Skip to content

Scenario Lab — 16–22

16 — Change Made Without History

A logical entity changes for a new requirement; team overwrites the file with no explanation.

Best: version/change control recording Why, What/How, When, Who, Where, with appropriate analyst/architect/system-owner review.

Weaker: rely on email memory.

Changed fact: a temporary personal layout-only sketch changes but the governed semantic model does not → formal model-change approval may not be triggered; once governed content changes, control applies.


17 — Model Looks Neat but Misses Requirements

Beautiful diagram follows naming rules but omits two required business facts.

Best: Scorecard capture requirements and likely completeness fail first.

Weaker: polish layout/naming further.

Changed fact: all requirements are present but keys/relationships cannot produce a valid implementable design → structural soundness becomes primary.


18 — Star or Snowflake?

Campus dimension contains City, State, Region; team proposes separate normalized hierarchy tables.

Best: movement toward snowflake because dimension hierarchy is normalized into component tables.

Trade-off: dimension normalization vs collapsed star simplicity/navigation.

Weaker: call it normalization of the fact table; the change is in the dimension.

Changed fact: keep City/State/Region as columns in one Campus dimension directly attached to fact → star-like.


19 — Fresh Every Time or Precomputed?

Expensive report must return instantly each morning; overnight refresh is acceptable.

Best: materialized view — stored/instantiated result refreshed at predetermined time.

Trade-off: some freshness/storage/refresh management for retrieval speed.

Changed fact: latest committed values must always be reflected at query time and performance is acceptable → standard view may be better.


20 — Split the Wide Table

180-column table; most screens use 15 columns, rare large fields seldom read; row count manageable.

Best: vertical partitioning because the problem is column separation.

Other direction: horizontal partitioning divides rows.

Weaker: denormalization; the requirement is not duplicate/combine but split a wide structure.

Changed fact: billions of rows must be separated by region/date while retaining same columns → horizontal partitioning.


21 — Vendor Industry Model

University buys education-industry reference model; leadership wants to use it exactly and skip requirements workshops.

Best: industry model is a useful starting/reference point but must be customized and validated against local requirements, terminology, rules, and scope.

Weaker: either use it blindly or reject it entirely.

Changed fact: team uses it only as a comparison/reference and validates every adopted structure → source-aligned.


22 — Scorecard Says 92, Database Disagrees

Logical model scores well on readability/naming/definitions/structure, but production tables changed directly and model no longer matches stored data.

Best: Scorecard Metadata matches actual data is failing. Governance failure also includes maintenance + version/change control. Modelers/architects and implementation teams must reconcile reality and the governed model.

Weaker: merely reformat the diagram.

Changed fact: model and stored data agree, but two required business facts are absent from both → requirements capture/completeness becomes primary.

← Scenarios 8–15 · Capstone →