Some of you may not be familiar with the acronym popularized by Robert Heinlein in his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," but I am sure you are familiar with the meaning � TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

This sentiment has been cropping up in my travels more frequently. As I come across more companies working in collaboration and attempting to "share the wealth" of resources, assets and expertise from throughout the organization, I have found that there is a continual path of choices and consequences—and you can never assume that you are getting something for nothing.

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." —Robert Heinlein

I often see organizations try to gain benefit without paying the price—going for that "free lunch." For instance, they might build what appears to be a quick data mart rather than work toward overall data integration. Nice idea, but in the end they will drive integration and data reconciliation into the queries and separate applications. The "free" solution ends up costing more over time; rather than addressing data consistency once, they will address it hundreds or thousands of times every day.

Well, at least it was "free"—but I guess it depends on how you calculate costs.

I also see organizations choose inappropriate toolsets or platforms simply because they are available (read "free"). They do not consider that using the wrong tool for the wrong purpose is never a good idea. Of course to understand that, they need a well-thought-out total cost of ownership (TCO) model; the sad fact is most companies only know how to handle the cost part and do not consider the return on investment (ROI) aspect. Organizations tend to look at the known costs of hardware, software and application development for the various choices. When faced with having to consider unknown cost such as environment set-up and management, the organizations typically presume that all options have the same level of cost. This, of course, is a bad assumption as all options will never have the same unplanned costs.

This goes along with another very popular quote: "If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is."

All too often, I've seen organizations take the shortcut—and end up regretting it in the long run. These observations have reinforced my belief in Mr. Heinlein's TANSTAAFL philosophy—so much, in fact, that I've developed a few quotes of my own.

"If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail."

Think about all the good things in your life: your family, health, job, education and even your hobbies. You have achieved many of these things from hard work and an effort to prepare, execute and succeed. When you achieve a goal you've been working toward, the results are much sweeter, more concrete and real.

When you get the "quick win" or when something is simply given to you, the chances are you will be asked to pay the piper somewhere down the road. Let's say you took the shortcut and dropped out of school. You might have felt good for a while, but your lifetime prospects would certainly have been limited.

This quote is also applicable to your organization's data warehousing and business intelligence (BI). If your company has not collaborated on a plan in which to work together on data definitions, data quality, application and access consistency, you are setting yourself up for failure. While ignoring planning efforts may lead to a faster development, you will lose any advantage the shortcut provided. The management and operations within your organization will be a nightmare, ultimately resulting in a less than optimal environment not trusted by the data users.

To successfully plan for a desired outcome, a roadmap must be followed before tangible and immediate results are apparent. Unfortunately, most people want the instant gratification of the outcome, not the working plan.

Take the time to plan your execution across your organization as well as with your business partners.

"If you do not know where you are going, you are always lost."

Many times I am told that users do not tell IT what they need, what questions they will ask and so forth. What is rationalized from this is that since the users cannot define what they need, then IT will define and provide something for them, with the caveat that it can always be altered as the requirements are defined.

A customer once told me, "Since we don't know where we are going, we are never lost." I argued that they are actually always lost and may be doing more harm than good because they are driving farther away from their goal.

When working with various resources, assets, expertise and partnerships, you at least need a big-picture goal. Is that goal data integration, cross-functional consistency, privacy, executive reporting or something else? There needs to be an alignment across any project as to the reason this endeavor was originally undertaken, and then the entire organization must drive toward that goal.

One last note on planning: Whenever I am told the users cannot define their requirements, I always ask how IT can assume what will be deemed unnecessary in the future. The goal is for technology to enable the user's ever-changing nature, not to have the user conform to the limits of the technology or the architecture.

"Decisions are easy when you have your priorities in mind."

Surprisingly, I have never used the above quote in my past columns, even though it is one of my favorites. It is appropriate not only for the data warehousing and BI worlds but also for life in general. We have to make decisions every day on how we deal with others and how we cooperate with our partners. Making these decisions is often easy once you understand your priorities.

If you do not understand the priorities of others or, more importantly, your own, then you might make decisions based on short-term consequences instead of long-term outcomes. To get past the current dilemma, you might look for solutions that are easy to execute, cheap to implement or politically expedient. But you have to consider, is it preferable to achieve short-term success just to manage the longer term fallout? And no one can really be certain of the extent of that fallout, either.

This is not a successful way to run your business—or your life, for that matter. Before your organization establishes priorities, it is essential to format an agreement among your various partners, teams, business units, etc., on the desired outcome. You do not need a long list; it is actually better to have less rather than more. With too many priorities or unreasonable guidelines, you run the risk of not accomplishing anything.

"If it is not logical, then it is political."

I mentioned above that some decisions are made for political expediency. While there is not much the IT and user communities can do to solve this problem, I contend that it is the onus of those two groups to raise the issue and call it out when it occurs. When decisions are made or actions are taken that are more aligned with politics than logic, you must highlight it or you become, in essence, an accessory after the fact.

This point underlies one of the paradoxes of the data warehouse environment; namely, it is not about the data. Rather, being successful in data warehousing and driving true BI is more about aligning politics, culture and processes.

Unfortunately, when priorities are not aligned and there is no executive support from the top, individuals take actions that are more self-serving—this is simply human nature. The key is to make the corporate goal more valuable than the individual goal.

To achieve this, there must be shared objectives and incentives that match the desired outcomes. This means that in the retail industry, for instance, buyers, distribution center management, store managers and employees are committed to the ultimate outcome: customer satisfaction. This may be measured by customer service standards, product price or product availability. However it is measured, everyone in the process needs to focus not only on their responsibilities and individual outcomes but also on the overall desired goal. Getting a good price from the vendor is one thing; ensuring appropriate shelf space so customers can satisfactorily make the purchase is something else.

By aligning metrics and incentives, the individual decisions will come together to support the whole. While this will not remove all the politics, it will certainly get some of the politicians to be more logical.

So if you agree, as I do, with Mr. Heinlein's viewpoint, I hope this message will make you think twice before accepting that "free lunch." T

Teradata Magazine-March 2007