In data warehousing, the most likely casualty of the Teens will be the very notion of a data warehouse. You can tell that a concept is on its last legs when its proponents spend more time on the defense, fighting definitional trench wars, than evolving it in useful new directions. Here’s a perfect case in point: a recent article by Bill Inmon, self-described “father of the data warehouse,” where he takes pains to specify what is not a data warehouse. Apparently, many of the approaches that we normally implement in our data warehousing architectures—such as subject-specific data marts, dimensional data structures, federated architectures, and real-time data integration—don’t pass muster in Inmon’s way of looking at things. Though he didn’t mention hybrid row-columnar and in-memory databases by name, one suspects that Inmon has a similarly jaundiced view of these leading-edge data warehousing technologies.
What’s likely to happen in this decade is that the hidebound Inmon approach to data warehousing will become the exception, not the rule, in most enterprise analytic architectures. Actually, that’s already happened, for the most part. Few Forrester customers have built unified enterprise data warehouses on rigid Inmon design principles, such as third-normal-form relational data structures, hub-and-spoke topologies, and conformed data marts. Fewer still have signalled any intention to evolve toward that architecture. That’s because most companies’ requirements are too diverse, complex, and dynamic to be constrained in a design paradigm from the decade before last.
The very term “data warehouse” feels outdated. It implies two design principles that fit the Teens as poorly as ten-year-old sneakers on a real-world teenager. First, the proportion of “data”—in other words, rigidly structured information sets—will shrink as the amount analytic information originating in content management, social networking, and other non-traditional sources grows. Second, the role of the “warehouse”—in other words, a single master table of all reference data—will diminish as businesses seek architectures for managing analytic information and functions across stubbornly distributed environments.
Call this new paradigm “analytic clouds” or whatever. You can even call it “DW 2.0” if the old term feels less scary. But no amount of rearguard sniping at these emerging analytics architectures can stop this new order from becoming mainstream in the Teens.
Happy New Decade!











I agree with your assessment. The arguments for what is and is not a proper data warehouse bring to mind those for what is and is not good grammar, a topic I wrote about recently in an IM blog. The words of author Joseph Williams are pertinent here as well. Responding to grammarians who have heartburn with sentences beginning with "and" or "but", Williams opines: "If we look through the prose of our most highly respected writers, we will find sentence after sentence beginning with and or but....We must reject as folklore any rule that is regularly ignored by otherwise careful, educated, and intelligent writers of first-rate prose."
Regards, Steve
Time to market seems to be all that matters and parochial thinking within the context only of the authoring applications prevails completely. No thought is given to downstream requirements and no principles are applied to application development other than to what the end user sees on the screen as data is entered.
I fear that what should be possible will not be, and the business will not even realize it. Convincing them that all of the manual data manipulation they have to (get to?) do in their Excel spreadsheets should not be necessary seems to be an uphill battle.
On the other hand, I recognize that I am stating in black and white what is actually grey... and maybe I'm just becoming a curmudgeon.
And with a nod to Steve's comments above, I also find myself irritated by poor grammar in widely distributed web publications... Not with sentences (or even paragraphs!) that start with "and" or "but," but with such poorly written drivel, so replete with poor grammar, misspellings and misused words, that it is painful to read. An editor, an editor, my kingdom for an editor!
It seems my 12 years of Catholic education have become a burden.
Regards, Lorin