Undoubtedly you’ve heard it all before: “Hadoop is the next big thing, why waste your time with a relational database?” or “Hadoop is really only good for the following things” or “Our NoSQL database scales, other solutions don’t.” Invariably, there are hundreds of additional arguments proffered by big data vendors and technology zealots inhabiting organizations just like yours. However, there are few crisp binary choices in technology decision making, especially in today’s heterogeneous big data environments.
Courtesy of Flickr. Creative Commons. By Eden, Janine, and Jim.
Teradata CTO Stephen Brobst has a great story regarding a Stanford technology conference he attended. Apparently in one session there were “shouting matches” between relational database and Hadoop fanatics as to which technology better served customers going forward. Mr. Brobst wasn’t amused, concluding; “As an engineer, my view is that when you see this kind of religious zealotry on either side, both sides are wrong. A good engineer is happy to use good ideas wherever they come from.”
Considering various technology choices for your particular organization is a multi-faceted decision making process. For example, suppose you are investigating a new application and/or database for a mission critical job. Let’s also suppose your existing solution is working “good enough”. However, the industry pundits, bloggers and analysts are hyping and luring you towards the next big thing in technology. At this point, alarm bells should be ringing. Let’s explore why.
First, for companies that are not start-ups, the idea of ripping and replacing an existing and working solution should give every CIO and CTO pause. The use cases enabled by this new technology must significantly stand out.
Second, unless your existing solution is fully depreciated (for on-premises, hardware based solutions), you’re going to have a tough time getting past your CFO. Regardless of your situation, you’ll need compelling calculations for TCO, IRR and ROI.
Third, you will need to investigate whether your company has the skill sets to develop and operate this new environment, or whether they are readily available from outside vendors.
Fourth, consider your risk tolerance or appetite for failure—as in, if this new IT project fails—will it be considered a “drop in the bucket” or could it take down the entire company?
Finally, consider whether you’re succumbing to technology zealotry pitched by your favorite vendor or internal technologist. Oftentimes in technology decision making, the better choice is “and”, not “either”.
For example, more companies are adopting a heterogeneous technology environment for unified information where multiple technologies and approaches work together in unison to meet various needs for reporting, dashboards, visualization, ad-hoc queries, operational applications, predictive analytics, and more. In essence, think more about synergies and inter-operability, not isolated technologies and processes.
In counterpoint, some will argue that technology capabilities increasingly overlap, and with a heterogeneous approach companies might be paying for some features twice. It is true that lines are blurring regarding technology capabilities as some of today’s relational databases can accept and process JSON (previously the purview of NoSQL databases), queries and BI reports can run on Hadoop, and “discovery work” can complete on multiple platforms. However, considering the maturity and design of various competing big data solutions, it does not appear—for the immediate future—that one size will fit all.
When it comes to selecting big data technologies, objectivity and flexibility are paramount. You’ll have to settle on technologies based on your unique business and use cases, risk tolerance, financial situation, analytic readiness and more.
If your big data vendor or favorite company technologist is missing a toolbox or multi-faceted perspective and instead seems to employ a “to a hammer, everything looks like a nail” approach, you might want to look elsewhere for a competing point of view.
