I have been on a long term Azure for BI implementation and took some time today for a "what went right", "what went wrong" and "what I'll do differently" introspection. Giving the outcome a bit of a positive twist, I'll try not to repeat what I've already shared in Data Architecture for BI Programs and Transitioning from Traditional to Azure Data Architectures. I actually thought I'd write about parameterized shared ADF datasets, or using Python to auto generate transform views and load store procedures. Instead, it appears that my fingers have reverted back to tool agnostic critical success points. (At least I know what I want to write about next!) My tool agnostic thoughts:
Go Get Your First Customer!
Here is a movie quote for you: "Build it and they will come". This thought process should be sent straight to Hades. Data architecture and analytics is not a Field of Dreams. Among other things, having an actual customer will result in a finished product that at least somebody wants. The best advertisement is word of mouth, and it is easier to sell a product that has at least one happy customer. It amazes me to see how many companies make this mistake. If you do not have one already, go get your first customer and put them on your design team. Now, how easy was that?!
Associate Each Data Architectural Decision with a Business Value
In my most recent project, my colleague, Joshuha Owen, and I put together a slide deck affiliating business value with data architectural decisions. There were several slides that looked similar to this for business users-->
When trying to explain event-driven data ingestion to the technical team, I turned it around to look something like this -->
The point is: bring business value or bust. You can have all the data in the world sitting in your data lake or warehouse, but if your non-technical users can't do something with it, there is no business value. With no business value, your budget gets cut.
Deliver Incremental Business Value
Here is a popular thought: "Agile project management". When I worked for <some company that shall not be named who is NOT a recent engagement> they professed to be agile, but spelled it with a lower case "a". This meant that they had created their own manifesto. My recollection is a whole lot of waterfall in a lower case "a" implementation. I have observed that a team can have scrums, sprint planning, epics, features, user story points and tasks but if there are bringing several subject areas coming across the finish line at the same time, I feel that the ROI for delivering incremental business value earlier in the timeline has been lost.
Here is a very simple example. This is not agile, Agile, or anyone's good idea -->
However, let's be fair. You will end up in a similar situation as pictured above when you have extenuating circumstances, like waiting for approvals, or your application vendor pushes an update to the Cloud which causes you to rework previously completed work. Projects have roadblocks that skew our perfectly planned timelines. What I am trying to communicate is that the above picture should not be your planned strategy for business value delivery.
In contrast, this is a very simplified picture of agile, Agile, or someone's great idea -->
Hold Something Back.
This is my new project management strategy learned from my recent engagement. I'm not a licensed PM, but I have come to love this idea. How many times have we wanted to "exceed expectations" so we deliver more than what was promised? Problem is, we are back in stress mode for the next delivery date. How about exceeding expectations, but delivering that extra bit mid-timeline? In other words, think about "keeping something completed in your back pocket". This is hard for me...I want to hit the ball out of the park every time, but how boring is that? Imagine if every batter hit the ball out of the park -- hot dogs and peanuts would be the best part of the game. You know what's fun? BASES LOADED! So ... let's load the timeline.
I have found myself in the above scenario when subject areas overlap in planning effort and therefore require less design or development because we have established a repeatable process.
If you have worked with me 1:1, how many times have I said, "we can, but we won't"? Wait 1, 2 & 3 are examples of holding something back -- you could go to production, but you don't /or/ you are in production but no one knows. (I prefer the latter.)
Summary of the Matter
Once again, my patient reader, thanks for reading! I value your time, and I feel honored if you are actually reading this last sentence. I love Azure for BI because it can be really fun (!!). Please post your own personal experiences, and let's help each other be successful.
Transitioning from Traditional to Azure Data Architectures (SSIS to Azure Data Factory, SQL Database to SQL Data Warehouse, Scheduled extract to event-based extracts)
Confession: I put a lot of subtexts in this blog post in an attempt to catch how people may be describing their move from SSIS to ADF, from SQL DBs, to SQL DWs or from scheduled to event-based data ingestion. The purpose of this post is to give you a visual picture of how our well loved "traditional" tools of on-prem SQL Databases, SSIS, SSAS and SSRS are being replaced by the Azure tool stack. If you are moving form "Traditional Microsoft" to "Azure Microsoft" and need a road map, this post is for you.
Summary of the Matter: If you only read one thing, please read this: transitioning to Azure is absolutely "doable", but do not let anyone sell you "lift and shift". Azure data architecture is a new way of thinking. Decide to think differently.
First Determine Added Value: Below are snippets from a slide deck I shared during Pragmatic Work's 2018 Azure Data Week. (You can still sign up for the minimal cost of $29 and watch all 40 recorded sessions, just click here.) However, before we begin, let's have a little chat. Why in the world would anyone take on an Azure migration if their on-prem SQL database(s) and SSIS packages are humming along with optimum efficiency? The first five reasons given below are my personal favorites.
Figure 1 - Value Added by an Azure Data Architecture
If you compare my Traditional Data Architecture diagram first posted on this blob site in 2015 and the Azure Data Architecture diagram posted in 2018, I hope that you see what makes the second superior to the first is the value add available from Azure. In both diagrams we are still moving data from "source" to "destination", but what we have with Azure is an infrastructure built for events (i.e. when a row or file is added or modified in a source), near real time data ingestion, unstructured data, and data science.
In my thinking, if Azure doesn't give us added value, then why bother. A strict 1:1 "traditional" vs "Azure" data architecture would look something like this (blue boxes only) -->
Figure 2 - Traditional Components Aligned with Azure Components
It is the "white space" showing in Figure 2 that gives us the added value for an Azure Data Architecture. A diagram that is not from Azure Data Week, but I sometime adapt to explain how to move from "traditional" to "Azure" data architectures is Figure 3. It really is the exact same story as Figure 2, but I've stacked "traditional" and "Azure" in the same diagram.
Figure 3 - Traditional Components Aligned with Azure Components (Second Perspective)
Tips for Migration: Having worked with SQL Server and data warehouses since 1999 (Microsoft tool stack specifically), I am well aware of the creative solutions to get "near real time" from a SQL Agent job into an on-prem SQL Server, or to query large data sets effectively with column store indexing. For the sake of argument, let's say that nothing is impossible in either architecture. The point I'm trying to make here, however, is rather simple:
In Figure 4, we have made the following substitutions to simplify migration:
1. We have selected Azure Data Factory version 3 to replace the Python of Databricks or the PySpark of HDInsight.
2. We have removed the change data capture files in Azure Data Lake and are keeping simple "is most recent" files.
3. Unless you have data volumes to justify a data warehouse, which should have a minimum of 1 million rows for each of its 60 partitions, go with an Azure Database! You'll avoid the many creative solutions that Azure Data Warehouse requires to offset its unsupported table features, and stored procedures limitations
Every company I work with has a different motivation for moving to Azure, and I'm surely not trying to put you into my box. The diagrams shared on my blob site change with every engagement, as no two companies have the same needs and business goals. Please allow me to encourage you to start thinking as to what your Azure Data Architecture might look like, and what your true value add talking points for a migration to Azure might be.
Moving onward and upward, my technical friend,
p.s. If you have arrived at the blog post looking for a Database vs Data Warehouse, or Multidimensional vs Tabular discussion, those really are not Azure discussion points as much as they are data volume discussion points; consequently, I did not blog about these talking points here. Please contact me via www.pragmaticworks.com to schedule on site working sessions in either area.
|Microsoft Business Intelligence||
All Things Azure