Fast Data with Entropy or Clean Data with Compromise?

In the fast-paced world of modern organizations, data is both a goldmine and a puzzle. Every team wants answers, and they want them yesterday. Yet as demands for analytics grow, so does the complexity of managing data. Systems fragment, definitions diverge, and chaos ensues, we’ll call that entropy in your data stack.

Entropy is the increasing randomness and inconsistency that can creep into an organization’s data systems over time. Left unchecked, it leads to inefficiency, inaccuracy, and frustration. The challenge for data teams? Balancing two seemingly opposing priorities:

1. Delivering fast, actionable insights to stakeholders.
2. Maintaining a clean, consistent, and reliable data foundation.

The trade-off is clear: centralization ensures consistency but creates bottlenecks, while decentralization enables speed but increases the risk of entropy. But does it have to be a choice? Can we reduce entropy without fully sacrificing either speed or consistency?

The Role of Data Modeling in Analytics

Data modeling is the unsung hero of analytics. It’s how we transform raw source data — often fragmented across systems — into tables that reflect business logic. Without it, even the most powerful BI tools or AI systems can’t deliver reliable insights.

But data modeling is no easy task. A great data model presents business logic in a way that reflects business users’ mental model of how the business is structured and operates. It requires expertise, context, and constant iteration to keep up with the evolving needs of an organization. Even with dedicated data teams, there’s always more demand for analytics than resources to meet it.

This tension — between servicing analytics needs and maintaining a clean data stack — is the root of the trade-offs we face. To understand these trade-offs, let’s take a deeper look at the two common approaches: centralization and decentralization.

The Trade-Offs of Centralized vs. Decentralized Approaches

Centralized

In a centralized model, the data team is the gatekeeper. They own the data stack, handle all requests, and ensure every report adheres to consistent definitions and logic.

The Pros:

• Accuracy and consistency: With data experts at the helm, you can trust the results.
• Systemic reliability: Centralized ownership ensures that data definitions don’t diverge across teams.

The Cons:

• Bottlenecks: Every ad hoc request requires back-and-forth with the data team, slowing the process.
• Inefficiency: Loosely scoped requests can lead to time-consuming rework and delays.

Decentralized

In a decentralized model, the data team builds foundational systems, but individual teams handle their own analytics. This often involves tools like semantic layers or more recently AI-based assistants.

The Pros:

• Speed: Teams can directly query data without waiting for the data team’s bandwidth.
• Empowerment: Users leverage their unique understanding of their business to ask better questions.

The Cons:

• Inconsistency: Different teams interpret the same data differently, leading to conflicting results.
• Inaccuracy: Varying levels of expertise can result in errors and flawed insights.

So, do you choose consistency or speed? Why not both?

Why Not Both?

The trade-off between centralization and decentralization is a false choice. The key is to democratize access to data while reducing entropy. This way, organizations can achieve the best of both worlds: the consistency of a centralized system with the speed of a decentralized approach.

Reducing entropy doesn’t mean eliminating divergence altogether. It means actively managing it — detecting where and why divergence happens and designing systems to reconcile differences. This requires a hybrid approach that prioritizes both staying consistent and meeting the changing needs of your teams.

How Astrobee Tackles This Problem

At Astrobee, our approach to reducing entropy in data systems isn’t about choosing between centralization and decentralization — it’s about designing a system that actively manages and reduces divergence over time. While every organization’s data stack is different, we believe that entropy can be controlled through a structured, adaptive process.

Step 1: Identifying what we can learn from source data

Before we can bring consistency to an organization’s data stack, we first need to understand what’s in the source tables and how different datasets relate to each other. Astrobee does this by using machine learning and semantic analysis to detect:

• Which tables are related to one another through semantic search
• What columns can be joined or will require more transformation
• How compatible schemas are across different source systems

However, the effectiveness of this step depends on whether the necessary information actually exists in the source data.

Get AstroBee’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Subscribe

When the information exists in the data itself

If the source data contains enough structure — shared IDs, email addresses, timestamps, or even natural language column names — we can automatically infer relationships between tables using:

• Semantic vector models to detect similarities in column contents.
• Existing ETL code to analyze how data is currently being transformed.
• Pattern-based heuristics to suggest potential joins based on historical queries.

When the information does NOT exist in the data

If the necessary relationships aren’t present in the data itself, we need to look externally. This means:

• Polling users who work with the data daily to understand how they manually join datasets.
• Asking domain experts (often in Slack, through documentation, or in data team office hours) for clarification.
• Inferring relationships from business logic — for example, if two systems store customer data differently, we may need to map them using external rules.

This step is crucial because entropy starts here. If different teams are using different heuristics for stitching together data, inconsistency becomes inevitable. By explicitly surfacing relationships at this stage, we create a shared foundation for the rest of the process.

Step 2: Layering Business Logic on Top of Raw Data

Once we understand the structure of the data, the next challenge is applying business logic — that is, translating raw data into a representation that aligns with how the business thinks about its operations.

At Astrobee, we don’t treat business logic as something that needs to be fully defined upfront. Instead, we surface the ability for business users to define and refine business logic iteratively, on a per-query basis.

Why this approach?

• Business logic is constantly evolving. Definitions of revenue, customer engagement, or churn vary between teams and change over time.
• No data model is perfect from day one. A flexible, iterative approach allows organizations to gradually refine their logic without creating bottlenecks.

How Astrobee surfaces business logic iteratively

• When a user runs a query, Astrobee suggests relevant transformations based on historical queries and metadata.
• If discrepancies exist (e.g., two teams define “active customers” differently), Astrobee surfaces those differences and allows users to align on a single definition or maintain separate ones with documented reasoning.
• Users can refine business logic as they go, rather than needing a fully locked-in data model before they get value.

This approach helps balance speed and consistency. Business users get fast insights without waiting for a central data team to build out a perfect model, but the system still captures and enforces logical consistency over time.

Step 3: Meeting Analytics Needs While Controlling Entropy

The final step is ensuring that, as analytics needs evolve, the system actively reduces entropy rather than increasing it.

Most organizations experience data entropy because users:

1. Don’t know what’s already available.
2. Genuinely need something different but have no structured way of capturing that difference.

At Astrobee, we tackle this by detecting when data models are diverging and making that divergence explicit:

• When two teams use different definitions for a metric, Astrobee notifies users and provides context on the discrepancy.
• If a new data transformation is created that mirrors an existing one, Astrobee surfaces that overlap to prevent redundant work.

Over time, as edge cases arise, the system logs and learns, capturing most scenarios so that teams don’t have to reinvent the wheel every time.

This means that instead of enforcing rigid centralization or allowing unchecked decentralization, we let divergence happen, but make it transparent, explainable, and ultimately resolvable.

A Living, Adaptive Data Model

Reducing entropy isn’t about locking data models in place — it’s about creating a flexible system that evolves with the needs of your organization and users.

At Astrobee, we:

• Identify what exists in source data using machine learning and human input.
• Allow business users to iteratively define logic rather than forcing rigid, pre-defined models.
• Proactively surface divergence so that inconsistencies are addressed before they become systemic problems.

This approach ensures that analytics can be both fast and reliable — without forcing teams into an artificial trade-off between centralization and decentralization.

Every organization’s data stack is unique, and there are multiple ways to achieve the same goal. But at the core, the key to reducing entropy is building systems that make divergence explicit and reconcilable rather than letting it grow unchecked.

Want to learn more about how we’re tackling this problem? We’d love to chat — drop us a line at hello@astrobee.ai.