See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233813118

Enterprise Data Warehouses: A conceptual framework for a successful

implementation

Conference Paper · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

2 3,360

1 author:

Dora Maria Simões

University of Aveiro
92 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Autonomia e TIC View project

Erasmus Mobility View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dora Maria Simões on 23 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ENTERPRISE DATA WAREHOUSES: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR A
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION

Dora Simões
Higher Institute of Accounting and Administration, Unit of Research in Governance,
Competitiveness and Public Policy, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-
193
Aveiro, Portugal
[email protected]

Author Biography: Dora Simões received her PhD in Informatics Engineering from the Faculty of
Engineering of the University of Porto, Portugal, in 2008. She is an Adjunct Professor at the Higher
Institute of Accounting and Administration – University of Aveiro (ISCA-UA), Portugal. Her
current research interests include data and information management, collaborative networks and
business intelligence.

Abstract (English): Currently, Data Warehouse systems are a powerful technological tool for
managing business information in order to support the processes of decision making at the strategic
level more effectively. To better understand the extent to which these systems are or not
contributing to the success of business initiatives, the author has developed an extensive study on
the implementation of these systems in wider business organizations. Thus, the first purpose of the
present paper is to report the results of a review of the state-of-the-art on the architectures of the
most used Enterprise Data Warehouse systems, and the level of success achieved against the
objectives established beforehand. This work also addresses the methodologies followed in the
implementation of the various architectures. The comparison between the different architectures
used in most business environments is also made under the two most relevant dimensions for the
business stakeholders: time and cost. It is a major objective of the author to contribute in this paper
with a conceptual framework aimed at guiding the business actors in the selection of the
architecture that best fits their organization, considering the hierarchical level of organization that is
supposed to support the Data Warehouse, in which the domain is applied and some considerations
about the profile of users in each infrastructure. It is also an objective of this study, to indicate a set
of metrics to evaluate the performance of an Enterprise Data Warehouse as well as to establish
guidelines on how to proceed to make that assessment.

Abstract (French): Actuellement, les systèmes de Date Warehouse sont des outils technologiques
puissants pour une gestion de l’information des affaires, qui ont l’objectif de supporter plus
effectivement les méthodes à suivre pour une prise de décision, au niveau stratégique. Pour mieux
comprendre jusqu’où ces systèmes contribuent pour un succès des initiatives d’affaires ou pas,
l’auteur a fait de longues études sur l’application de ces systèmes, à tous les niveaux des
organisations d’affaires. Ainsi, le premier objectif, de cette communication, à présenter, est de faire
un compte-rendu des résultats de la révision de l’état de l’art à propos des architectures d’Enterprise
Date Warehouses les plus utilisées et du niveau de succès obtenu en relation aux objectifs définis au
départ. Dans ce travail, on aborde aussi les méthodologies suivies lors de l’implantation des
diverses architectures. D’autre part, on réalise une analyse des potentiels fournisseurs de software
de ces types de systèmes, en accord avec les supports donnés: technologique, infrastructures ou
consultatif. La comparaison entre les différentes architectures les plus utilisées au niveau des
entreprises est aussi faite aux deux niveaux les plus importants pour les agents des entreprises:
temps et coût. Le principal objectif de l’auteur est de contribuer, dans cette communication, avec un
cadre conceptuel qui oriente les agents des entreprises dans la sélection de l’architecture la mieux
adaptée à son cas organisationnel, en considérant le niveau hiérarchique organisationnel qui peut
être supporter par Date Warehouse, le domaine où il sera appliqué et quelques considérations à
propos do profil des utilisateurs dans chaque infrastructure. Un autre objectif de ce travail est, non
seulement, d’indiquer un ensemble de métriques pour l’évaluation du parcours d’un Agent
d’Entreprises Date Warehouse mais aussi, de fournir des trajets d’orientation pour la réalisation de
cette évaluation.

Keywords: Data Warehouses, valuable information, business intelligence, performance metrics.

 Introduction

The enterprises are a key element of most economic systems. Throughout time business was

often undervalued based on assumptions made, such as the existence of valuable information1 for

all stakeholders (customers, suppliers, employees, business partners, etc.). Currently, it is

increasingly agreed that the information is the most precious asset of any enterprise. In the current

economic conjuncture, characterized by increasing uncertainty, the possession of valuable

information has an increasingly important role in the processes of decision making, carried out by

the various business actors.

The concept of entrepreneurship is related with various aspects that are linked to business

management, particularly regarding the aspect of creating new and innovative businesses. The

assessment of entrepreneurial activity and of its level of success in achieving its goals requires the

consideration of multiple influencing aspects. One of these is undoubtedly the way the entrepreneur

manages (collects, organizes, stores, updates and disseminates) the business information.

Most organizations recognize that a solid Data Warehouse system can be the basis for

sustaining competitive advantage in the long term. However, in reality it seems that achieving the

desired Data Warehouse system is not an easy task. The building of a Data Warehouse system

involves considerable human and financial resources, which typically extend to a long period of

time.

The author developed a study to review the state-of-the-art in order to identify major problems,

but also best practices that have dictated the success or failure of programs of implementation of

Data Warehouse systems. In this sense, the basic architectures, the most followed methodologies

1
In Stair and Reynolds (2008) valuable information understands the following characteristics: accessible, accurate, complete,

economic, flexible, relevant, reliable, secure, simple, timely and verifiable.

and the most adopted softwares are also ascertained. It is reflected on the consequences of these

choices for success or failure of the Data Warehouse programs, having in mind especially two

dimensions: cost and time.

The result of this work culminates in the proposal of a conceptual framework that serves as a

guideline for organizations that are programming to implement a Data Warehouse system. Some

metrics for further evaluation of the performance of the program implemented are also presented.

It is important to clarify that in the vision of the author, it is a program and not a project of

implementation of a Data Warehouse system. This view is based on the fact that a program refers to

a set of planned activities for a given period of time, but supposed to be continuously reviewed. In

turn, when talking about a project, we refer to a plan to perform an act which has a well-defined

time. For this reason, this paper refers, in all its extension, to the implementation of a Data

Warehouse system as a program.

This paper is structured as follows: first a review of the literature on the issue in question is

presented. In the following section, the conceptual framework proposed is described. Finally, some

light is shed on this work, especially the advantages brought by the research undertaken.

Literature Review

This literature review focuses on three key points, with regard to issues related to a program of

implementation of a Data Warehouse system: the known architectures, the methodologies followed

and the factors to consider when choosing the software. Attention is also given to references of the

best practices that can ensure greater success; or situations to avoid in order to minimize the risk of

failure.

Since this study aimed to identify not only the possible architectures but also the methodologies

that support the program of implementation of a Data Warehouse system, it is important to

distinguish these two concepts. In the author’s opinion, the architecture identifies the parts
(components), their characteristics, and establishes the relationships between the parties. The

methodology is defined as the identification of a set of activities (process) and their sequence in

order to lead to the ultimate goal. Thus, this section is divided into five sub-sections that comprise

the approach to the architectures, the methodologies, the softwares and the performance metrics. In

the end, some issues regarding the adoption of one or another structure are highlighted.

Architectures

Relatively to the most widely used architectures, Ariyachandra and Watson (2005) distinguish

five: (1) Independent Data Marts; (2) Data Mart Bus; (3) Hub and Spoke; (4) Centralized, and (5)

Federated. Other authors make classifications slightly different. For example, Turban, Aronson,

Liang et al. (2007) distinguish only four architectures, emphasizing primarily the architectures

based on Data Marts, and on these, they distinguish if the architectures include Independent Data

Marts or Dependent Data Marts formed from a Data Warehouse; an architecture centered on only

one Enterprise Data Warehouse; and a hybrid architecture for information management that is

supported neither by a Data Warehouse nor by Data Marts. To quote others, Sen and Sinha (2005)

also distinguish five architectures, but with a little different philosophy: (1) Enterprise Data

Warehousing (2) Data Mart, (3) Hub-and-Spoke Data Mart, (4) Enterprise Warehouse with

Operational Data Store, and (5) Distributed Data Warehouse.

Based on the classification of Watson and Ariyachandra (2005), which seems more inclusive

and segregating, we can perceive a little better the way they organize each of the architectures:

• Independent Data Marts – the Data Marts are designed to operate independently from

each other. Each Data Mart has its definition of the data and the dimensions and

measures between multiple Data Marts are not normalized, making it difficult to analyze

data between them. Data redundancy can be great.

 • Data Mart Bus – is based on the analysis of requirements for a specific business process.

The first Data Mart is built to a single business process, using dimensions and measures

normalized, which are then used with the other Data Marts.

• Hub and Spoke – is based on a requirement analysis for extensible enterprise level, also

focusing attention on building a scalable infrastructure and of lasting maintenance. It is

developed in an iterative manner, subject by subject. Data Marts created from the data

source of the Data Warehouse can be developed by department, functional area, or

special purposes (for example, data mining), and can have structures of normalized,

denormalized, or summarized/atomic data based on user needs.

• Centralized – differs from the Hub and Spoke architecture since it does not have Data

Marts. This centralized approach allows the user access to all data in the Data

Warehouse. It also allows reducing the amount of data to transfer or change, thus

simplifying the management and administration of these.

• Federated – is based on maintaining the structures of decision support in place, and

based on the business requirements, the data are accessed from these sources. Data are

logically and physically integrated using shared keys, global metadata, distributed

queries, and other methods.

On this issue, we should also mention the choices of the two most famous researchers in this

area. Inmon (2002) advocates the use of the Hub and Spoke architecture. Kimball and Ross (2002)

propose in turn the use of the Data Mart Bus architecture, according to the definitions presented in

the previous paragraph. Note, however, that as regards the strategy to follow in the implementation

of the architecture, Kimball and Ross (2002) propose a mixed strategy top-down and bottom-up;

this is, creating individual Data Marts in a bottom-up way, but in accordance with the skeleton of
the Data Mart Bus architecture. Hence, the Data Warehouse for the organization will be the union

of multiple Data Marts.

In addition, result of a study on best practices in business initiatives, Lawyer and Chowdhury

(2004) argue that the use of Independent Data Marts architecture should be avoided, as it is very

difficult to be a single source of truth for the organization, and therefore the consequences for the

business can be several.

Whatever the chosen architecture is, components that are always included in the

implementation of a Data Warehouse system are (Monteiro, Pinto and Costa 2003):

• OLTP (Online Transaction Processing) – registry operating systems that capture the

daily transactions of the company.

• ETL (Extract, Transfer and Load) – process that is the first step of the task of obtaining

data from OLTP systems into the Data Warehouse environment.

• DSA (Data Staging Area) – application that performs the connection between OLTP

systems and the Data Warehouse.

Along with the components listed above, applications oriented to decision support are also parts

in the implementation of a Data Warehouse system. Since the activities involved depend on the data

quality management and on the metadata management, the Data Warehouse system should include

tools for this purpose (Sen and Sinha 2005). When the data arrive at DSA, many changes occur, as

for example filtering the data (correction of typographical errors, resolution of domain conflicts,

etc.), the integration of data from multiple sources, the deletion of duplicate data and the key

assignment (Monteiro, Pinto and Costa 2003).

Methodologies

Overall, the literature identifies the following sequential activities in the process of

implementing a Data Warehouse system (Sen and Sinha 2005; List, Bruckner, Machaczek et al.

2002):

• Analysis of business requirements;

• Design of data (data model and normalization);

• Design of architecture;

• Implementation;

• Maintenance.

However, in the author’s view and towards what is stated in the previous sub-section, it is

concluded that depending on the chosen architecture, the design of the data will follow different

paths. Later on, this approach is discussed and another is conceptualized, one that meets the reality

in a more suitable way.

But consider some possible approaches advocated by renowned researchers in this area (Sen

and Sinha 2005; List, Bruckner, Machaczek et al. 2002). For example, Kimball and Ross (2002)

defend, in the first instance, the focus on the analytical requirements that are elicited from

managers, to design dimensional Data Marts. In their approach, we should begin with the planning

of the program and then follow to the definition of business requirements, dimensional modeling,

design of architecture, physical design, implementation, and so on. We can say that this approach is

essentially oriented to the organizational objectives.

Inmon (2002) argues in turn that instead of getting the requirements, we start by the data. These

are first obtained, integrated and tested. Then the programs are written according to the data and the

results are analyzed. Finally, the requirements are formulated. This approach is iterative and

focused primarily on data from the organization.

 It is also to mention Westerman’s approach (2001), where the main focus is on implementing

the business strategy, assuming that the purpose of the organization is the same for all users. He

proposes to start by defining a first prototype based on business needs, and then fit it to the needs

and skills of users. You could say that it is, in this case, an approach oriented to the user (List,

Bruckner, Machaczek et al. 2002).

Software and Support

Sen and Sinha (2005) present the results of a study that distinguishes the potential suppliers of

software/support, within the scope of Data Warehouse systems, in three categories: (1) Technology,

(2) Infrastructure, and (3) Consultancy (see Table 1). For these categories, each supplier is featured

according to: core competence, the way the modeling of requirements is carried out, the models

adopted for the data modeling, whether support for normalization and denormalization is provided,

the philosophy of architecture design, the strategy followed in the implementation, if some tool to

metadata management is available or not, if parallel design of queries is enabled, capacity of

scalability, and if mechanisms for managing change are included.

In Watson and Ariyachandra (2005), it is indicated that the most used platforms are the ones of

ORACLE, MICROSOFT and IBM. For these suppliers, and as outlined in Sen and Sinha (2005),

MICROSOFT and IBM follow the Hub and Spoke architecture, while ORACLE follows the Data

Mart Bus architecture (as definition of Watson and Ariyachandra (2005) presented in sub-section

“Architectures”).

Comparing these suppliers on their core competency, according to data presented in Sen and

Sinha (2005), it seems that in the Technology category, the core competence lies on the level of

Database Management Systems (DBMS); whereas in the case of the Infrastructure category, its

competence focuses on the level of business analysis software (OLAP, Data Mining, Predictive

Analysis, etc.); and with regard to suppliers in the category of Consulting, their skills are also
focused on the level of Business Intelligence, and in some cases essentially devoted to Enterprise

Resource Management (ERP).

Performance Metrics

After being implemented and having passed some period of use, each system must be assessed.

The assessment can be made from various perspectives, depending on the objectives of the

organization. For example, Ariyachandra and Watson (2006) suggest, for evaluating the

performance of a Data Warehouse system, the following metrics:

• Quality of information and of the system;

• Individual and organizational impacts;

• Time and cost of development.

In relation to the binomial cost/time, and from the analysis of literature made, the five

architectures defined in Ariyachandra and Watson (2005) seem to be distributed according to Figure

1.

Other authors also refer as possible criteria for evaluating performance of a Data Warehouse

system: the ease of use, the speed of access, the understanding of data, the ability and ease in

putting new questions to the system, or the improvement in capacity of decision-making (Wixon

and Watson 2001; Weir 2002; Brown 2004; Hwang and Xu 2005).

Discussion

From literature, and as general considerations, we can say that in case of large firms and those

suffering successive structural changes such as mergers or alliances, the most appropriate

architecture is the “Federated”. When the factor of interdependence of information has in turn more

weight on the others, the Data Mart Bus architecture should be adopted. Moreover, when the

predominant factor is related to the strategic vision, the choice must usually be on one of the
following architectures: Centralized or Hub and Spoke. If in the enterprise, the strategic vision of

implementing a Data Warehouse system is still limited in scope, there are resource constraints and

the expertise is low, the option should be the Independent Data Mart architecture (see Figure 2).

Regarding the methodologies advocated by some researchers, as mentioned in sub-section

“Methodologies” and in the vision of this author, the data-oriented approach advocated by Inmon

(2002) does not allow an organizational implementation on strategic level (long term); and even on

the tactical level, its implementation is very limited. Nevertheless, this approach seems adequate to

manage the process at the operational level. In the context of organizational activities, this author

agrees with List, Bruckner, Machaczek et al. (2002) that a data-oriented methodology for

conducting a program to implement a Data Warehouse system is suitable for activities of workflow,

because of the high degree of repetition, which allows you to generate high business value with

customer focus.

In the case of goal-oriented approach and defended by Kimball and Ross (2002), this seems to

support the organization at the strategic level, guiding it toward a broader future. It allows support

for strategic decision making, and a higher level of detail.

Finally, with regard to user-oriented approach from Westerman (2001), it seems not to

guarantee decision support, therefore it should only be used in very specific contexts. Furthermore,

and because in general most employees tend to focus their vision on only one angle, the success of

implementation of a Data Warehouse system that follows just this approach can be seriously

compromised. A hybrid approach that combines this approach with one of the others may enable a

broader view.

Strategies for Implementing an Enterprise Data Warehouse System

The work of revising the state-of-the-art, described briefly in the previous section, allowed the

author to develop a conceptual framework to serve as a guideline principle in programs of

implementation of Data Warehouse systems. The framework also includes some performance

metrics for evaluating a program to Data Warehouse running.

A conceptual framework for building Data Warehouse systems

The development of systems is usually a complex process, mainly due to the difficulty in

aligning the characteristics of the system with the needs of an organization, but also because

controlling both time and costs of development is difficult (Stair and Reynolds 2008). First, it is

important that the organization realizes and recognizes the activities of development of systems, so

that it can embark on a program of implementation of a Data Warehouse system in a conscious and

reflected way.

Thus, in systems development, involving either the creation of a new system or the

modification of an existing one, it must meet the five main steps: (1) Investigation – understand the

problem, this is, gain a clear understanding of the problem to be solved or opportunities to be

addressed; (2) Analysis – understand solutions, this is, clearly define the problem and the expected

opportunities; (3) Design – select and plan the best solution, this is, determine how the new system

will work to meet the business needs defined during analysis; (4) Implementation – place solution

into effect, this is, create or acquire the system components defined in the design, assembling them,

and putting the new system into operation; and (5) Maintenance and Revision – evaluate results of

solution, this is, monitor and evaluate system performance, and decide on the need for possible

changes to improve (Stair and Reynolds 2008).

The conceptual framework presented in Table 2 for building a Data Warehouse system is based,

in the first instance, on the identification of the main factors justifying the need for implementing

the system for the organization in question, according to the model presented in Figure 2. This task

will allow later to map the choice into the most appropriate architecture and to reflect

simultaneously on the field of application (Figure 2).

 After identifying the most appropriate architecture, information about potential suppliers should

be sought. It interests to identify one that guarantees it can develop/provide the solution specified

and at a lower cost or/and at a minor time. In this process, it is also necessary to consider what kind

of support is desired, that is, if the wanted support is at the level technology, infrastructure and/or

consultancy. It is determined which of them offers more favorable conditions under various criteria,

as indicated in sub-section “Software and Support”.

Thus, after choosing the software supplier, the next step is the implementation of the system of

Data Warehouse desired. Completed the construction of the Data Warehouse system, comes the

stage of evaluation. It is important to assess the financial costs and time spent, but also to perceive

how well this new system suits the organizational activity. The results of this evaluation may dictate

or not a new cycle of system development - its modification.

Discussion

The conceptual framework presented is a result of aggregating information from the review of

existing literature on this subject, of the author's professional experience and of a deep reflection of

hers on this. The analysis of best practices, described by some professionals in this area, was also

relevant to the proposed model.

A good practice, for example, is to have a metadata repository that supports the import and

export, and that also has capabilities of integration with Internet technology (Weir 2002; Lawyer

and Chowdhury 2004).

Brown (2004) highlights as success factors in the implementation a Data Warehouse system:

the adoption of an approach geared to business objectives in order to maximize the acquisition of

necessary knowledge about the organization's data and about the potential users of the system, and

the promotion of the incremental development of the system. The expected benefits are both of data

availability and the improvement of services (Vervuren and Dietvorst 2006).

 It should also be noted that, the construction of a Data Warehouse system which includes

effective techniques of cleansing and integration allows to produce higher quality data relatively to

source data (legacy) (Hwang and Xu 2005).

Concluding Remarks

For presentation of the conceptual framework described in previous section, the author had as

foundation the delineation of general lines that serve as a matrix in the process of building a Data

Warehouse system.

As mentioned earlier in this paper, the building a Data Warehouse system is understood as a

program, that has a beginning, middle and end, but the several steps involved are cyclical, this

means that the result of each phase can dictate, spaced in time, the change of various aspects of the

Data Warehouse system implemented. These aspects can be at the level of the data, the architecture,

the techniques of data analysis, the availability of access, and so on.

Future efforts can use the conceptual framework presented here to develop programs to

implement Data Warehouse systems more successfully.

The implementation of a Data Warehouse system is mentioned, in most literature, as a key

determinant of success or failure of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems. In the era

of business intelligence, the concern for the implementation of an effective Data Warehouse system

proves to be an increasingly important factor, also given the emerging trends of enterprises for the

Relational Marketing.

References

Ariyachandra, T. and H. Watson (2005). "Key factors in selecting a Data Warehouse architecture."
Business Intelligence Journal 10(2).
Ariyachandra, T. and H. Watson (2006). "Which Data Warehouse Architecture is Most
Successful?" Business Intelligence Journal 11(1).
Brown, M. (2004). "8 Characteristics of a Successful Data Warehouse". Twenty-Ninth Annual SAS
Users Group International Conference (SUGI 29), Montreal.
Hwang, M. and H. Xu (2005). "A Survey of Data Warehousing Success Issues." Business
Intelligence Journal 10(4).
Inmon, W. H. (2002). Building the Data Warehouse. New York, Wiley.
Kimball, R. and M. Ross (2002). The Data Warehouse Toolkit: The Complete Guide to
Dimensional Modeling. New York, Wiley.
Lawyer, J. and S. Chowdhury (2004). "Best Practices in Data Warehousing to Support Business
Initiatives and Needs". 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, IEEE.
List, B., R. M. Bruckner, K. Machaczek and J. Schiefer (2002). A Comparison of Data Warehouse
Development Methodologies: Case Study of the Process Warehouse. R. C. e. al., Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. LNCS 2453: 203-215.
Monteiro, A., M. Pinto and R. Costa (2003). Uma Aplicação de Data Warehouse para Apoiar
Negócios. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ, IME -
Dept de Informática e Ciência da Computação.
Sen, A. and A. P. Sinha (2005). "A Comparison of Data Warehousing Methodologies."
Communications of the ACM 48(3): 79-84.
Stair, R. and G. Reynolds (2008). Fundamentals of Information Systems. Boston, Thomson Course
Technology.
Turban, E., J. E. Aronson, T.-P. Liang and R. Sharda (2007). Decision Support and Business
Intelligence Systems. New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
Vervuren, P. and F. Dietvorst (2006). "Contours of a Drug Development Data Warehouse". First
Conference of the Pharmaceutical Users Software Exchange (PhUSE), Dublin, Ireland.
Watson, H. J. and T. Ariyachandra (2005). Data Warehouse Architectures: Factors in the Selection
Decision and the Success of the Architectures, Terry College of Business, University of
Georgia.
Weir, R. (2002). "Best Practices for Implementing a Data Warehouse." Journal of Data
Warehousing 7(1).
Westerman, P. (2001). Data Warehousing using the Wal-Mart Model. Morgan Kaufmann.
Wixon, B. and H. Watson (2001). "An Empirical Investigation of the Factors Affecting Data
Warehousing Success." MIS Quartely 25(1).
 Table 1

Suppliers of Data Warehouse Systems by Category (based on Sen and Sinha (2005))
Denomination
Tecnology NCR/Teradata
Oracle
IBM
Sybase
Microsoft
Infrastruture SAS
Informatica’s Velocity
Computer Associates
Visible Technologies
Hyperion’s STAR
Consultancy SAP
PeopleSoft

CGEY
Corporate Information Designs
Creative Data

Figure 1

Distribution of Data Warehouse Architectures for the Dimensions of Cost and Time
 Figure 2

Mapping Model of the Factors in a Data Warehouse Architecture

 Table 2

A Conceptual Framework for Building an Enterprise Data Warehouse System

Step Activity Description
1 1.1 Understand the problem and recognize the opportunities that can be enjoyed
Investigation with the implementation of system.
2 2.1 Define the problem and the opportunities expected from the implementation
Analysis of the system (business plan) in detail:
1. value of program;
2. adequacy with the objectives of the company;
3. capability to achieve key business objectives;
4. cost estimates;
5. schedule of sub-objectives;
6. staffing requirements;
7. risk assessment.
2.2 Detailed specification of functional requirements of the system.
2.3 Determine the cost-benefit ratio of its creation and maintenance.
3 3.1 Based on “Mapping model of the factors in a Data Warehouse Architecture”
Design (see Figure 2), identify the three more relevant factors that justify the
importance of implementing the system.
3.2 Rank the factors identified by order of relevance (first, second and third places
on the podium).
3.3 For the factor ranked in first position, determine the architecture(s)
corresponding, and:
I. If there is only one architecture corresponding, identify it and skip to
step 4.
II. If not, determine from this set of architectures, which have
correspondence on the factor ranked in second position, and:
i. If there is only one architecture corresponding, identify it and
skip to step 4.
ii. If not, determine from this new set of architectures, which
have correspondence on the factor ranked in third position,
and:
a. If there is only one architecture corresponding,
identify it and skip to step 4.
b. If there isn´t any architecture corresponding, choose
the architecture that offers the lowest cost or time
of implementation according to Figure 1, and move
to step 4.
4 4.1 Reflection on the type of support required at the level of software suppliers:
Implementation (1) Tecnology, (2) Infrastruture, or (3) Consultancy (review the sub-section
“Software and Support”).
4.2 In scope of the category selected, examine three potential suppliers of
software/solutions (see Table 1). Use as attributes (when applicable): core
competency, the model used in the specification of requirements, model
adopted for data modeling, type of support in the
 normalization/denormalization, the design philosophy of architecture,
providing a tool for metadata, model of query management, capacity of
scalability, tool of data cleansing, support on training and maintenance, price
and time of development/implementation. For the two software suppliers
identified as the most attractive, choose the one that offers the lowest price
and/or the shortest time of implementation.
4.3 Launch the implementation of the system.
5 5.1 Evaluate the cost and time spent in developing the system.
Maintenance & 5.2 Evaluate the ease of use and understanding by users (internal customers) of
Revision the system.
5.3 Evaluate the quality of information stored in the Data Warehouse.
5.4 Evaluate the impact of the implementation of the system in managing the
relationship with external customers.

View publication stats