In the cloud you don’t need a development environment. You need two.

Posted on by

When I was much younger
Clients seldom agreed to the number and configuration of IT environments that constituted the perfect setup.
Some would have a dedicated unit testing environment, one for the integration test, one more for the preproduction (where the performance tests would be performed) and finally one for production.
Some would have a hot/standby production. Some would have an active-active production. Some would have a DR site in addition to the active-active production.
The only area where all my clients in the early 2000s agreed was that only one development environment was needed. Sometimes the development environment was owned, hosted and managed by the system integrator creating a custom solution rather than by the client.

The first time it came to my attention that the traditional definition of development environment was getting obsolete.
A few years ago, circa 2015-2016, I went to visit a customer in Malaysia to run a proof of concept for a data federation solution together with a few colleagues.
We took into account a number of technical and non-technical factors to select the platform we would use and finally we agreed with the customer to utilize the VMWare edition of our database that was recently made available.
We provided the installation files to the person managing the development environment of the customer and the installation scripts failed very soon, already during the environment checks, because the environment was over-provisioned. Such a check is indeed very reasonable for a production database but not so much for a PoC.
This initial failure led the customer to scrutinize the entire installation script and raise a number of concerns about how it would interact with the existing VMWare setup. The script was not just installing our software, it was also configuring the virtual hardware of the VMWare environment to ensure it matched the configuration expected by the installer.
The key feedback we received went along the lines of: “my VMWare development environment is my developers’ production environment, and I won’t allow your script to change it potentially destroying the productivity of my team”.
A member our team was very talented with VMWare and was able to edit the standard installation scripts to remove all the parts the customer considered a risk for its environment and enable the installation without a glitch while maintaining the existing infrastructure setup unchanged.
We just noted down that in the future we should ask for a dedicated infrastructure to run our VMWare edition and I put the experience in the long-term storage of my brain.

Infrastructure as code (IaC) is the new norm and this changes the management of the development environments forever.
Having a single development environment for both the software and the infrastructure IaC development creates two challenges for an organization.
On one side there is the risk of IaC developments disrupting the productivity of the other developers.
On the other side, to minimize the risks associated with the IaC changes, the organization might put in place a set of restrictive guardrails that effectively cripple its ability to innovate and bring the ways of working back to the pre-cloud era.

Just having a second, isolated, development environment for IaC is not enough.
Many infrastructure mistakes are only discovered when applications are executed.
To ensure the IaC errors are detected early, when the blast radius is minimal, the pipelines for the “normal” software components have to deploy and automatically test in the IaC development environment as well.
Any failure detected only in the IaC development environment shall then be raised to the infrastructure team while the failures happening both in IaC and SIT are raised to the component development team like before.

How do you approach the challenges and opportunities introduced by IaC?

Why the Data Mesh can’t and shouldn’t replace data integration

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, I wrote that Self-service analytics isn’t everyone’s dream and a few days later I discussed the content with my friend Alessio.
It turned out that one of the points I was trying to make didn’t come out as sharply as I believed, and this post is to elaborate on it and make it clearer.

  1. Data self-service is more feasible and cost-effective with a proper Data Mesh than with most 1st generation data lakes.
  2. Adopting the Data Mesh model doesn’t imply that data integration efforts should be halted.
    I see at least three reasons why data integration initiatives should continue:
    a) The cost of finding, understanding, and processing data from multiple sources is lowered when adopting the Data Mesh, but when the same activity is repeated multiple times by hundreds or thousands of employees the cumulative cost will become greater than the cost of integrating the data once for everyone.
    b) When each person or small team integrates the data autonomously the potential outcome is a Babel of numbers that don’t match those created by other teams and the organization ends up with a modern edition of the spread-mart proliferation of the past.
    Until the results are incorporated in a PowerPoint document this modern version removes the problem of the stale data, but it’s a small consolation.
    c) Truly federated analytical queries can’t guarantee, at least today, the low latency needed in many business scenarios.

In the previous paragraph I mentioned the cost of producing valuable knowledge from data, but I didn’t dig in the detail of computing such cost.
I tried to come up with a nice construct for it all I can offer so far is a small WIP to hopefully start a little brainstorm.
The cost of knowledge production (CoKP) is a function of computing costs and human effort.
– The computing component appears relatively simple but paying attention to the efficiency of the data processing is key when queries are executed at scale.
I’ve seen >100K analytical queries per day in production environments in several clients: this is what happens when and analytical platform is successful in generating value. It’s better to plan ahead of time rather than ending up forced to re-think the architecture by skyrocketing costs and potentially losing momentum and motivation in the process.
– In the human component I’d include the time needed to find the data, get access, understand what the specific data means, understand the fit for the specific purpose, and processing the data to extract the knowledge.
I know that cost in itself is not enough to evaluate an investment but estimating the return of an investment in data transformation is complex and I don’t dare taking a stab at it here.

I take the opportunity to do a couple of follow-up on comments related to this subject I’ve received recently:
– My friend Dan suggested that IT should be the group doing the data integration.
I’m not sure it has to be IT; they might have a better visibility of the overall data landscape and thus be in a better position that other organizations, but I’d say today there should be a chief data officer (CDO) to lead the data integration initiative.
– Gaetano‘s reply to my comment a week ago seems to go in the same direction of seeing IT as the agent enabling cross-domain pollination.
– Andrea kindly pointed out an improper use of the term “insight” on my side.
I’m pretty sure my former colleague Dirk would completely agree with him, and I’ll do my best to be more rigorous with the terms I use.

As usual…

Self-service analytics is not everyone’s dream

Posted on by

According to the recent messaging of many players in the data space, self-service analytics is the next-big-thing in the data space, the end-users want it, and the organizations should acquire as quickly as possible the technologies needed to deliver it.

I beg to differ on the starting assumption: no matter the definition of “self-service analytics” adopted, there are many, what the business users really want is access to the information contained in the organization’s data in a time-frame that makes said information usable to drive a business decision.

The definition of “self-service analytics” is not standardized and this can cause misunderstandings when discussing the subject.
The spectrum goes from a relatively conservative “self-service reporting capability”, where the data is integrated by the IT team (for example Gartner‘s and usually the BI tool vendors’), to a more modern “data-mesh-enabled self-service-everything-data” where simpler-to-use tools and standard interfaces are made available and allow the end-users to integrate the data as they deem appropriate without having to wait for the IT team to perform the task (TDWI‘s and Snowflake‘s definitions leans more in this direction).

Self-service analytics, in the modern definition, today might the best way to get to the desired timely insights from data given the current technological and organizational landscapes (i.e. without waiting a few months for the IT data integration process to complete).
“Best today” is not synonymous with “great” and I believe that a generalized shift of the end-users toward modern self-service analytics should not be advocated.
Organizations should keep investing toward a truly integrated data landscape.
The fact that data self-help can now be performed using big data technologies in a cloud environment doesn’t make the practice substantially different, in terms of risks, from the Excel-based “spread-marts” of the past. Even with the modern tools it is still possible to have different people label the same way data that is integrated, filtered, and aggregated in different ways at different point in time resulting in siloed, mismatching data marts.

The division of work and specialization is what enabled the standards of living to improve at an increasingly fast pace when humans started to leverage them at scale.
Mass production drove up the quality and volume of goods produced for the unit of time (and money) in exchange for a longer setup time of the production line and a reduced space for customization (“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black” is a famous quote attributed to Henry Ford), but production techniques have evolved over time and, remaining in the car domain, today’s production give us a degree of flexibility in designing our vehicle Ford couldn’t even dream of.
This evolution didn’t completely destroy the demand for artisanal work and custom realizations, but made these realizations the exception rather than standard, and the prices for high-quality, personalized solutions are significantly higher.

When thinking about self-service analytics and data democratization organizations should be careful to properly model the associated sunken costs.
It is easy to quantify the cost of a centralized data modeling and engineering team, but is hard to model the costs of self-service analytics practices.
We should have learned from the experiments with the Hadoop-based data lakes that the apparently cheap schema-on-read approach resulted either in an increase of costs, as multiple people had to figure out the same data integration over and over, or in data swamps that no one wanted or could use.

There is no doubt that self-service analytics is more cost-effective with a proper data mesh (i.e. one where you have real data products and is based on a enterprise-wide domain driven design) than with the first-generation data lakes, but this doesn’t mean that the specialized, factory-like, creation of integrated data (products), that takes longer to build, should be abandoned.
While it’s great that today I could get the material needed to quickly replace the shattered glass of my table delivered at home with a few clicks, without having to lease a small truck and go to the shop like a decade ago, it doesn’t mean that now I should build my own kitchen.
Organizations should strive to have a faster, more flexible, mass production of high-quality insights and augment it, rather than replace it, with an efficient and effective delivery of raw data.
Just like I should buy my next kitchen here again rather than try to build it myself.

What’s the right LinkedIn connection policy for me?

Posted on by

It is more than 15 years I’m using LinkedIn and in all this time I stuck by the same policy: connect only to people I know well enough to be able to answer work-relevant questions about them.

I’m confident that 90% of my contacts met this criteria at the time I connected, but with the years passing my recall of past interactions in most cases got blurred or faded away altogether. And it is also true that most people has changed, usually for the better, since we worked or studied together.
It’s a fact that for most of my contacts I’m no longer able to answer with confidence whether they might, or might not, be a good fit for a certain role.

To remain coherent with my original mental model about when I should be connected with someone in LinkedIn I should take my list of contacts and slash mercilessly at least half of them.
Unfortunately isn’t this easy.
This approach looks wrong to me because my current inability to answer specific questions about them doesn’t make the reality of my past interactions with my contacts any less true and if I thought at the time that it was right to connect I shouldn’t assume now it’s no longer the case.
It would also be unfair to my connections..

While I have pretty much made my mind about my existing contacts I’m quite undecided about new ones.
Should I maintain the approach just accepting the fact in a few years I will not be able to answer detailed questions?
Should I accept the connection from people I’ve met in person and use LinkedIn as a modern version of the business card holder?
Should I differentiate, and safeguard against the effect of time, the deeper interactions using the recommendations more than I do today?
Please share in the comments how do you manage your network and why.

P.S.I know there are many that take an open network approach accepting anyone reaching out on LinkedIn and why it makes sense for them, but I know already this is not something I am comfortable with.

Being a tech-savvy parent sometime can be very frustrating.

Posted on by

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a great acceleration in the adoption of information technology by schools scrambling to keep students able to learn while at home.
The private school of my children took the path of cloud technology, a very reasonable one to scale capacity rapidly, and went for Google’s ecosystem: Google Drive and Google Docs/Sheets form the backbone of their solution.

All is good as long as you have a reliable connectivity, which is the case of Singapore, and the students are able to self-manage their use of non-school-related Google services.
The moment the children need help in resisting the temptation of burning tens of hours per week on YouTube things become more complicated for parents that neither have a solid understanding of the technology nor can spend all their time watching the computer use of their children.
Having a fairly solid IT background I thought I was in a better position that the average parent and could easily implement an automated solution to the problem.

I have a firewall at home and I thought that I could simply block YouTube through it.
Unfortunately blocking YouTube-related domains (m.youtube.com, http://www.youtube-nocookie.com, http://www.youtube.com, youtube.googleapis.com, youtubei.googleapis.com) not only works perfectly to block YouTube, but also works perfectly to prevent Google Drive website from loading.
A quick search confirmed it wasn’t something I did wrong on my side, but the way Google has setup their services.
But you can use the official app to make Google Drive look like a local disk and access the files while blocking YouTube, right?
I did so and felt quite proud of it, but only for a short while. Just until I realized this is not enough to edit documents created with Google’s productivity suite.
The documents in the virtual disk in reality contain only the metadata to open the remote documents with Google’s productivity suite online, not the actual documents: I needed YouTube access again.

Another quick search provided me with a manual workaround for the documents created with Google’s tools, but I find it is fairly impractical:
1) Download locally through the web interface the document created with Google’s productivity suite. This will automatically trigger a conversion to a standard office format for the downloaded copy.
2) Load back the converted file after ensuring you didn’t configure the settings to automatically convert to Google’s format
3) Edit the standard-format document both online (with Google’s tool) and locally (with LibreOffice if you don’t have a license for M365).
Because my son already had >100 documents in Google format and the first 2 steps require access to YouTube every time he forgets to perform them at school I find this route quite inconvenient.
For the time being I am giving up on finding a way to automatically block YouTube while having full access to Google Docs.

From the business point of view I can see why Google would rather not have parents blocking children’s access to YouTube; this is one way they make money with their “free” productivity tools.
I would also have understood the business decision to go with Google’s productivity suite if it was made by a public institute in a country with financial troubles because it’s still much better than leaving the students unable to learn.
But when the school asks for annual tuition fees in the range of of the tens of thousands of dollars picking Google’s productivity suite over Microsoft 365, which is also cloud based, but works by default with industry standard formats, it simply makes no sense from a parent’s point of view.
The school should have invested adequately in tools and personnel to facilitate the remote learning needs of their students at a level matching their premium tuition fees.

If someone knows a fully automatic way to block YouTube while at the same time work seamlessly with Google’s documents please share it in the comments: I’m sure I will not be the only parent happy to know how to do it.

A personal experience about the role of software in sustainability

Posted on by

A bit less than two years ago, shortly after arriving in Singapore and with the perspective of a life of intense work-related traveling, I purchased a phone from a local telco company.
I picked a device in the premium segment expecting that this way I would be covered in terms of frequent security updates at least for the duration of my contract.
Phone life was pretty much uneventful with me accepting updates as soon as offered and quickly forgetting the matter afterward.

Until a few weeks ago when, one sunny morning, I got an email stating my smartphone was no longer authorized to access corporate resources because it was on a security patch older than 3 months.
The first though was I had somehow missed the patch, but I checked and the phone said I was on the latest. Which indeed was more than 3 months old as per the email message.
As I added fruitless calls to fruitless calls and chats and forum reading I grew more and more unhappy and the only silver lining was that being unable to travel freely made the problem an annoyance rather than a disruptive event.

Since then I had the opportunity to think about two things:
1) how software maintenance plays a key role in sustainability and saving natural resources
2) how different markets are treated differently by the same vendor.

If Covid-19 hadn’t grounded pretty much everyone in Singapore how would I have coped with the crippled communication functionalities of the smartphone?
Because using the smartphone as an hotspot for the computer is often inconvenient and sometimes is not viable at all.
I’m pretty sure I would have ended up purchasing a new device in a rush while the old one was perfectly working except for the lack of the security patch and of an estimated release date for it to help me plan my next course of action.
The end result of that would have been an unhappy customer, wasted resources and no guarantee that the problem wouldn’t resurface again in a couple of years on the new device.

While trying to find how to solve my problem I discovered that my phone model in other countries, for example Italy, hadn’t moved from monthly to quarterly security patch releases.
The temptation to download a foreign firmware was strong, but the risk of bricking the phone or, even worse, ending up with a hacked firmware containing a backdoor was too high.

Now I wonder: maybe the market in Singapore is too small to keep investing on frequent patches even for premium phones?
I’d rather not have to pick and choose between the risk of not getting security patches and the risk of not having a local warranty.

After a couple of weeks a patch was released in Singapore and corporate access was back as before, but a regular traveler could really afford the risk of being back to the same situation in 3 months time?
What the vendor is teaching me, and every one of their customers, is that cheaper, more frequent purchases are a better money allocation strategy to remain covered by the security patches.
And if this is a bad strategy for our planet… is not really their problem, just bad luck for the environment and the future generations.

Synology DSM 7.0 as a simple ad-blocker

Posted on by

I’m ok with the ad-supported business model, but when on the screen I find 10 (ten!) advertising for the same computer vendor I feel a strong urge to get some ad-freedom.
Often times the ads are not static, but dynamic and this obsoletes older computer faster than strictly needed. This motivates me even further.

A few years back I have successfully used a nice little tool to convert my DS411Slim into an ad-blocker.
The process was simple and all was good until my DS411Slim died for good.
After recovering all the data (with a fair amount of stress and work) I kept using the same solution on the Xpenology running on a HP microserver Gen8 that replaced it.

Fast forward a few years and I moved to Singapore without bringing the server over, but still needed a baseline level of ad-freedom.
For a while I used OPNsense (running on a Kodlix GK45) for this purpose, but after a few (several) months I grew tired of Suricata turning off seemingly randomly on the box (with little useable logs to troubleshoot and no improvement with the OPNsense patches) and sometimes the DNS service doing just the same.
The OPNsense box got decommissioned (it is waiting to be repurposed) and a Unifi USG (I had it sitting around unused since in Italy I moved to a Sophos firewall for my dual-wan needs) took over the basic firewall duties leaving me with my ad-invasion problem again.

Sunday last week I thought it was a good idea to get rid of my ad problem leveraging my recently purchased Synology DS120J in tandem with a used DS115J (yes, I did learn from the DS411Slim experience that a NAS is a single point of failure even when is supporting multiple disks).
Because I went through the process in the past I thought it was going to be a matter of a few minutes and a good idea to relax a bit during my study session for the AWS Certified Solutions Architect – Professional exam.

After almost 30 years dealing with computers I should have known better that often times “few minutes” becomes “few hours”.
In this case the time-stretching happened because I’m running DSM 7.0 instead of DSM 6.x like in my previous NAS and Synology in this major version changed the way some of the built-in services are managed.
Because of this change the directory structure changed too and the original script didn’t work out of the box anymore.
The former:
/etc/zone/data/
in DSM7 becomes:
/volume1/@appstore/DNSServer/named/etc/zone/data/

After hammering here and there for a while I got to a hack that seems to be working for me.
If someone wants to take a look at it I attached it in the GitHub issue here.
The usual disclaimer apply: there is no guarantee implied or expressed that it will work for anyone else, it’s totally unrelated to my current or past job and employers, and if the script is used I bear no responsibility for anything bad happening. You can read at the bottom the full, wordy, detail.

Because I passed my certification exam last Friday (Friday the 17th, what an auspicious day did I pick!) I feel much less guilty now of having subtracted two hours from my study and I hope with this post I will save some time for others trying to follow the same approach.

https://marcoullasci.com/2019/08/18/disclaimer/

Replacing the word “source” with the word “product” is not enough to change the reality of your data.

Posted on by

I recently shared my perspective about the Data Mess vs. Data Mesh.
Shortly afterward I was chatting with my friend Luca asking his feedback and his main comments were along the lines of “it’s all good, but it’s very hard to find an effective mechanism to reward and incentivize the change”.
In this post I’m sharing my view on this challenge.

Citing  Zhamak Dehghani original work I highlighted that “Data as a product” is one of the pillars of the Data Mesh.
To reap the benefits promised by the data mesh organizations then feel urged to morph their data sets into data products.

Unfortunately there are many definitions of product and they are not equally useful to transform the organization and create a real, useful data mesh.

One definition of product is: “a thing that is the result of an action or process”.
This is the definition easiest to apply and is the most dangerous too.
It makes possible to quickly and automatically label every existing data source as a “data product” without the need to change anything in the existing processes.
It is a sure guarantee that the data mess will remain in place for the years to come with data remaining a by-product of the business processes rather than a “real” product.
Just like today, but with the trendy label.

A definition of product much more useful to incentivize the organizational change is the following: “an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale”.
The key part is “for sale” because it implies the existence of a historically strong product improvement driver: money changing hands and increasing a producer’s wealth in the process.

Many organizations have created, or are in the process of creating a “data marketplace”, to facilitate data product exchanges.
Unfortunately a lack of general agreement about what a “data marketplace” should be can lead to the creation of something slightly, but significantly different: a data catalog.
In recent implementations, hopefully, the catalog is paired with a set of tools to self service the data access and/or transfer (I’ll come to the subject of transfer vs. access in a future post).
This kind of data marketplaces work nicely with the first (and lesser) definition of a data product but is not fully supporting the value creation expected from the adoption of the second definition.

The data marketplace that supports continuously improving data products is something slightly, but significantly different.
On top of the functional characteristics of the basic marketplace I listed earlier it enables a low friction exchange of (data) goods for a certain amount of an agreed currency.

The technical means to easily move money around are many, well known, and broadly available.
The tricky part is, once again, an organization and people problem: defining the “certain amount” of currency that should change hands.

Who sets the price of the data products and how?

Being fundamentally Austrian in my vision of economy my first answer was: the free market!
Unfortunately this is a bad approach for the data market because the producers of data raw (I’ll tentatively blog about raw data/data by-products in the future) are in most cases natural monopolies: having only monopolists setting the prices would immediately lead to a complete failure of the marketplace.
Centrally regulated prices appears to be the only option.

Historically centralized economies have been trailing free economies in terms of wealth generation and this can be concerning: how we could prevent the same from happening in our data marketplace?
The special nature of digital goods compared to physical goods (produce once, sell many times) help us a bit in this matter.
Setting a fixed price centrally will promote efficiencies in data production at the assigned quality point (by making the production more efficient the producer will increase his gain), but shouldn’t destroy completely the incentives to improve the products because the same price is paid by each consumer and not by the corporate through a budget directly allocated to the producer.
In this scenario the producer has an incentive to get more consumers to buy the data product by improving it (there is a quantifiable return on additional investments made on the data product) and by sharing ideas about new ways to create value from data.

Deciding the prices is, once again, a non-technical problem.
I would promote value-based prices over cost-based prices any day because inefficient production processes lead to a higher price for a set value generated (I am being Austrian again here), but there is, again, a data product specific constraint here: most organizations have a hard time materializing the expected return of their data investiment.
I dare to say that many can’t even quantify the obtained return at all and this makes a proper value-based central pricing of data assets close to impossible.
The only the option left is to set the initial price of data products based on a linear combination of incurred and recurring production costs.
This unit price of the data product (subscription) for each consumer will be calculated by dividing the (calculated) current cost by the number of current consumers and the budgets will be aligned accordingly to the current consumers.
Organizations can (and should) apply a periodic price deflation factor to the initial prices to drive efficiency up and prevent omission bias and complacency on the producer side .

Disclaimer

Will the Data Mesh save organizations from the Data Mess?

Posted on by

The “Data Mess” is almost as old as the installation of a second database within a single organization. Or maybe even older and paper-based.

Many companies, all over the world, have tried to solve the data mess problem for decades with varying degrees of success.
Which is a nice way to say: in many cases with limited or no success.
No matter the many promises of technical silver bullets that were made over the years, like the MPP databases earlier or the Hadoop-based datalakes later, the task of integrating data is still far from being a trivial one.

About 6 months ago I had a chat with a friend, and former Teradata colleague, and he told me he had to discuss the data mesh with the CIO of a large Italian company that was extremely excited about the subject.
Unsurprisingly, given the ripples that this post of Zhamak Dehghani had in the market, in the preceding weeks I had several conversations about the data mesh with my team mates and we are still debating the subject.

I’m writing today because I’m concerned by the fact that the data mesh is perceived, in almost all the conversations I have, as the (new&improved) silver bullet that will finally kill the data mess monster for good.
I think this might be the case. But only as long as the data mesh is not reduced to the technology/architecture part of the solution.

The “data mess” is generated by a combination of shortcomings in 3 key areas:
1) people
2) processes
3) technologies

The data mesh discussions I’ve had so far focus mostly, if not only, on the technical solutions with an unexpressed assumption (or hope) that removing the technical obstacles will be enough to magically fix also people and processes shortcomings.
I guess it might be because a lot of people in IT is more comfortable dealing with technologies than with processes and other people.
Or maybe I am just perceived as too much of a geek for my counterparts to discuss the non-technical aspects of the data mesh with me.

Frankly I hope it’s the latter scenario and the people and processes pillars are being addressed in other streams I’m not part of.
I say this because what the experience in the software quality space taught me is that technologies can facilitate processes, but don’t change them (with a few notable exceptions when packaged ERPs replaced custom solutions ahead of Y2K and many organization in a hurry just had to adapt to processes supported by the ERP they picked).
I also learned that people with enough motivation to do so can ignore, or even hijack, the best processes.

Both the first and the second post of Zhamak Dehghani touch multiple times the process aspects.
Are processes prominently missing only from the conversations I am having and hearing about or is a common pattern?

I tend to think that the people pillar (a.k.a. incentives to embrace a new way of doing things) is still not sorted out, or maybe is even perceived as too hard to approach, in many organizations and for this reason is simply removed from the debate.

I believe that solving the people part of the problem is strongly tied to a real transformation of data into a product rather than just a dump of JSON by-products, that the potential consumer has to figure out how to use, of the organization’s processes.
What incentive is given to the marketing team (or the e-commerce one, or the customer service, or the production lines…) to invest part of their limited budget to produce high-quality. easy to use, data available in the mesh and, maybe, also increase the data value over time?
No ROI, no party.

In the end my answer to the question I asked in the title is:
“Building a data mesh infrastructure without creating effective processes (and the right incentives for individuals and organizations to embrace the new processes) is not going to remove the data mess from the map.”

Disclaimer

What is a performance benchmark?

Posted on by

In my experience, when adopting a buyer’s perspective,  I have seen 3 main classes of performance benchmarks:

  1. Check-mark benchmarks
  2. Decision confirmation benchmarks
  3. Decision driving (risk-reducing) benchmarks

 

Check-mark benchmarks are usually driven by internal processes tied to best practices associated with quality processes or required by laws and regulations.

In most cases the benchmarks falling into this class are perceived as a pure cost that needs to be minimized: an industry standard benchmark is usually the cheapest answer to the need for a benchmark result.

The Wikipedia article on the general performance benchmarking subject adopts a perspective that matches very well this type of benchmarks.

The key principle, from the 7 proposed Benchmarking Principles, that in my opinion position the article as a description of “check-mark benchmarks” is the one called Representativeness “Benchmark performance metrics should be broadly accepted by industry and academia”.

Several years ago Curt Monash wrote here that “The TPC-H benchmark is a blight upon the industry”.

Not only I fully agree with him about TPC-H, but I would expand the statement further: as of today all the industry standard benchmarks serve (some) vendors, but not the buyers.

I find the rest of the principles listed in the article sound and relevant for all the classes I’m describing in this post, but I use a slightly different definition for relevance (the test should measure metrics relevant to the business problem that needs to be solved by the technical solutions tested) and transparency (not only the metrics need to be easy to understand, but also the test conditions and how changing these condition can influence the results should be clear).

Decision confirmation benchmarks are executed to demonstrate the correctness of a decision that has been already taken.

When running such a test there is a high risk of a confirmation bias coming into play in the way the test is defined with the tests favoring the technical solution that has been selected.

Because the decision is already made the benchmark is seen as a cost to minimize rather than an investment also in this case.

Risk-reducing benchmarks are executed, as the definition implies, to minimize the risks associated with the selection of a specific technical solution to address a set of business needs.

The costs associated with the selection of an incorrect or sub-optimal solution can be very significant for an enterprise with the direct ones (incurred to implement the solution) usually being just a fraction of the total.  The cost of (lost) opportunity is usually the largest part.

When looking at the performance benchmark from this perspective the buyer sees the costs associated with the preparation and execution as an investment like it would be the case for an insurance.

Minimization of cost is no longer the main design criteria and is replaced by the balance between the ability to predict the future behavior of the different technical solutions when implemented with the buyer’s specific processing pattern and the cost of defining and running the test.

A single exercise might show characteristics of more than one of the classes, but in my experience the (mainly) risk-reducing performance benchmarks are a very small fraction.

What is your experience  in this regard?