How many vehicles does Sales actually use? That is the kind of question you assume is already answered before you ask it. The table shows which person belongs to which vehicle, and it is well maintained — no gaps, nothing null. What it does not tell you is whether that person was assigned the car or actually drove it, and the answer turns on exactly that.
In most projects the first table exists before the first definition. That is understandable — you can show a table, while a definition first has to be agreed on. And that agreement decides whether you end up with answers or with numbers three departments argue about.
"Michael, I have a simple question." Silvia Seven, CFO of FastChangeCo, pushes the project status deck aside. "How many projects have redefined what a 'customer' is from scratch in the last two years?" Michael Mueller swallows. He knows the answer. And it's uncomfortable.
Part 3 ended with a question hanging in the room: whether you can actually prove what's in your reports — and who would ever ask. For three parts it was all business application. Now someone from outside is asking. And the argument that wins management over starts right here.
Part 2 ended with a line from Diego: “Time travel runs forward too. Retroactive bookings, planned prices, scenarios for the future.” That's exactly where we pick up now.
The 1st Part finished with a promise: for two timelines to interlock cleanly, their time periods have to be brought into a clear relationship with one another. That mechanism is what we look at now.
There's a question that comes up in every workshop sooner or later: “Do we really need this complexity?” What people mean is bitemporal historization – two timelines instead of one, a few more columns, more logic when loading. It's a fair question.
Page 1 of 14