In the first part of this blog series, I discussed
how the hype around analytics powered by big data has glossed over the critical
enablers and hard work necessary to fulfill that promise. I also discussed how
a clear analytical capability divide currently separates the industry in terms
of the critical capabilities requisite for analytical success. I recognized the
need for an incremental roadmap to bridge the capability gap as opposed to the
prevalent ‘big bang’ approach, where on one hand, the diverse degree of
implementation complexity of the big data use cases is not acknowledged, and on
the other hand, massive investments are made in attempt to build the foundation
in data lakes without a discernable ROI in use cases.
In this second part
of the blog, I refer to the emerging data lake architecture patterns to propose
an incremental data induction pattern. Based on that progression, I will
propose a reference architecture that preserves current investment and supports
gradual advancement, implementing use cases involving more complex and varied
types of data, incrementally producing more and more impactful results.
Choice of use cases: Are big data and analytics necessarily combined?
Big data, Hadoop,
and analytics have become almost synonymous in today’s parlance, and success
with analytics is the refrain of today’s IT success. But, big data programs do
not need to necessarily start with advanced analytics. Big data and Hadoop have
many other operational use cases that are more technical in nature, and
therefore, less impacted by the daunting impediments discussed in the previous
blog. They provide an excellent opportunity for organizations to start on their
big data voyage with much less capability.
Data warehouse (DW) off-loading is
one such use case. Here, the Hadoop-based data lake is emerging as a natural
fit for the huge detail transactional data sets that are being relocated to the
data lake as organizations are modernizing their data warehouse in a
multiplatform data warehouse environment (DWE). The data lake, with its
linearly scalable architecture, reduces expensive storage and computation
resources of the DWs and enables discovery-oriented exploration and analytics
on these huge data sets in the Hadoop platform—capabilities that business and
data analysts are pining for today.
A ‘big bang’ data lake program
invites the risk of failing: populating it with the entire enterprise data
irrespective of valid use cases will have poor ROI and present extreme
governance and data management challenges.
TDWI research on data lake use cases
supports this hypothesis. While 49% of the respondents understandably mentioned
advanced analytics as their use case for their data lakes, another 49%
mentioned data exploration and discovery, followed by 39% as extension of their
data warehouse, 36% as staging for their data warehouse, and 36% as data
warehouse off-load and cost reduction.
TCS has implemented
many such strong technical use cases for organizations, establishing the new,
modernized, extended multiplatform DWE architecture with the least disruption
and most effect. In fact, if you are early in the big data adoption cycle,
implementing these use cases is the only realistic way to start building the
requisite capability. The decision-making culture, the business alignment, the
data management, and the in-house technical skills come with practice rather
than analysis. In that sense, these more technical and tactical use cases
become the stepping stone for most organizations to begin their analytics
journey. We will take up this thought in discussing the roadmap in the next
blog.
Rethinking the ‘big bang’ approach to big data: An alternative to
overflowing your data lake
Industry research
on the types of data populating data lakes accords with the above proposition.
According to a TDWI survey, the exclusive management of big
data and other non-traditional data is still a minority practice for data lakes
(15%), whereas managing mostly traditional data is the majority practice (45%).
According to another TDWI survey, 92% of 473 respondents
are managing structured data, 65% are storing legacy data, 55% demographic and
other third-party data, 38% application logs, and 35% are storing data in semi
structured data. More exotic data types, IoT and unstructured data, seem to be
lagging at 6% and 12% only.
TCS’ practice also
indicates that organizations are most successful when adopting a natural
progression starting from internal structured data and gradually ingesting
increased complexity in terms of volume, velocity, and variety (3Vs), and in
that order. This observation is supported by the industry research above. This
incremental approach allows for the organization to build up the requisite
advancement in capabilities in terms of technical skills, induction of domain
expertise, enhanced data management processes, and requisite organization
change associated with the more and more disruptive consumption of the analytic
insights distilled from the increasingly complex data in the 3Vs.
A ‘big bang’ data
lake program invites the risk of failing: populating it with the entire
enterprise data irrespective of valid use cases will have poor ROI and present
extreme governance and data management challenges. Building an enterprise data
lake demands data-driven management culture, technology investments, new
decision procedures, redesigned roles, and expertise that is costly and takes
time to develop. Bridging the capability chasm here too is an incremental
affair. I will take up this train of thought in the roadmap definition.
The big data architecture pattern: A multiplatform DWE for gradual
complexity and maximum ROI
The diversity of
data types and workload processing is driving today’s multiplatform DWE
architectures. It gives users options so they can choose a platform with the storage,
performance, and price characteristics that match a given data type or
workload.
A recent TDWI report revealed that 17% of
surveyed data warehouse programs already have Hadoop in production alongside a
relational data warehouse environment, where the relational data warehouse and
the Hadoop-based data lake coexist with tight integration and complement each
other. That’s because the strengths of one compensates for the weaknesses of
the other. They simply provide different sets of functions, thereby giving
organizations twice the options.
Also, in terms of
usage of data, these two platforms play complementary roles. For example,
financial reports that demand accuracy down to the penny and a lineage that’s
unassailable in an audit will remain in the data warehouses. That’s why the
relational enterprise data warehouses (EDWs) still remain strongly relevant
today. Here, the data elements, their relationships, and derivations that are
mostly very complex are understood completely beforehand. As opposed to that
pattern, early ingestion and the data prep practices that go with it are more
appropriate for discovery analytics, and they tend to be the top priority for a
data lake. The outputs of such analytics are, by nature, estimates and
generalizations (e.g., customer segments and entity clusters suggesting fraud)
as against the requisite accuracy financial reports, according to the report
“TDWI Checklist Report: Emerging Best Practices for Data Lakes.”
Naturally, the
simple DWE has now become the systems architecture norm which includes a
central EDW with a few additional data platforms, and it will continue to be
the norm for some years according to TDWI research. The architectural complexity of
a DWE will increase with progressive induction of more big data types. DWEs
will start simple with a handful of platforms, evolving into complex DWEs,
integrating a dozen or more, where newer platforms will be added to induct more
and more velocity and variety of data.
Recommended
Reference Architecture
The diagram above
is TCS’ recommendation of the modern hybrid, integrated, and multiplatform data
warehouse environment, and its data flows at a high level. This architectural
pattern off-loads exploration, exploitation, storage, and processing of
high-volume structured, semi structured, and unstructured data to its Hadoop
layer, and leaves the complex processing of ‘small’ data to the relational
layer, which it does best.
This architecture
avoids the expensive and time-consuming step of copying the entire enterprise
data to the data lake—that step is redundant with big data connectors being
available for all established relational databases. These connectors allow for
an analytical data flow or an ETL process to access both data stores
seamlessly. This architecture also keeps sensitive data within an
organization’s secure enterprise storage systems—security and governance on the
Hadoop layer would need to be applied on individual relational data sets being
copied over on a use-case basis, providing easier control.
This architecture
also protects the investment in the relational data warehouses and makes their
use to the fullest extent in the new environment. It reduces risk with the
least disruption in the existing implementations, and provides the best ROI by
reducing unnecessary investments in storing enterprise data sets that are best
left where they are at present.
Towards the roadmap
In terms of the
roadmap for big data and analytics, their use cases should have increasing
demands in the dimensions of implementation capability and capacity needed, as
well as the degree of organizational change required. The roadmap should start
with technical use cases that require the least additional skill and have a
positive, if minimal, impact to the business processes. The roadmap then
gradually evolves into use cases that demand more internal capability and
capacity and have wider business impact, in the final stage being adopted for
use in the organization’s strategic planning.
In the next blog, I will expand on a
four-phase analytics strategy and roadmap. I will outline a progressive
approach that expands in big data implementation capability complexity and the
degree of organizational change involved in their intrusiveness on current
business processes.
Thanks to Suman Ghosh @TCS for Enlightening us with this Article.