the change and the logistics required. There are so many aspects to be considered and handled, and this can be challenging for any implementer no matter how long has been on the market or how experienced the resources are. Somebody needs to lead the change and the customer seldom has the knowledge to handle the change. In some cases, the implementer must make the customer aware of the implications, while in others needs to take the initiative and lead the change, though the customer needs to play along, which can be challenging also. 

Many aspects need to be handled at management level from a strategical point of view on customer’s side. It starts with assuring that the most important aspects of the business where considered, that the goals and objectives are clear, that the proper environment is created, and ends with the timely decision-making, with assuring that the resources are available when needed, that the needed organization structures and roles are in place, that the required knowledge is available before, during and after implementation, that the potential brought by the ERP system is harnessed for the years to come. 

A partnership allows in theory splitting the implementation risks as ERP implementations have a high rate of failure. Quite often the outcomes of such projects don’t meet the expectations, the systems being in extremis unusable or a bottleneck for the organization. Ideally one should work with the partner(s) and attempt solving the issues, split eventually the incurred cost overruns, find a middle way. Most of the times it’s recommended to find a solution together rather than coming to a litigation. 

Given the complex dependencies existing between the various parts of the project, the causes that lead to poor implementations are difficult to prove, as there are almost always grey areas. Moreover, the litigations can require a considerable time and resources to settle. These can be just extreme situations, and as long one has a good partner, there’s no need to think that far. On the other side, even if undesirable, one must be prepared also for such outcomes, even if the countermeasures may involve an additional effort. Therefore, one must address such issues in contracts by establishing the areas of accountability/responsibilities for each party, document adequately the requirements and further (important) communication, make sure that the deliverables have the expected quality, etc.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

🧊☯Data Warehousing: Data Vault 2.0 (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly)

Data Warehousing Series

One of the interesting concepts that seems to gain adepts in Data Warehousing is the Data Vault – a methodology, architecture and implementation for Data Warehouses (DWH) developed by Dan Linstedt between 1990 and 2000, and evolved into an open standard with the 2.0 version.

According to its creator, the Data Vault is a detail-oriented, historical tracking and uniquely linked set of normalized tables that support one or more business functional areas [2]. To hold data at the lowest grain of detail from the source system(s) and track the changes occurred in the data, it splits the fact and dimension tables into hubs (business keys), links (the relationships between business keys), satellites (descriptions of the business keys), and reference (dropdown values) tables [3], while adopting a hybrid approach between 3rd normal form and star schemas. In addition, it provides a two- or three-layered data integration architecture, a series of standards, methods and best practices supposed to facilitate its use.

It integrates several other methodologies that allow bridging the gap between the technical, logistic and execution parts of the DWH life-cycle – the PMI methodology is used for the various levels of planning and execution, while the Scrum methodology is used for coordinating the day-to-day project tasks. Six Sigma is used together with Total Quality Management for the design and continuous improvement of DWH and data-related processes. In addition, it follows the CMMI maturity model for providing a clear baseline for benchmarking an organization’s DWH capabilities in development, acquisition and service areas.

The Good: The decomposition of the source data models into hub, link and satellite tables provides traceability and auditability at raw data level, allowing thus to address the compliance requirements of Sarabanes-Oxley, HIPPA and Basel II by design.

The considered standards, methods, principles and best practices are leveraged from Software Engineering [1], establishing common ground and a standardized approach to DWH design, implementation and testing. It also narrows down the learning and implementation paths, while allowing an incremental approach to the various phases.

Data Vault 2.0 offers support for real-time, near-real-time and unstructured data, while new technologies like MapReduce, NoSQL can be integrated within its architecture, though the same can be said about other approaches as long there’s compatibility between the considered technologies. In fact, except business entities’ decomposition, many of the notions used are common to DWH design.

The Bad: Further decomposing the fact and dimension tables can impact the performance of the queries run against the tables as more joins are required to gather the data from the various tables. The further denormalization of tables can lead to higher data storage needs, though this can be neglectable compared with the volume of additional objects that need to be created in DWH. For an ERP system with a few hundred of meaningful tables the complexity can become overwhelming.

Unless one uses a COTS tool which automates some part of the design and creation process, building everything from scratch can be time-consuming, increasing thus the time-to-market for solutions. However, the COTS tools can introduce restrictions of their own, which can negatively impact the overall experience with the methodology.

The incorporation of non-technical methodologies can have positive impact, though unless one has experience with the respective methodologies, the disadvantages can easily overshadow the (theoretical) advantages.

The Ugly: The dangers of using Data Vault can be corroborated as usual with the poor understanding of the methodology, poor level of skillset or the attempt of implementing the methodology without allowing some flexibility when required. Unless one knows what he is doing, bringing more complexity in a field which is already complex, can easily impact negatively projects’ outcomes.

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

References:
[1] Dan Linstedt & Michael Olschimke (2015) Building a Scalable Data Warehouse with Data Vault 2.0
[2] Dan Linstedt (?) Data Vault Basics [source]
[3] Dan Linstedt (2018) Data Vault: Data Modeling Specification v 2.0.2 [source]

🧊Data Warehousing: ETL (Part II: An Introduction)

 

ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) processes, technologies or tools are about extracting data from one or more data sources via a set of queries, performing changes on the data via conversions, aggregations, mappings or other types of transformations, respectively loading the data into target tables or other type of repositories. Thus, an ETL process allows moving and transforming data between predefined data structures on an ad-hoc basis or as part of stable repetitive processes, which makes ETL ideal for data warehousing, data integrations, data migrations or similar scenarios. 

Extract: The extraction of data is done typically based on SQL queries from relational databases or any OLEDB or ODBC-based data repositories including flat or MS Office files, though modern ETL tools can support other type of queries (CAML, XQuery, DAX) or even NoSQL architectures (Handoop). This allows addressing a wide range of requirements, the complexity of the logic depending on the functionality provided by the query languages, respectively the extraction functionality available.  

Transform: The transformation logic can be implemented based on the functionality provided by the ETL tool, and can involve after case any combination of aggregates, conditional splits, merges, lookups, multicasts, pivoting/unpivoting, cleansing, data conversions, sampling, mapping or any other transformations that can be performed on an in-transit dataset. On the other side, quite often the same can be achieved with the help of SQL-based manipulations directly in the extraction logic or later in the process. SQL can prove to be occasionally faster and more flexible than the transformations provided by the ETL tool, however despite the overlaps, the two approaches can complement each other when used adequately. 

Load: The load is usually just a dump of the data into one or more final or intermediary tables with predefined structures. Unless the data don’t match the data type, format or further defined constraints, the load seldom involve further challenges as long the solution was designed adequately. 

Within the logical model, extract, transform and load can be considered as process by themselves. Within the object model provided by the ETL tool, they are considered in the mentioned sequence within a data flow, which within a set of workflow constraints defines how the data move through the pipeline – the sequence of processing steps considered. The basic unit of work is the data flow and the workflow it belongs to, unit that can be encapsulated in one container for easier management or simply convenience. Several containers can be linked within a workflow to create more complex behavior. 

The data flows and workflow constraints, together with the supporting connections and containers form an ETL package, the main unit of work for encapsulating and running ETL logic. ETL packages are scheduled and run as fit for the purpose.

With the right design, these building blocks allow enough flexibility in handling ad-hoc requests or of building complex solutions. This involves decisions on how to partition the ETL packages, respectively the data flows, in which order they should be run, where and in which sequence the data should be transformed, how to handle exceptions, how to build eventually intermediary data repositories, how to handles audit requirements, and so on. Each of these choices can prove to be important. 

The knowledge of the ETL architecture and functionality is quintessential in providing the right solution for the problem considered, however once the basics were understood the challenges typically reside in understanding the source and/or target structures, the logical and physical entities available, identify the way the data can be partitioned horizontally or vertically, respectively what type of transformations are required for moving the data, as required by the solution. 

Previous Post <<||>> Next Post

⛁DBMS: Event Streaming Databases (More of a Kafka’s Story)

Event streaming architectures are architectures in which data are generated by different sources, and then processed, stored, analyzed, and acted upon in real-time by the different applications tapped into the data streams. An event streaming database is then a database that assures that its data are continuously up-to-date, providing specific functionality like management of connectors, materialized views and running queries on data-in-motion (rather than on static data). 

Reading about this type of technologies one can easily start fantasizing about the Web as a database in which intelligent agents can process streams of data in real-time, in which knowledge is derived and propagated over the networks in an infinitely and ever-growing flow in which the limits are hardly perceptible, in which the agents act as a mind disconnected in the end from the human intent. One is stroke by the fusing elements of realism and the fantastic aspects, more like in a Kafka’s story in which the metamorphosis of the technologies and social aspects can easily lead to absurd implications.

The link to Kafka was somehow suggested by Apache Kafka, an open-source distributed event streaming platform, which seems to lead the trends within this new-developing market. Kafka provides database functionality and guarantees the ACID (atomicity, concurrency, isolation, durability) properties of transactions while tapping into data streams. 

Data streaming is an appealing concept though it has some important challenges like data overload or over-flooding, the complexity derived from building specific (business) and integrity rules for processing the data, respectively for keeping data consistency and truth within the ever-growing and ever-changing flows. 

Data overload or over-flooding occurs when applications are not able to keep the pace with the volume of data or events fired with each change. Imagine the raindrops falling on a wide surface in which each millimeter or micrometer has its own rules for handling the raindrops and this at large scale. The raindrops must infiltrate into the surface to be processed and find their way to the beneath water flows, aggregating up to streams that could nurture seas or even oceans. Same metaphor can be applied to the data events, in which the data pervade applications accumulating in streams processed by engines to derive value. However heavy rains can easily lead to floods in which water aggregates at the surface. 

Business applications rely on predefined paths in which the flow of data is tidily linked to specific actions found themselves in processual sequences that reflect the material or cash flow. Any variation in the data flow from expectations will lead to inefficiencies and ultimately to chaos. Some benefit might be derived from data integrations between the business applications, however applications must be designed for this purpose and handle extreme behaviors like over-flooding. 

Data streams are maybe ideal for social media networks in which one broadcasts data through the networks and any consumer that can tap to the network can further use the respective data. We can see however the problems of nowadays social media – data, better said information, flow through the networks being changed as fit for purposes that can easily diverge from the initial intent. Moreover, information gets denatured, misused, overused to the degree that it overloads the networks, being more and more difficult to distinguish between reliable and non-reliable information. If common sense helps in the process of handling such information, not the same can be said about machines or applications. 

It will be challenging to deal with the vastness, vagueness, uncertainty, inconsistency, and deceit of the networks of the future, however data streaming more likely will have a future as long it can address such issues by design.