Portals eNewsletters Web Seminars dataWarehouse.com DM Review Magazine
DM Review | Information Is Your Business
   Information Is Your Business Advanced Search
advertisement

RESOURCE PORTALS
Business Intelligence
Compliance
Corporate Performance Management
Data Integration
Data Quality
Data Warehousing Basics
ETL
Master Data Management
View all Portals

WEB SEMINARS
Scheduled Events

RESEARCH VAULT
White Paper Library
Research Papers

CAREERZONE

Advertisement

INFORMATION CENTER
DM Review Home
Newsletters
Current Magazine Issue
Magazine Archives
DM Review Extended Edition
Online Columnists
Ask the Experts
Industry News
Search DM Review

GENERAL RESOURCES
Tech Evaluation Center:
Evaluate IT solutions
Bookstore
Buyer's Guide
Glossary
Industry Events Calendar
Software Demo Lab
Vendor Listings

DM REVIEW
About Us
Press Releases
Awards
Advertising/Media Kit
Reprints
Magazine Subscriptions
Editorial Calendar
Contact Us
Customer Service

Problem Solved:
Same Problem, Different Warehouse

  Column published in DM Review Magazine
April 2006 Issue
 
  By Baseline Consulting

Editor's note: This column was contributed by Kim Stanick, a managing consultant with Baseline Consulting. She may be reached at kimstanick@baseline-consulting.com.

By the time a company decides to bring in data warehouse (DW) expertise, it may have lived with a problem for a long time and wants it solved as soon as possible. Three different clients recently shared this dilemma and approached us for advice. Notwithstanding the fact that their data warehouse technologies and designs were different, as were their data warehousing experience levels, they were all frustrated with their lack of progress.

Each client had reached a point where sustaining the existing production data warehouse environment was becoming unmanageable. Each faced a growing backlog with no systematic approach to address it. The business complained that it took too long for IT to deliver applications and that it always cost more than planned. "There's a saying around here," one client remarked. "Whatever the task, the estimate will be one year and a million dollars."

Each client shared hope that there was a better way to approach its data warehouse, and that with the right adjustments, a more manageable environment would allow them to meet the needs of the business more consistently. They had no time to research their data warehouse world as it could be.

Each situation turned out to be a good fit for our business intelligence (BI) scorecard service, which compares a client's data warehouse environment to best practices in six areas: requirements, data management, database platform, ETL (extract, transform and load), data delivery, and production management and support. The scorecard is a quick, focused service where we immerse ourselves in the client's environment to report findings and recommendations with a suggested course of action in just a few weeks.

The engagement is a flurry of activity, interviewing dozens of stakeholders and reviewing sometimes years' worth of artifacts. Most people are eager to tell us their stories.

As we dug in to each client's environment, some common issues surfaced. With deeper analysis, two overarching themes became strongly apparent: process and governance.

Each client complained about their inability to consistently deliver on time and on budget. Lack of process rigor included evidence such as:

  • The requirements process was loose or not followed, which led to extensive rework and delays; there was no accountability for process execution; and documentation handoff between groups was sloppy and inconsistent.
  • ETL was a "black box" - not well documented and not well understood, which made problem identification time-consuming and difficult.
  • Source system documentation, knowledge and relationship was poor, which led to significant downstream vulnerability for the DW team.
  • Data quality processes and oversight didn't exist or weren't consistently followed.

Each client also suffered because of the funding model. Development groups were given full responsibility (and blame) for prioritizing their work, and there was limited ability for business to scrutinize budgetary progress. Funding was for new development only, which caused a sort of catch-22:

  • Shared services for proper data management (data quality, data architecture, database administration, etc.) were not funded, so they didn't exist. This propagated end-to-end (stovepipe) development tactics, which hindered ability to achieve economies of scale.
  • Developers were also the resource for sustaining and remediation, which significantly impacted delivery time frames for new development.

These areas are quite significant. Solid processes are the foundation for DW success, and funding is the economic base that influences all data warehouse decisions.

The BI scorecard service concludes with a set of tailored recommendations. Not all of the areas that could be improved need immediate attention. It is important to establish a phased approach that considers culture, skills and technology. Hence, although their complaints were similar, our recommendations were tailored to each client.

For example, while one client lacked formal requirements processes, the other two had reasonable processes that they just weren't following. The recommendation for the latter included good old-fashioned management rigor - project management and accountability - but the former mandated requirements expertise to significantly bolster their process and oversee its execution.

The governance recommendations were customized as well. One client's executive steering committee had fizzled after a staffing turnover, so we recommended reinstating the charter. The other two clients didn't have a process or committee in place, and their business constituencies were very distracted. We suggested a BI portfolio approach to establish priorities. Other recommendations included hiring key roles for data management, reasonable padding of delivery estimates for support overhead and assigning a rotating sustainer.

When we describe the client's world in their own words, they can see we understand their situation. Translating their internal terminology into common industry terminology lets them realize that they are in a natural phase of data warehouse evolution. When we describe contributing factors and root causes, and offer solutions that have worked for other organizations that at one time shared their plight, they see the potential for positive change. Then they begin implementing the tactics. Problem solved! 

Kim Stanick is a managing consultant with Baseline Consulting. She may be reached at kimstanick@baseline-consulting.com.

...............................................................................

For more information on related topics visit the following related portals...
Best Practices/Benchmarking, DW Administration, Mgmt., Performance and DW Basics.

Baseline Consulting has grown to become one of the industry's premier business advisory and information technology consulting firms. Baseline provides the people, tools, methods, vision and, above all, the experience necessary to help companies make their strategic objectives a reality through information technology. Various principals with the company present an actual "problem solved" each month.



View Full Issue View Full Magazine Issue
E-mail This Column E-Mail This Column
Printer Friendly Version Printer-Friendly Version
Related Content Related Content
Request Reprints Request Reprints
Advertisement
advertisement
Site Map Terms of Use Privacy Policy
SourceMedia (c) 2007 DM Review and SourceMedia, Inc. All rights reserved.
SourceMedia is an Investcorp company.
Use, duplication, or sale of this service, or data contained herein, is strictly prohibited.