the olap/oltp cultural conflict

THE OLAP/OLTP CULTURAL CONFLICT

FORUM II

Ron AllanGeorgetown University

allanr@georgetown.edu

Sean Kelly: Required

— A New Mindset

TV vs Radio

OLTPOnLine Transaction Processing— Technology of Live Systems— Stands for Regimes That are:

— Tightly Controlled— Hierarchal— Schedules— Milestones— Deadlines— Detailed Planning

OLAPOnLine Analytical Processing— Iterative Approach— Design is Part of the Process— Your Done When the User Stops Calling

OLTP CULTURE

Core Business Systems Have Become:— Larger— More Powerful— More Complex— More IntegratedRequiring at the Detail Level:— Close Co-ordination— Conformity— Minimization of Creativity

OLTP CULTURE (cont)The Technologies are so Complex:— Difficult to Grasp at Detail Level— Leads to a Culture of:

— Planning— Milestones— Deadlines

— Providing a Common Vocabulary forImplementers and Users

— Wisdom of Secretary Rumsfeld

OLTP CULTURE (cont)

Culture of Procedures has Stood the Test of Time

— Forty Year Geometric Expansion of— Computerized Processes— Data Stored

— Decomposition of Project Provides Managers with a Feeling of

Control

OLTP CULTURE (cont)

SOME DOWNSIDES— Techies Regard Procedures as Drudgery

— Breeds a Culture of Control— Breeds Passive Control

— Experimentation Deemed Inappropriate— Conflicts with Requirement for Timely

Decisions

OLTP CULTURE (cont)

OLTP PROCESS SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE:

— Implementers are Presented With a Design!!

— Already Worked Out— Tested and Refined by Use— Requiring Little Additional Creativity

OLAP CULTURE— Characterized by What It Is Not…— i.e., Not Buttoned Down— Bite Off Small Parts – Partial Projects— Involved Users Test Results as They Occur

— Smaller the Bites, the More Rapid the Adjustments

— Each Partial Project Informs the Next Partial Project–and Overall Strategy

OLAP CULTURE (cont)

OLAP Projects are Characterized by the Way They End

— Battle of Britain— “We Got Up One Day and the Germans Didn’t Come”

— OLAP Projects are Done When the Phone Stops Ringing

OLAP CULTURE (cont)OLAP Approach is Not a Non-Methodology— Users must Review Designs for Completeness

— Typical Business Questions Must Be Answered

— One Type of Query Not Favored over Another

— Methodology Structured to Permit Evolution of Design

OLAP TECHNOLOGY

— Data Warehousing is an Iterative Process;

— The Users Must Be Involved

— OLTP Systems Keep Records— OLAP Systems Provide Information

OLAP TECHNOLOGY

THE FIELD OF DREAMS SCENARIO

— OLAP Systems provide Info for the Non-Routine Parts of User’s Work

— If an OLAP System is Not Intuitive, Users Won’t Use It

— Just Because You Build It Doesn’t Mean That They Will Come

OLTP vs OLAP“Give Us Your Requirements…”

— OLTP: Performs Tasks that are — Structured— Routine

— OLAP: Performs Tasks that are— Wide in Varity— Non-specific— Not Contemplated at Design Time

OLTP vs OLAPOLAP REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT

— Often a Waste of Time— If Enough is Known to Develop Detailed Requirements…

— Its Probably not an OLAP Project

OLTP vs OLAPDETAILED PLANNING OF OLAP

PROJECTS

— Tends to be Self-Defeating Because…— “Planning” by Staff and Users Generates New knowledge, Which…

— Makes Plan Obsolete, Then…— Plan Can’t be Revised without Several

Meetings

OLTP vs OLAPWORKING TO THE RULE

— Technically Sophisticated Users Reluctant to Play, because…

— They Fear that IT will Work to the Requirement, then…

— Declare Victory, and…— Go On to Next Project, Leaving…— User Requirements Met, but…— User Needs Unmet

OLAP:DESIGN & ITERATION

— Physical Design is Crucial— Effective and Robust Design can’t

be Planned…— It Must be Iterated

SEAN KELLY ONCE MORE:The physical database design for the specific industry is THE most Important DW Component.  If you don’t have a good PHYSICAL DESIGN, NOTHING else can make up for it: 

Not the RDBMS engine Not the front-end tool Not the data extract tool Not technical ingenuity Not the data loading utilities Not more processors Not the business vision

Not even consultants !

OLAP:DESIGN & ITERATION

— Concept Well Known in Data Warehouse Community

— Why are so Many Projects Struggling?— Creeping OLTPization of OLAP Projects

OLAP:THE HISTORY

— Early Data Warehouse Developers Were Left Alone

— OLTP Managers Assumed it would Fail

— Irrational Desire for Useful Information

OLAP:THE SUCCESS

— Some Data Warehouse Projects Succeeded

— OLTP Managers Feared DW Success without Their Assistance – and Worse…

— Not Under Their Control— Doug Hackney: Caché Loosened Purse Strings

OLAP:EXECUTIVE SPONSORSHIP

— OLTP Managers Asserted Control by Imposing Procedures

— Sean Kelly: Executive Sponsorship Means Someone Far Enough Up the Hierarchy to Intimidate IT

— Make IT Knock It Off when it Interferes with the Iterative Process

OLAP:END OF RESISTANCE

— Resistance to Kimball Ended about 6 Years Ago

— Accepting Kimball Did Not Lead to Accepting OLAP

— Creeping OLTPization— Hofer: Competent Bureaucrats Take

Over; Control the New Paradigm

OLAP:THE DECLINE

— Decline in the Importance of Intuitiveness

— Early Technical Selling Point: Intuitiveness

— De-emphasis on Physical Model— Decline of “Push the Decision Down” to Point of Impact

OLAP:QUERY TOOL ATTITUDE

— Vendor Accepts Kimball— Rejects ER Diagram— Suck Up to IT Departments— Commoditization of Product— Emphasis Shifts to Sale of

Services

OLAP:WHATS TO BE DONE

— OLTP Mindset will not Go Away— OLAP Practitioners Must Lead— OLTP Managers Be Brought to See that OLTP Culture is Inappropriate

— Build a Little; Give Users a Little

OLAP:BE INFORMED

— Know What You Know— Don’t be Wimpy

— Keep Users Informed— Keep OLAP Projects in Perspective — Don’t Hype

— Teach Executives the Difference between OLAP and OLTP

— Wisdom of Arthur Fonzerelli

OLAP:THE NEXT GENERATION

— Iterative Process Must Gain Acceptance— OLTP Managers Must become Comfortable

with Iteration— OLAP Leaders will take the Majority of the Grief Because…

— It is They Who Put the Ball in Play

THE END

Ron AllanGeorgetown UniversityPhone: 202-687-8967E-mail: allanr@georgetown.eduhttp://www.georgetown.edu/users/allanr/