Lord Of The Rings Organization Styles For Power BI

There are many ways you can organise your Power BI usage in your organisation. Sometimes it is good to take a look at your current situation and consider if that is actually where you wanted to end up. There are many frameworks out there that can help you by giving a certain style a name and allowing you to start from there. No matter the position you have in your organization, it is always good to understand what system you are working in, knowledge is power after all.

One of such frameworks is middle earth, providing a great range of options to choose from. To start, we must make clear that the good-bad alliances that exists in the works of Tolkien are not relevant in order to determine if the system could work. For the purposes of this blog, Théoden, Sauron and Treebeard are all good guys.

Let’s follow the journey of Frodo to give us an order in which we can tackle each option.

Hobbits - the free folk

This is a very loose organisation, the overarching structure is present, but doesn’t exert any control over those within it other than tradition. Users are free to do as they please within those traditions. This can lead to amazing results as there are no limitations to the creativity and talents of those that decide to take up Power BI. On the other hand, the lack of any formal governance and/or oversight can create chaos and lack of direction or consistency. Be aware of the Bilbo’s and Frodo’s of your organisation, they can do great things, but can also disrupt things immensely.

Rangers - the group of loners

These people work alone, are emotionally invested and try to help where they can. This drive to help means that their work often goes unnoticed and they don’t receive the credits they are due. This lack of structure means they can’t form a group that can speak for them and thus each speaks for themselves. This can lead to a change in winds depending on who is talking. It is a difficult group to capture in a more formal structure as they all are used to working alone or at most forming temporary bonds if the situation calls for it. Clipping their wings might break their resolve, but leaving them roam without leadership might work disruptive towards the larger organization

Elves - decentralised groups with cooperation

The different parts of the organisation work independent from each other, creating reports, models, Datamart’s,… without consulting the other departments. However, they do come together and keep in touch to share best practises, warn each other about pitfalls and in general keep the level of the organisation high. The advantage is that each group can quickly change directions as it sees fit, while still having a fairly unified reporting system and layout. On the other hand, this loose cooperation between departments can cause them to drift apart and loose cohesion on a larger organisational level

Dwarves - Decentralised without structural cooperation

Each group is capable of operating independent from each other, no cooperation is needed and will only happen when the situation asks for it. An advantage of this system is that there is no delay in any department because they need to wait for another one. No compliance with overall rules that could slow down the progress. The disadvantage is about the same, due to the lack of cooperation, no best practises are shared, no pitfalls or overall look and feel. These departments can easily drift off from each other to the point that cooperation becomes almost impossible to do.

Gondor - Hierarchical structure

The leadership makes decisions and they are carried out by all levels beneath them, to the last person. This creates great cohesion in the overall organisation, a uniform user experience. The disadvantage is that things have a risk of changing slowly because they need to move up and down the chain. Luckily Gondor has several levels that each can talk to the one above them, up to the King’s council. If the different levels of authority are actually given limited decision powers, the process can be sped up, though more individual decisions by the departments might cause lower overall cohesion

Orcs – free for all

They work together if they happen to be together at the right time. No planned cooperation, no sharing of knowledge, no nothing. These groups can move incredibly quickly as they have no rules, organisation, tradition or even group cohesion holding them back. Don’t like it? Just try it on your own. The speed these groups deliver comes at the cost of unfinished projects, lost knowledge and experience and double work. If manpower and recourses are not an issue, this is a way to quickly test things out. Watch out for the moment you loose total control though.

Rohan - Decentralised hierarchy

A loose group of groups that each can make decisions on their own, but don’t operate completely independent as they still answer to the overall leadership. Each group can divert from the main standard set at the highest level if they feel they need to and it doesn’t interfere with the greater group. An advantage is high variability, adaptability and a possibility to leverage the separate powers that each group might have.

Ents – complete democracy for every level

No decision is made unless it has unanimous support, which means they are slowly taken, but strongly supported. This is feasible in fairly small groups, though diminishes in usefulness when the group grows

Mordor – 1 person has all the power

The leader in this setup in involved in almost all decisions, meaning he can keep an overview of it all. This is also the weakness of this setup, as soon as the leader loses overview or something happens to them, it can all come crashing down like a tower that lost its support. When leadership disappears, those working under it can suddenly feel that they are abandoned and run for the hills.

Army of the dead – outsourcing

You can also decide to outsource your entire BI environment, this can be highly effective if done correctly as you literally pull in experience you don’t have to build up internally. The downside is that you don’t have inhouse knowledge and experience, as soon as the army of the dead leaves, there is nothing to take their place. These outsourcings can be ideal to help out in a pinch or to quickly built up expertise, just don’t rely on them alone.

Wrap up

Each of these systems has advantages and disadvantages, often time dictated by the way your organization is organized and how large it is. An Ent-setup in an international company might not be the best way to go for instance. It is also much easier to have a Gondor-setup when you are located closer to each other, while a Rohan-setup or Dwarven-setup can provide a good way to let different locations work together towards the larger goal.

The aim of this blog is not to dictate what you need to use for your setup, though I have my ideas about it, but to get you thinking. Actively thinking about the setup you are choosing, before you find yourself in one of those while you always envisioned going another direction. Another goal is to bring to your attention that you will evolve between those systems, you might start out as an orc-system, moving towards Rohan and ending up in a Hobbit-style system.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jo David

Power BI expert & BI Consultant

July 18, 2024

Discover more content from our blog